Apple's iPhone network provisioning tech target of patent lawsuit



  • Reply 21 of 21
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,692member
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    k2kw said:
    melgross said:
    I’ve never understood why Apple doesn’t search for these patents, and just buy them through some entity, as they do,with other things. That would cut the possibility of much of this out. When you consider how many suits there are, and how much is paid out, plus the legal costs, it might be cheaper in the long run.
    Supposedly that's why Google bought Motorola.   To get their patents which they extended to either Android licensees.

    Or maybe we don't hear about all the time android manufacturers like Samsung are sued .

    chasm said:
    For the record, it is SOP for companies to have a patent attorney do a search and present any possible conflicts in patents. The problem Apple (and all other tech companies) run into is that patents from 20-30 years ago are hopelessly vague, like "method to move air via electrically-induced circulation for cooling purposes" (aka "a fan") that was a pretty logical conclusion back when it was granted, and hopelessly obvious now.

    Any company that invents anything can be certain that a patent exists that could possibly be interpreted as describing something somewhat akin to their invention, particularly if the new invention is just an alternate method of accomplishing the goal or an extension (like adding video to audio calls) of an existing invention/technique.

    On top of that, courts long ago stopped defining "infringement" as strictly "stealing an already-known and patented technique/invention" rather than "we happen to have invented something entirely independently, but it is similar to an existing method/invention/patent." A stricter reading of infringement would cut down on the nonsense suits considerably, since it would require the plaintiff to prove that the company knew or should have known that they were infringing, but even that wouldn't be a panacea (lots of companies show Apple new tech they've invented that sometimes shows up again in a different form in a final product. Difficult to prove intent there).

    TL;dr -- the patent system is very broken and needs major reform. Also: there's nothing really new under the sun. :)

    They (Google) wanted those patents as a defense, particularly against Apple, if they, or their OEMs were sued.
    The problem was that Google was rooked by Motorola, as many of those patents were useless.

    Not any more useless than the ones from Nortel that were eventually sold off for a fraction of the purchase price, but only after Rockstar failed at weaponizing them,  flailing them like a blunt sword. 

    All these patents had some value at least defensively, just perhaps not as much as everyone at the time thought, and certainly far less useful as offensive weapons than those here expected them to be. 
    The difference is that Google was indeed rooked. They paid $12.5 billion for Motorola on the day when its valuation was just $6.5 billion. They were convinced that the company was vastly more valuable that it actually was, which turned out to be much less than the $6.5 billion it was being valued at. Google was so desperate to buy Motorola that they deliberately paid far more than they should have, apparently convinced that they would be bid against if they offered a more realistic amount. Everyone scratched their heads over the purchase.
    Not everyone. To patent bloggers it made sense. Still does. Notice how quiet those patent-sabres rattling about threatening the Android platform became after that? I don't think the two are unrelated. 

    EDIT: Related story.
    What threats?
    LOL... You're not THAT old that you can't remember. 
    Apple and Samsung have had a big fight around the world, most of which Apple won. So, what else was on the table? Apple never sued google over Android, not that any of those patents would have helped if they did. The HTC case? Nope!

    so tell us exactly where those patents helped.
    You actually didn't read the article I linked for you or you would know even if you hadn't already. You really should read it rather than asking me what it said.

    As for what I see myself rather than relying on anyone else:
    --Apple and Google agreed to set aside all patent issues between them.
    --No new lawsuits against any Android licensees was initiated by Apple after that.
    --Samsung's place as an Android licensee was more assured with Samsung now seeing enough value in Google's massive cache of IP to agree to cross-license all of their applicable IP back to Google and avoiding legal issues between them.
    --LG and HTC doing the same.
    --Apple agreed to settle their differences with HTC and cross-license iPhone IP after being armed with some of the Google patents acquired from Moto.
    --Moto was no longer making vague threats of enforcing patents against other Android OEM's
    --Microsoft was cut out from following thru on their own veiled threats.
    --Google is now well-armed and perfectly capable of defending themselves from a whole lotta IP lawsuits targeting them and their licensees.

    And so now today you have dozens of companies agreeing to pool their IP to help protect all techs, especially the start-ups and smaller players. Even Microsoft this week did a total turnaround  and contributed a huge portion of their intellectual property free to use, no royalties whatsoever, to protect Linux! You didn't see that coming. The tech world is a better place with all the big players playing on equal ground and positions of strength, no longer attacking each other. 
    I agree with your conclusion. Microsoft is a very different company with Nadella in charge. While they’ll never admit to it, they’re depreciating Windows. They’ve come to the conclusion that operating systems are no longer their bread and butter.
Sign In or Register to comment.