Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential

189111314

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 275
    macarenamacarena Posts: 365member
    Maybe Apple has major issues with the way the current situation evolved. And rightfully so. But despite that, clearly multitouch and other technologies are way too critical to be held only for the use of one company.

    We might all say google stole this from apple. But if google is willing to pay apple for this privilege, and was willing to pay all along, one could argue that it is Apple that forced google to steal by not being willing to license.

    In any case, despite how this plays out, I think in the end Apple will have to accept a lot of money for the past, and a lot of money going forward and license their tech. I think their attempt to get injunctions is only a tactic to ensure that that money is high enough to compensate them adequately. Even their public statements show this. But that is well within Apple's rights and whoever stole their ideas needs to pay them what they want for it.

    I actually agree with Google on this one - that Apple should be forced to license. But I think it is also clear that the concept of Fair and Reasonable would be totally different in this case compared to essential patents that have been added to standard pools.

    I think it is this point that is the stumbling block. Apple is ready to license but at a stiff price. Google and the other Android theives believe their risk of being asked to pay more in a legal case is low, so they might as well steal. This is a classic game theory standoff - and for such cases it is usually the party asking for too much that ends up "losing". Because to win, they have to fight ALL THE WAY. Any settlement or a simple legal victory would likely win them less than what they are asking upfront. Only a forced settlement under threat of imminent injunction on some important products can hope to get them something close to what they want. That too only after appeals fail!

    And Apple also runs the risk that at that sort of forced settlement stage, they might lose the PR battle or attract regulatory attention.
  • Reply 202 of 275
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    macarena wrote: »
    Maybe Apple has major issues with the way the current situation evolved. And rightfully so. But despite that, clearly multitouch and other technologies are way too critical to be held only for the use of one company.

    We might all say google stole this from apple. But if google is willing to pay apple for this privilege, and was willing to pay all along, one could argue that it is Apple that forced google to steal by not being willing to license.

    In any case, despite how this plays out, I think in the end Apple will have to accept a lot of money for the past, and a lot of money going forward and license their tech. I think their attempt to get injunctions is only a tactic to ensure that that money is high enough to compensate them adequately. Even their public statements show this. But that is well within Apple's rights and whoever stole their ideas needs to pay them what they want for it.

    I actually agree with Google on this one - that Apple should be forced to license. But I think it is also clear that the concept of Fair and Reasonable would be totally different in this case compared to essential patents that have been added to standard pools.

    I think it is this point that is the stumbling block. Apple is ready to license but at a stiff price. Google and the other Android theives believe their risk of being asked to pay more in a legal case is low, so they might as well steal. This is a classic game theory standoff - and for such cases it is usually the party asking for too much that ends up "losing". Because to win, they have to fight ALL THE WAY. Any settlement or a simple legal victory would likely win them less than what they are asking upfront. Only a forced settlement under threat of imminent injunction on some important products can hope to get them something close to what they want. That too only after appeals fail!

    And Apple also runs the risk that at that sort of forced settlement stage, they might lose the PR battle or attract regulatory attention.

    Your position really highlights two fundamentally different ways of looking at this, and pretty much defines the question - to what extent should companies be forced to license technology. Historically it has only happened (at least to my understanding) when it is necessary to ensure interoperability of systems, schema or devices from diverse sources.

    Does that really apply to UI elements, given that there are generally many ways to achieve the same end, provided that you do not actually want them to look the same, which is kind of the crux of the accusations by Apple?
  • Reply 203 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    macarena wrote: »
    Maybe Apple has major issues with the way the current situation evolved. And rightfully so. But despite that, clearly multitouch and other technologies are way too critical to be held only for the use of one company.
    We might all say google stole this from apple. But if google is willing to pay apple for this privilege, and was willing to pay all along, one could argue that it is Apple that forced google to steal by not being willing to license.

    Why should Apple have to license it?

    As you point out, historically, that has happened only when necessary for interoperability or when there's an issue like public safety. Neither of those applies here.

    There would be no real downside if Google had to push a button to unlock, for example. Or if Google had to find some other way to unlock the phone. There wouldn't be any downside for the market if Google's screens didn't bounce.

