Yeah, don't bother defending and protecting your stuff at all. That's pointless.
He never said anything like that. That is black and white thinking - all or nothing. I think you brought that defective technique to the table, and not him.
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate, and NOT go on wild goose chases where the result is likely to be negative? How about doing what is right, and NOT doing what is wrong?
There is no need for a shotgun "kill anything that moves" approach. Apple needs to take aim on reasonable targets, and keep it in their pants when the target is not reasonable.
Yeah, don't bother defending and protecting your stuff at all. That's pointless.
On an unrelated note, have you ever created anything? I'm in the market for ripping things off wholesale, and I'd like to get a jump on the proper stuff.
Well, Google needs no protection from the forces of the market; it is the largest provider of online searches and makes billions of dollars. Plus they don't think it's bad when companies like themselves get their IP stolen. Why don't you steal their search algorithms?
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate, and NOT go on wild goose chases where the result is likely to be negative? How about doing what is right, and NOT doing what is wrong?
There is no need for a shotgun "kill anything that moves" approach. Apple needs to take aim on reasonable targets, and keep it in their pants when the target is not reasonable.
This is the most laughable post ever .... Coming from a poster who, more often than not, spouts the most negative and most often, inaccurate posts anytime the word Aple is mentioned in a story. listen, can you hear that? I think your Mommy is calling you for dinner. You should "practice what you preach" .
Well, Google needs no protection from the forces of the market; it is the largest provider of online searches and makes billions of dollars. Plus they don't think it's bad when companies like themselves get their IP stolen. Why don't you steal their search algorithms?
Actually Google doesn't really much care. They give away 99% of their stuff for free. And even with all of the patents they they have and those that they acquired from IBM etc, I have still yet to see them assert any aggressiveness over rival search makers.
I'm not saying thats how every company should be. Cause me myself, if I make a product and I think someone is infringing, then yes, I WILL use legal ways of trying to stop them. However, I must say, I will not patent things that I find trivial. My product is a rectangle, if someone else's is a rectangle, then so what? What right do I have over a black rectangle?
Something like multi-touch though. If i did indeed invent it with no prior art, I would defend the hell out of that.
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate, and NOT go on wild goose chases where the result is likely to be negative?
Irrelevant. Apple does it because they CAN. For every "negative" result (all of which have had minimal impact) the potential positive result could be (and has been) quite substantial..
The more Apple flexes their legal muscle, the more other companies might think twice before stepping into the ring with them, and the more it may frustrate them - strategically and financially, such as we have seen with Motorola and their lousy outlook based on pressure from litigation with Apple.
When you are in Apple's position (especially given the industry's proclivity for ripping off all things Apple), it wold be stupid NOT to wade into the legal waters. It's all about consolidating their market position and forcing everyone to clarify their positions regarding patents and who owns and has rights to what.
When you are in Apple's position (especially given the industry's proclivity for ripping off all things Apple), it wold be stupid NOT to wade into the legal waters. It's all about consolidating their market position and forcing everyone to clarify their positions regarding patents and who owns and has rights to what.
Zither Zather Zuzz has GOT to stop posting these dumb ass comments (though it does show that he/she really is a dumb ass).
Quote:
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate, and NOT go on wild goose chases where the result is likely to be negative?
Why even file patents if you are not going to defend them?
(from wikipedia)
Definition
"The term patent usually refers to an exclusive right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, and claims that right in a formal patent application. "
What exactly has Apple gained from the Steve Jobs nuclear litigation strategy? Miscellaneous positive and negative ruling with counter-suits in various jurisdictions around the world resulting in a rather expensive stalemate. I would hope that Mr Cook and company would take a more rational view, and cut some deals with the big companies ala Google, Samsung, etc. Use the legal budget to defend against the never ending stream of patent trolls such Proview and sue those who make obviously copies of their products that any lay non-tech person (to include the Judges that make rulings) will readily understand, ala Pystar. If somebody starts making knock-off iPhones that run iOS, you probably have a good case.
The problem is here is that your thinking too short term, Apple is not in this for the quick decision there in it for the long haul. They have already had some decisions go there way and the copyists have had to change there devices, which really is what apple wants. The bounce feature at the end of pages for apple devices and the scrolling of picture content in photos. These features and a ton more are what differentiate apple products from the competition. If they don't vigorously defend those they just become another smart phone in a sea of vanilla phones. Steve Jobs said that when he came back to apple he and apple learned the lesson that if you sit and watch the world slowly copy your ip and do nothing pretty soon your products are vanilla too. He said that he would never let that happen again. He ingrained it into apples culture so well that they will not let that happen either and they have the money to do something about it.
