Why bother with this at all? When Apple makes a new iPod half the accessories no longer work anyway. Seems like most things with Apple only last a year or so before they change something and what you have is "obsolete" which seems to be their favorite phrase.
Let me play devil's advocate here and ask you if you think that should cover all dock-like accessories? What if I come up with a radical new idea for an iPod dock that is significantly different in design and functionality from Apple's dock? Are you suggesting that Apple should be able to extend the legal reach of the patent for its own dock design to stop me from selling mine? If so, then you're missing the point behind patents. Patents exist to encourage innovation, not to allow one party to stifle another's innovation (and possible competition.) And patents definitely don't exist so one party can control the quality of products produced by another party.
Part of me agrees that if Apple's patented ideas are being misappropriated, then they are in the right. But if this move is just to squash competition (and I have to say, it sure looks like it to me) then I hope Apple gets their ass handed to them in court.
Besides that, does anyone else think it odd that Apple is going after people making iPod accessories? I mean, they're creating reasons why people might be drawn to buy an iPod. They're on Apple's team to some extent. Talk about your circular firing squad.
then it won't work with any ipod....apple is protecting its product and the consumer quality experience. can't allow erosion
Why bother with this at all? When Apple makes a new iPod half the accessories no longer work anyway. Seems like most things with Apple only last a year or so before they change something and what you have is "obsolete" which seems to be their favorite phrase.
All of the examples I can think of have legitimate reasons. At least we have had the exact same 30-pin connector since the very first 5GB HDD-based iPod was released, and I don't foresee it changing anytime soon. I still use my FW-t0-30-pin connector and power supply for a very fast charging of my iPhone.
GIve an example where a company's IP has been legally copied but since they had other IP that were sold with it that it made it okay? You make it sound like I can legally stela hte formula for Coke-a-Cola but so long as I don't use their can I'm in the clear.
Just note that the 30-pin connector is a product in and of itself. They invented it, they patented it, they control the use of it and they are the ones who have to protect their brand.
All of the examples I can think of have legitimate reasons. At least we have had the exact same 30-pin connector since the very first 5GB HDD-based iPod was released, and I don't foresee it changing anytime soon. I still use my FW-t0-30-pin connector and power supply for a very fast charging of my iPhone.
1) Reducing controller size and cost by removing FW support once USB 2.0 became commonplace. I bit of a pain if you prefer FW, but you can still charge it.
2) Disallowing colder iPods from being able to rent movies because the video out was still allowed unprotected through the 3.5" headphone jack.
Those are what I was thinking of, but they aren't accessories. if people want to berate Apple because they have to put their iPhone into airplane mode to use the FM transmitter that worked with their iPod or wonder why an accessory that worked with one iPod no longer works with the OS X based iPod Touch I guess I'll let them do their little rant.
Clearly my examples are crap. Does anyone else have any?
edit: The list below from Engadget looks more like trying to accomodate as many accessories within reason not destroy the market:
This shows you know nothing about business, or technology.
No, it means you are somehow unaware of the existence of countless consumer products that freely borrow parts of each others designs without permission and without penalty.
No, it means you are somehow unaware of the existence of countless consumer products that freely borrow parts of each others designs without permission and without penalty.
Perhaps if you could name these products were...
Copyright
Patents
Trademarks
Industrial design rights
Utility models
Geographical indication
Trade secrets
Related rights
Trade names
Domain names
Sui generis rights
Database rights
Mask work
Plant breeders' rights
Supplementary protection certificate, and
Indigenous intellectual property
...is an expensive but ultimately fruitless endeavor to protect one's property.
No, it means you are somehow unaware of the existence of countless consumer products that freely borrow parts of each others designs without permission and without penalty.
No. What it means is that I'm aware of products that ATTEMPT to LOOK like other, more popular products. If all, or part, of any product is patented, it can't be duplicated, as long as that patent is still in effect.
What you don't seem to know, is that many companies also license others to use their patents, under certain conditions, as Apple does, with its partners. They get paid for that.
So what about the thousands of iPod accessory makers on eBay? Surely all of those guys aren't licensed through Apple for their products.
Over the past few years, I've owned a 5G iPod, 5.5G iPod, and I now have a 32GB iPod touch. I've NEVER purchased accessories direct from Apple or through any Apple-approved manufacturers like Belkin.