    There is no societal reason why Google should be able to get away with stealing Apple's technology. The fact that Google is willing to pay is irrelevant. Should I be able to demand your second kidney if I'm willing to pay you for it? Besides, Apple will make more by being able to keep their product differentiated than they would get from the license fees.
  • Reply 204 of 275
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,884member
    macarena wrote: »
    Maybe Apple has major issues with the way the current situation evolved. And rightfully so. But despite that, clearly multitouch and other technologies are way too critical to be held only for the use of one company.
    We might all say google stole this from apple. But if google is willing to pay apple for this privilege, and was willing to pay all along, one could argue that it is Apple that forced google to steal by not being willing to license.
    ...

    One could also argue that if you want to use my car and I won't let you, that when you take it and drive cross country, I forced you to steal it. After all, cars are way too critical to be held only for the use of one person.

    It would be a really stupid argument, and it wouldn't get you very far in court, but you could argue it.
  • Reply 205 of 275
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post





    One could also argue that if you want to use my car and I won't let you, that when you take it and drive cross country, I forced you to steal it. After all, cars are way too critical to be held only for the use of one person.

    It would be a really stupid argument, and it wouldn't get you very far in court, but you could argue it.


     


    Hey but I'd only use your car to lend it to other people for free.


     


    Then I'll give you a cut, how many percent do you want?

  • Reply 206 of 275
    dominoxmldominoxml Posts: 110member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ian Huitson View Post


    I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.


    Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues


    Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues

    I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.


     


    Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.


     


    It won't happen.



     


    While I appreciate somehow your point of view because I have some insights in the health care and charity business, I have to say that there's no way to equate these issues with smartphones and the related patents.


    Cheap or free music, movies, games are entertainment and not part of public welfare although the old Roman "bread and games" might suggest it.


     


    The game is about disrupting a healthy market by subsidizing (ads).


    I read often "competition is good". Subsidies are a tool to abrogate free market prices by their nature.


    They are about eliminating competition and not about the opposite.


     


    Beside insuring the necessary standards for health care, safety, education, infrastructure etc. societies need to operate I have never seen cross subsidies doing anything good to a market in the long run.


     


    To suggest that smartphones and their technology should be part of the common good isn't acceptable because in my experience free movies aren't a replacement for education and smartphones can't cure cancer.

  • Reply 207 of 275
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,884member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Hey but I'd only use your car to lend it to other people for free.


     


    Then I'll give you a cut, how many percent do you want?



     


    I'd like $1.000/day, plus you accept liability for any accidents or other damages that occur while you are driving it, and pay for any rental cars I need because I don't have use of it. Or, will that just force you to steal it again?


     


    Apple is so mean forcing Google to steal iOS when they originally wanted to steal the Blackberry. Why can't Apple just leave Google alone and stop forcing them to break the law. Tim Cook is just as mean as Steve was. Poor Google.


     


    But, as Chairman Page says, "In People's Republic of Googlestan, all your technology are belong to us... and books... and Yelp reviews... and everything are belong to us. Don't be evil. Peace out."

  • Reply 208 of 275
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,424member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    So Apple didn't invent it or use it in any of their products first but they did make it better so they should get a patent for it? Please tell me you aren't really saying this.



     


    If someone invents a manner for interacting with a device using a touch screen they deserve a patent on that. If someone else comes along and invents a different and markedly superior way to accomplish the same thing with better results, then yes, I'd say they deserve a patent for it.


     


    For how many years did mobile phone manufacturers sit on their asses with no useful innovation beyond tacky variations on case design? Apple revolutionized the mobile industry with their first iPhone, which was ridiculed by all their competitors only to eventually be copied by them. These lazy, greedy and talentless companies don't have the right to just swoop in and blatantly copy Apple's innovations after years of contributing nothing of value to the market.


     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 209 of 275
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,424member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    I'm quite familiar with Intellectual Ventures. They sign agreements with patent holders or buy patents outright en masse or form patent consortiums to exploit to the fullest their property.


     


    All companies exist to make a profit. That is their only real requirement. Not to employ people, not to make society a better place by making huge donations to charities, not to improve the quality of life... none of that. They are doing it right. They make huge profits, it is 100% legal and it is done in a very, very smart way. And you know what is the side benefit to their rampant, disgusting capitalism? People are employed. Huge donations can be made. Quality of life improves. Wow. Think about that.