Who would call it that? Patents are legal monopolies.
Abusing market power involves leveraging your dominant market share in one market to enter another market and harm competition. Like what Microsoft did with IE and what Google may be doing with Google+.
Apple has GOT to stop filing these frivolous patent suits. It is unseemly, and is bad fot theri reputation.
They are getting known as sue-happy, and it looks like they use illegitimate means to compete, instead of innovating.
Apple isn't suing more or less than every company with IP. It just seems like it because the blogs didn't get the same hits from articles that don't mention Apple. And since hits are how they make money, they don't waste space on things that don't get hits
Apple isn't suing more or less than every company with IP. It just seems like it because the blogs didn't get the same hits from articles that don't mention Apple. And since hits are how they make money, they don't waste space on things that don't get hits
Who would call it that? Patents are legal monopolies.
Abusing market power involves leveraging your dominant market share in one market to enter another market and harm competition. Like what Microsoft did with IE and what Google may be doing with Google+.
Not really. You're referring to tying arrangements, which doesn't exist in Google's case. It's difficult to prove a this specific tying arrangement is illegal even if we were to call it one. Google isn't forcing people using Google to use Google+.
Irrelevant. Apple does it because they CAN. For every "negative" result (all of which have had minimal impact) the potential positive result could be (and has been) quite substantial..
The more Apple flexes their legal muscle, the more other companies might think twice before stepping into the ring with them, and the more it may frustrate them - strategically and financially, such as we have seen with Motorola and their lousy outlook based on pressure from litigation with Apple.
Hate to break it to ya, but you're relying far too much on speculative benefits to Apple to reach your conclusions. The truth is there's no sign Android licensees are backing off. If sales numbers show anything, they've just gotten more aggressive. The lousy outlook, if there even is one, is not the result of lawsuits. I think you're seriously confusing cause and effect.
Quote:
When you are in Apple's position (especially given the industry's proclivity for ripping off all things Apple), it wold be stupid NOT to wade into the legal waters. It's all about consolidating their market position and forcing everyone to clarify their positions regarding patents and who owns and has rights to what.
Again, you're going off unproven assumptions to reach your conclusions.
Oh, if only patent law were such a simple field. Then again, who am I to question? Tons of teeny boppers on Apple Insider have suddenly declared themselves to be MBAs and patent lawyers.
Again, you're going off unproven assumptions to reach your conclusions.
Oh, if only patent law were such a simple field. Then again, who am I to question? Tons of teeny boppers on Apple Insider have suddenly declared themselves to be MBAs and patent lawyers.
Hey Insider members... what would you call these statements? Is this irony or is this just a pot kettle situation? Is there any other name for it?
Hate to break it to ya, but you're relying far too much on speculative benefits to Apple to reach your conclusions. The truth is there's no sign Android licensees are backing off. If sales numbers show anything, they've just gotten more aggressive. The lousy outlook, if there even is one, is not the result of lawsuits. I think you're seriously confusing cause and effect.
Again, you're going off unproven assumptions to reach your conclusions.
Oh, if only patent law were such a simple field. Then again, who am I to question? Tons of teeny boppers on Apple Insider have suddenly declared themselves to be MBAs and patent lawyers.
Here are the known facts:
1. Apple has sued some companies.
2. Apple has been sued by some companies.
3. Apple has a team of lawyers who are responsible for recommending litigation where appropriate or settlement.
4. Apple has a management team selected by the Board which is responsible for making decisions on whether to sue or settle.
5. The Board is elected by Apple's shareholders and therefore represents the shareholders.
Now, given that, what makes you think that anyone cares whether YOU think that Apple is gaining anything from these legal battles? Apple obviously does and they're the ones in a position to know. One doesn't need to be an MBA or patent lawyer to recognize that it's Apple's decision based on whatever knowledge and experience they have - which is many, many orders of magnitude higher than yours.
Comments
i think you forgot:
"The six-member commission... had finished a partial review of the case's initial determination..."
what's with the partial review shit?
Likely a partial review was all that was necessary to determind that Apple had no case.
Either that, or they just reviewed the parts that Apple had appealed, rather than the stuff that apple thought had been properly decided.
If I were a betting man, I'd wager on the second.
Yeah, don't bother defending and protecting your stuff at all. That's pointless.
He never said anything like that. That is black and white thinking - all or nothing. I think you brought that defective technique to the table, and not him.
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate, and NOT go on wild goose chases where the result is likely to be negative? How about doing what is right, and NOT doing what is wrong?