I've always gone straight to eBay to get cheap ass docking stations, speaker docks, wall chargers, sync cables, and car chargers. Typically, I can get a wall charger and a car charger together for about $6 or $7 shipped even after the crazy high shipping charges. Surely at that price, these companies (Accstation, everydaysource, etc.) aren't paying any royalties.
And I've never had a problem with this "non-approved" accessories over the years.
How MS tried to kill the "standard" by extending it marginally, so that it crippled the main premise of the standard - of being platform agnostic? How easy would it be for the market to be flooded with iPod Accessories, that worked in suboptimal ways - and created massive confusion in the market place?
Remember, it is not enough to just have the patent -- Apple needs to be seen taking actions to protect its property, otherwise they lose their rights over the property. It is not Apple's fault that the US patent system encourages these lawsuits - and forces Apple to sue today, or to lose their rights over the patent tomorrow. It is not about them targetting a small company, that is adding "value" to the iPod ecosystem.
Also, Apple is filing this law suit to make sure that the Accessories that are out there meet Apple's high standards, and dont reduce the experience Apple has worked so hard to create! Apple's main edge is their control over hardware and software, that allows them to create a better experience for the user - if that is diluted by cheap, suboptimal accessories, it is a definite loss to Apple, and damages their reputation.
How MS tried to kill the "standard" by extending it marginally, so that it crippled the main premise of the standard - of being platform agnostic? How easy would it be for the market to be flooded with iPod Accessories, that worked in suboptimal ways - and created massive confusion in the market place?
Remember, it is not enough to just have the patent -- Apple needs to be seen taking actions to protect its property, otherwise they lose their rights over the property. It is not Apple's fault that the US patent system encourages these lawsuits - and forces Apple to sue today, or to lose their rights over the patent tomorrow. It is not about them targetting a small company, that is adding "value" to the iPod ecosystem.
Also, Apple is filing this law suit to make sure that the Accessories that are out there meet Apple's high standards, and dont reduce the experience Apple has worked so hard to create! Apple's main edge is their control over hardware and software, that allows them to create a better experience for the user - if that is diluted by cheap, suboptimal accessories, it is a definite loss to Apple, and damages their reputation.
Also, Apple is filing this law suit to make sure that the Accessories that are out there meet Apple's high standards, and dont reduce the experience Apple has worked so hard to create! Apple's main edge is their control over hardware and software, that allows them to create a better experience for the user - if that is diluted by cheap, suboptimal accessories, it is a definite loss to Apple, and damages their reputation.
This sort of argument has been repeated several times, but I really don't buy it at all. That's basically like suggesting that a person that buys a $1 cable for a $100 DVD player is automatically going to blame the DVD player maker if the cable doesn't work. I know you'll find some wacko that would think that, but for the most part, I don't think that would be the general case.
Seriously, where are all these crazy people who think that some damned fool accessory maker who makes really cheap iPod accessories that don't work is going to put Apple out of business coming from?
Sebastian
No one thinks that. But it could damage their iPod business if every player manufacturer began to make players compatible with the vast number of accessories out there for the iPod, that will now work ONLY with the iPod. Part of the success of the iPod is due to that large number of accessories that no other player has, from the really cheap ones, to the multiple thousand dollar ones.
Make every player compatible, and the wall of accessories that now says "iPod", will instead say, "player".
Let me play devil's advocate here and ask you if you think that should cover all dock-like accessories? What if I come up with a radical new idea for an iPod dock that is significantly different in design and functionality from Apple's dock? Are you suggesting that Apple should be able to extend the legal reach of the patent for its own dock design to stop me from selling mine? If so, then you're missing the point behind patents. Patents exist to encourage innovation, not to allow one party to stifle another's innovation (and possible competition.) And patents definitely don't exist so one party can control the quality of products produced by another party.
Part of me agrees that if Apple's patented ideas are being misappropriated, then they are in the right. But if this move is just to squash competition (and I have to say, it sure looks like it to me) then I hope Apple gets their ass handed to them in court.
Besides that, does anyone else think it odd that Apple is going after people making iPod accessories? I mean, they're creating reasons why people might be drawn to buy an iPod. They're on Apple's team to some extent. Talk about your circular firing squad.