     


    Of course the patent and copyright systems are constructs... legal constructs. Property rights are still rights and a society that widely recognizes property rights seems to be a rare and diminishing thing. Rights are inherent, which means they cannot be given or taken from you. A legal system helps to enforce the rights you already have. In that way, the individual is as powerful as the biggest companies on Earth.



     


    The fact that you support and admire Intellectual Ventures' business model places you at the most extreme position of this discussion. This company and its business model are despised by a tremendous majority. The laws need to be changed to prevent this misuse of patent law - as it is clearly a violation of the law's prime objective - to encourage innovation, not to enrich corporate leeches who add zero value.


     


    I think I'm done debating this with you and you have revealed your position to be that of an extremist who values one sleazy company's ability to make a huge profit over policies that benefit the market as a whole - and that means companies and consumers.


     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 210 of 275

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Why is it when Apple invents something people bring up the silliest examples of prior art like a photo frame, a video mockup of what the future might hold, Star Trek, or some early hominid tablet found in a cave in Southern France, but when it comes to Google prior art all of a sudden has so little meaning that an actual feature (note, not even a product) that was on devices of the same type in the same time frame means nothing?


     


    Because:


     


    1.   Everybody's always pickin' on Apple.


    2.   Everybody who doesn't hate Google is a hypocrite.

  • Reply 211 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.
    Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues
    Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues

    I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.

    Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.

    It won't happen.

    The reason it won't happen is that most of the world realizes that the way to ensure FUTURE inventions is to allow inventors to profit from their inventions.

    While voiding all pharmaceutical patents might make a bunch of medicines cheaper today, it would guarantee that there would never be any new medicines in the future. It can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and commercialize a medicine. Why should someone do that if their competitors were simply allowed to copy?
  • Reply 212 of 275
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,424member


    jragosta wrote:


    Of course patent trolls don't exist. It's a silly made-up term used by people who don't understand patents OR business.


     


     


    You are defending the patent system as it exists today under the apparent premise that anything that is legal is correct and desirable, so long as it's profitable for someone. Never mind the impact to the market as a whole or to consumers. 


     


    The CONCEPT of copyrights and patents is not natural. These are not an inalienable rights.  As I wrote previously it was an ARTIFICIAL construct created with the sole intent of encouraging innovation. In other words, we created this artificial notion that someone's work can be protected from copying for a limited period of time - in other words, a monopoly - with the express intent of encouraging people to create and invent things, which benefits the market and society as a whole.


     


    What we have today, and what companies like Intellectual Ventures are doing, goes entirely against this concept. Fortunately, the rest of our nation does not share your selfish Ayn Rand-esque philosophy of every man for himself and f*** the rest of the country.


     


     


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 213 of 275

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


     


    "Misinformed morons" huh?


     


    I don't have to "imagine if." Everything is patented. Copy-and-paste is patented, in case you didn't know--and you didn't (US6944821). Dozens of companies own patents related to GPS. Mobile web page rendering. MP3s. All patented. By every company you can name: IBM, Microsoft, AT&T, Motorola, Qualcomm, Apple, Sun, Netscape, Adobe... (and on and on). All patented. And companies sue each over patents all the time. They also cross-license patents to each other. Even Apple. Yes, Apple licenses its patents to other companies (but it can choose which ones to keep for its own secret sauce). This is how the system works.


     


    That is why your theoretical "Imagine if Kia..." example is ludicrous. Everything in a mobile phone is in fact, already patented, yet mobile devices still get made. The mobile phone industry doesn't owe its existence to a lack of patents, as you seem to think. For example, every Apple mobile device can play MP3s because Apple pays a license to Fraunhofer and Thompson. Apple doesn't just declare it "standards essential" to justify infringing on Fraunhofer's patent rights. And MP3s are about as de facto as it gets.


     


    Patents don't prevent things from getting made; patents encourage an economic return on innovation.