There is no need for a shotgun "kill anything that moves" approach. Apple needs to take aim on reasonable targets, and keep it in their pants when the target is not reasonable.
Yeah, don't bother defending and protecting your stuff at all. That's pointless.
On an unrelated note, have you ever created anything? I'm in the market for ripping things off wholesale, and I'd like to get a jump on the proper stuff.
Well, Google needs no protection from the forces of the market; it is the largest provider of online searches and makes billions of dollars. Plus they don't think it's bad when companies like themselves get their IP stolen. Why don't you steal their search algorithms?
I like it better when Slash Lane or DED writes these things. Instead of dry legal facts, he'll use terms like "war", "battle", and "troops"
</sarcasm-mode>
Hehe
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate, and NOT go on wild goose chases where the result is likely to be negative? How about doing what is right, and NOT doing what is wrong?
There is no need for a shotgun "kill anything that moves" approach. Apple needs to take aim on reasonable targets, and keep it in their pants when the target is not reasonable.
This is the most laughable post ever .... Coming from a poster who, more often than not, spouts the most negative and most often, inaccurate posts anytime the word Aple is mentioned in a story. listen, can you hear that? I think your Mommy is calling you for dinner. You should "practice what you preach" .
Well, Google needs no protection from the forces of the market; it is the largest provider of online searches and makes billions of dollars. Plus they don't think it's bad when companies like themselves get their IP stolen. Why don't you steal their search algorithms?
Actually Google doesn't really much care. They give away 99% of their stuff for free. And even with all of the patents they they have and those that they acquired from IBM etc, I have still yet to see them assert any aggressiveness over rival search makers.
I'm not saying thats how every company should be. Cause me myself, if I make a product and I think someone is infringing, then yes, I WILL use legal ways of trying to stop them. However, I must say, I will not patent things that I find trivial. My product is a rectangle, if someone else's is a rectangle, then so what? What right do I have over a black rectangle?
Something like multi-touch though. If i did indeed invent it with no prior art, I would defend the hell out of that.
But that's just my opinion.
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate, and NOT go on wild goose chases where the result is likely to be negative?
Irrelevant. Apple does it because they CAN. For every "negative" result (all of which have had minimal impact) the potential positive result could be (and has been) quite substantial..
The more Apple flexes their legal muscle, the more other companies might think twice before stepping into the ring with them, and the more it may frustrate them - strategically and financially, such as we have seen with Motorola and their lousy outlook based on pressure from litigation with Apple.
When you are in Apple's position (especially given the industry's proclivity for ripping off all things Apple), it wold be stupid NOT to wade into the legal waters. It's all about consolidating their market position and forcing everyone to clarify their positions regarding patents and who owns and has rights to what.
When you are in Apple's position (especially given the industry's proclivity for ripping off all things Apple), it wold be stupid NOT to wade into the legal waters. It's all about consolidating their market position and forcing everyone to clarify their positions regarding patents and who owns and has rights to what.
Some might call that abuse of market power.
I stand by me previous statements.
Some might call that abuse of market power.
I stand by me previous statements.
I call it putting everyone's patent claims and patent positions to the test.
Your statements don't fit with reality.
Blah, blah, blah
Zither Zather Zuzz has GOT to stop posting these dumb ass comments (though it does show that he/she really is a dumb ass).
How about "Pick your battles" instead? How about defend the stuff that is appropriate, and NOT go on wild goose chases where the result is likely to be negative?
Why even file patents if you are not going to defend them?
(from wikipedia)
Definition
"The term patent usually refers to an exclusive right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, and claims that right in a formal patent application. "
What exactly has Apple gained from the Steve Jobs nuclear litigation strategy? Miscellaneous positive and negative ruling with counter-suits in various jurisdictions around the world resulting in a rather expensive stalemate. I would hope that Mr Cook and company would take a more rational view, and cut some deals with the big companies ala Google, Samsung, etc. Use the legal budget to defend against the never ending stream of patent trolls such Proview and sue those who make obviously copies of their products that any lay non-tech person (to include the Judges that make rulings) will readily understand, ala Pystar. If somebody starts making knock-off iPhones that run iOS, you probably have a good case.
The problem is here is that your thinking too short term, Apple is not in this for the quick decision there in it for the long haul. They have already had some decisions go there way and the copyists have had to change there devices, which really is what apple wants. The bounce feature at the end of pages for apple devices and the scrolling of picture content in photos. These features and a ton more are what differentiate apple products from the competition. If they don't vigorously defend those they just become another smart phone in a sea of vanilla phones. Steve Jobs said that when he came back to apple he and apple learned the lesson that if you sit and watch the world slowly copy your ip and do nothing pretty soon your products are vanilla too. He said that he would never let that happen again. He ingrained it into apples culture so well that they will not let that happen either and they have the money to do something about it.
Some might call that abuse of market power.
I stand by me previous statements.
Who would call it that? Patents are legal monopolies.
Abusing market power involves leveraging your dominant market share in one market to enter another market and harm competition. Like what Microsoft did with IE and what Google may be doing with Google+.
Back to square 1?
Winners: Lawyers laughing their asses off to the bank.
Apple has GOT to stop filing these frivolous patent suits. It is unseemly, and is bad fot theri reputation.
They are getting known as sue-happy, and it looks like they use illegitimate means to compete, instead of innovating.
Apple isn't suing more or less than every company with IP. It just seems like it because the blogs didn't get the same hits from articles that don't mention Apple. And since hits are how they make money, they don't waste space on things that don't get hits
Apple isn't suing more or less than every company with IP. It just seems like it because the blogs didn't get the same hits from articles that don't mention Apple. And since hits are how they make money, they don't waste space on things that don't get hits
It's a double edge sword aint it?
Oh well... Apple has plenty of other patents to clobber Googorola.
Motorola is essentially a dead $12 billion company being used as an ineffective patent weapon.
What a waste...
When everything else fails, at least we'll have denial.
It's sad that both sides are burning away so much resources into a patent war that's leading nowhere.
Who would call it that? Patents are legal monopolies.
Abusing market power involves leveraging your dominant market share in one market to enter another market and harm competition. Like what Microsoft did with IE and what Google may be doing with Google+.
Not really. You're referring to tying arrangements, which doesn't exist in Google's case. It's difficult to prove a this specific tying arrangement is illegal even if we were to call it one. Google isn't forcing people using Google to use Google+.
Irrelevant. Apple does it because they CAN. For every "negative" result (all of which have had minimal impact) the potential positive result could be (and has been) quite substantial..
The more Apple flexes their legal muscle, the more other companies might think twice before stepping into the ring with them, and the more it may frustrate them - strategically and financially, such as we have seen with Motorola and their lousy outlook based on pressure from litigation with Apple.
Hate to break it to ya, but you're relying far too much on speculative benefits to Apple to reach your conclusions. The truth is there's no sign Android licensees are backing off. If sales numbers show anything, they've just gotten more aggressive. The lousy outlook, if there even is one, is not the result of lawsuits. I think you're seriously confusing cause and effect.
When you are in Apple's position (especially given the industry's proclivity for ripping off all things Apple), it wold be stupid NOT to wade into the legal waters. It's all about consolidating their market position and forcing everyone to clarify their positions regarding patents and who owns and has rights to what.
Again, you're going off unproven assumptions to reach your conclusions.
Oh, if only patent law were such a simple field. Then again, who am I to question? Tons of teeny boppers on Apple Insider have suddenly declared themselves to be MBAs and patent lawyers.
Again, you're going off unproven assumptions to reach your conclusions.
Oh, if only patent law were such a simple field. Then again, who am I to question? Tons of teeny boppers on Apple Insider have suddenly declared themselves to be MBAs and patent lawyers.
Hey Insider members... what would you call these statements? Is this irony or is this just a pot kettle situation? Is there any other name for it?
Hate to break it to ya, but you're relying far too much on speculative benefits to Apple to reach your conclusions. The truth is there's no sign Android licensees are backing off. If sales numbers show anything, they've just gotten more aggressive. The lousy outlook, if there even is one, is not the result of lawsuits. I think you're seriously confusing cause and effect.
Again, you're going off unproven assumptions to reach your conclusions.
Oh, if only patent law were such a simple field. Then again, who am I to question? Tons of teeny boppers on Apple Insider have suddenly declared themselves to be MBAs and patent lawyers.
Here are the known facts:
1. Apple has sued some companies.
2. Apple has been sued by some companies.
3. Apple has a team of lawyers who are responsible for recommending litigation where appropriate or settlement.
4. Apple has a management team selected by the Board which is responsible for making decisions on whether to sue or settle.
5. The Board is elected by Apple's shareholders and therefore represents the shareholders.
Now, given that, what makes you think that anyone cares whether YOU think that Apple is gaining anything from these legal battles? Apple obviously does and they're the ones in a position to know. One doesn't need to be an MBA or patent lawyer to recognize that it's Apple's decision based on whatever knowledge and experience they have - which is many, many orders of magnitude higher than yours.