     


     


    Perhaps I should have been a little more detailed.  Yes, there are patents for many things that are widely used.  However, those patents are for very specific methods.  Fraunhofer didn't come along and put their patent on "method to play music from a digital media file".  They patented the MP3 format and other specific formats.  Sliding a switch to turn on or unlock something?  Really?  So you can patent a natural movement that has been used in the physical world for decades?  Now as much as you'd like to think this was an invention by Apple, I say your are smoking crack.  This one is an example of a patent that is awarded where there was 1) prior art and 2) so broad that just about any unlock method can be interpreted as being derived from that patent.  Broad patents should not be granted unless they can be specific enough to allow competition the ability to achieve the same goal differently....especially if said method is something we already do in our daily lives outside of the mobile device.


     


    Apple's lawsuit against Samsung for physical design.  So Apple can say that having a rectangle with a bezel is their invention?  Again, if you agree, you are smoking crack.  While not as elegant as the iPad, that design was around when the XP Tablet Edition was making the rounds.  Yep, icons on a screen (imagine that), a bezel, and OMG, it was rectangular!  Here again, there was 1) prior art and 2) Apple thinks it has the market on rectangular shaped slates and that if ANYONE ELSE wants to make one, it can't be rectangular (came from the horse's mouth on suggestions to make an non-infringing tablet).  Anyone who believes Apple is in the right there is also smoking crack.


     


    Apple's lawsuit against Android for search on a device?  This has gotten to an all time low on Apple's part.  Really?  You are going to tell a company who's business model is based on searches for all corners that their OS can't search the file system it resides on?  PRIOR ART!  This is where Apple has gone off the deep end.  OS's have been doing this for years, far before any iDevice came out.  So because now a voice can input the characters for the search, this is Apple's invention?  Are you kidding me?  I really want to hear you refute this one because this is just something I have to hear!


  • Reply 214 of 275

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?


    Muppetry, your mistake is in trying to be logical and consistent - shame on you! :) Consider the source of this whole silly thread. 


     


    The wonderful thing about this commenting system is how it allows you to block the people who appear to delight in being contrary, antagonistic jackalopes. The ol' "fredarooney" has earned a special place in this list. Technology can be quite handy at times. :)

  • Reply 215 of 275

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    Clearly struck a nerve there, and fully according to pattern - when he totally runs out of ideas he wheels out the block list. Maybe one day he will put Appleinsider on the block list and the torture will be over.


    A hit! A palpable hit! :) I'm sure it won't be too long before "the fredster" pulls out yet another alias so the fun can continue. Maybe there could be a contest - see who can detect his latest alias the soonest?

  • Reply 216 of 275
    vvswarupvvswarup Posts: 336member


    People who think that Apple should license patents and make money are not seeing the point here. Apple's strategy revolves around putting a unique product in the hands of the consumer. Apple tries to set itself apart from competitors products. Licensing out the patents and making a mint off of licensing fees might sound nice on paper. But in the long range, it's contrary to Apple's strategy of building a unique device.

  • Reply 217 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    freediverx wrote: »
    You are defending the patent system as it exists today under the apparent premise that anything that is legal is correct and desirable, so long as it's profitable for someone. Never mind the impact to the market as a whole or to consumers. 

    The CONCEPT of copyrights and patents is not natural. These are not an inalienable rights.  As I wrote previously it was an ARTIFICIAL construct created with the sole intent of encouraging innovation. In other words, we created this artificial notion that someone's work can be protected from copying for a limited period of time - in other words, a monopoly - with the express intent of encouraging people to create and invent things, which benefits the market and society as a whole.

    What we have today, and what companies like Intellectual Ventures are doing, goes entirely against this concept. Fortunately, the rest of our nation does not share your selfish Ayn Rand-esque philosophy of every man for himself and f*** the rest of the country.

    What a stupid argument. The right to drive a car is an artificial construct too. Let's take away your right to drive (starting when you finally turn 16). Better yet, money is an artificial construct. Let's take away all your money. Better yet - just send it to me since you don't believe in artificial constructs.

    The fact is that the patent system was created for the purpose of encouraging innovation by allowing inventors to benefit from their inventions as you've stated. So why should Google have the right to steal Apple's inventions? Why should a senile judge who admits that he's not an expert have the right to deny Apple's legislatively granted rights?

    You might also want to stop making things up - your final paragraph couldn't be further from the truth. But, then, you've never shown any interest in seeing the world as it really is, anyway.
  • Reply 218 of 275
    gwjvangwjvan Posts: 21member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    What a stupid argument. The right to drive a car is an artificial construct too. Let's take away your right to drive (starting when you finally turn 16). Better yet, money is an artificial construct. Let's take away all your money. Better yet - just send it to me since you don't believe in artificial constructs.


     


    He/she wasn't arguing that it is invalid just because it is unnatural, but that if it doesn't work correctly anymore then maybe it is time to re-examine it.



    I understand the motivation behind these laws, but they leave me uneasy sometimes (which might be due to lack of a deeper understanding of the issue). I plan to make money developing software. I basically just don't want either of these to be true:



    (a) I'm asked by a client/employer to help patent something which is so simple (to me and other developers) that it is embarrassing to "own" it (hopefully "non-obviousness" is high enough a standard to eliminate this), or so quick-to-invent that "protecting" it takes unnecessary resources away from moving on to bigger and better things, or so complicated that it might be unnecessary to patent anyway--- just understanding it and being able to incorporate it first has a competitive advantage in itself.



    or



    (b) I legitimately develop something, with good intentions, and am told to stop or be punished for something which I couldn't have foreseen (or which would have been unreasonable to foresee if I dedicate my time/resources to development), just because someone else got there first. That, to me, would seem like running a marathon- except when one runner gets a few steps ahead, he/she turns around with a gun and tells the other runners "Look, I took these few steps before you, therefore you cannot advance until I say so"

     


     


    I'm at the early stages of forming an opinion, I guess- but these things haven't been adequately resolved in my mind. (Maybe they never will)

  • Reply 219 of 275
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,884member
    gwjvan wrote: »
    He/she wasn't arguing that it is invalid just because it is unnatural, but that if it doesn't work correctly anymore then maybe it is time to re-examine it.


    I understand the motivation behind these laws, but they leave me uneasy sometimes (which might be due to lack of a deeper understanding of the issue). I plan to make money developing software. I basically just don't want either of these to be true:


    (a) I'm asked by a client/employer to help patent something which is so simple (to me and other developers) that it is embarrassing to "own" it (hopefully "non-obviousness" is high enough a standard to eliminate this), or so quick-to-invent that "protecting" it takes unnecessary resources away from moving on to bigger and better things, or so complicated that it might be unnecessary to patent anyway--- just understanding it and being able to incorporate it first has a competitive advantage in itself.


    or


    (b) I legitimately develop something, with good intentions, and am told to stop or be punished for something which I couldn't have foreseen (or which would have been unreasonable to foresee if I dedicate my time/resources to development), just because someone else got there first. That, to me, would seem like running a marathon- except when one runner gets a few steps ahead, he/she turns around with a gun and tells the other runners "Look, I took these few steps before you, therefore you cannot advance until I say so"

     

    I'm at the early stages of forming an opinion, I guess- but these things haven't been adequately resolved in my mind. (Maybe they never will)

    Well, neither of your scenarios applies to the patents Apple is defending. They weren't simple or obvious before Apple invented them, even though now, five years later, we all think it s so natural as to be " the only way to do it." That's the thing about brilliantly conceived and implemented inventions: once they are out there, they seem so obviously the best way to do something, but they weren't obvious at all before they were realized.

    And, other developers weren't blindly working on the same thing, only to discover that Apple got there first. Apple got there and the other developers (I.e., Google) scrambled to copy them as quickly as possible.
  • Reply 220 of 275
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    Well, neither of your scenarios applies to the patents Apple is defending. They weren't simple or obvious before Apple invented them, even though now, five years later, we all think it s so natural as to be " the only way to do it." That's the thing about brilliantly conceived and implemented inventions: once they are out there, they seem so obviously the best way to do something, but they weren't obvious at all before they were realized.
    And, other developers weren't blindly working on the same thing, only to discover that Apple got there first. Apple got there and the other developers (I.e., Google) scrambled to copy them as quickly as possible.
    Well plenty of people think they were and that multi touch devices were inevitable, I guess never mind that Eric Schmidt in a Charlie Rose interview said that Apple invented the smartphone revolution and they should get credit for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.