What would it benefit an accessory maker to come up with a radically new docking system? The whole point of an accessory is to compliment. This product has iPod all over it, so obviously they're trying to use the popularity of the iPod to sell their product. And I'm not sure how many people would say "wow, these speakers are awesome! I think I'll go buy an iPod so I can use them!" There are plenty of other players out there with their own accessories. People generally buy an iPod because that's what they want.
Although Apple products are a lot easier to find now, Apple's biggest draw, I think, comes from word of mouth. This was especially true when the iPod came out and the patent was granted. Apple has always had early adopters who will buy the product either because they love Apple or because it's the next big thing. Their sales continue to increase because people tell their friends. The average person doesn't distinguish between Apple and the company who makes the accessory. And poor accessories result in more than just not being able to play the iPod through the speakers. Like someone else said, it can completely fry the iPod. And so even if people don't blame Apple, if the product is under warranty Apple has to pay for repairs, provided the iPod is still under warranty. And most people who would buy accessories for it would do so within the first two years.
While I am sure that Apple is not really worried about this small company, Apple MUST inforce its trademarks and patents or they lose them.
That is why the sellers of styrofoam cups will monitor local newspapers and you will see retractions when they are caught saying "the party enjoyed drinks in styrofoam cups" or the such and have to say "expanded polystyrene cups". The same applies to what they print on the box. Use my name and if I do not protect it, I lose it.
Comments
Let me play devil's advocate here and ask you if you think that should cover all dock-like accessories? What if I come up with a radical new idea for an iPod dock that is significantly different in design and functionality from Apple's dock? Are you suggesting that Apple should be able to extend the legal reach of the patent for its own dock design to stop me from selling mine? If so, then you're missing the point behind patents. Patents exist to encourage innovation, not to allow one party to stifle another's innovation (and possible competition.) And patents definitely don't exist so one party can control the quality of products produced by another party.
Part of me agrees that if Apple's patented ideas are being misappropriated, then they are in the right. But if this move is just to squash competition (and I have to say, it sure looks like it to me) then I hope Apple gets their ass handed to them in court.
Besides that, does anyone else think it odd that Apple is going after people making iPod accessories? I mean, they're creating reasons why people might be drawn to buy an iPod. They're on Apple's team to some extent. Talk about your circular firing squad.
then it won't work with any ipod....apple is protecting its product and the consumer quality experience. can't allow erosion
So you're saying that Apple's complex connector, with all of its physical and electrical characteristics, are not an Apple product?
Are you saying that it's fine to copy a PART of a product, but not all of it?
Yes.
That would go against law in about all countries.
And yet, it happens all the time, defensibly so.
Why bother with this at all? When Apple makes a new iPod half the accessories no longer work anyway. Seems like most things with Apple only last a year or so before they change something and what you have is "obsolete" which seems to be their favorite phrase.
All of the examples I can think of have legitimate reasons. At least we have had the exact same 30-pin connector since the very first 5GB HDD-based iPod was released, and I don't foresee it changing anytime soon. I still use my FW-t0-30-pin connector and power supply for a very fast charging of my iPhone.
Yes.
And yet, it happens all the time, defensibly so.
GIve an example where a company's IP has been legally copied but since they had other IP that were sold with it that it made it okay? You make it sound like I can legally stela hte formula for Coke-a-Cola but so long as I don't use their can I'm in the clear.
Just note that the 30-pin connector is a product in and of itself. They invented it, they patented it, they control the use of it and they are the ones who have to protect their brand.
All of the examples I can think of have legitimate reasons. At least we have had the exact same 30-pin connector since the very first 5GB HDD-based iPod was released, and I don't foresee it changing anytime soon. I still use my FW-t0-30-pin connector and power supply for a very fast charging of my iPhone.
What are those reasons?
What are those reasons?
1) Reducing controller size and cost by removing FW support once USB 2.0 became commonplace. I bit of a pain if you prefer FW, but you can still charge it.
2) Disallowing colder iPods from being able to rent movies because the video out was still allowed unprotected through the 3.5" headphone jack.
Those are what I was thinking of, but they aren't accessories. if people want to berate Apple because they have to put their iPhone into airplane mode to use the FM transmitter that worked with their iPod or wonder why an accessory that worked with one iPod no longer works with the OS X based iPod Touch I guess I'll let them do their little rant.
Clearly my examples are crap. Does anyone else have any?
edit: The list below from Engadget looks more like trying to accomodate as many accessories within reason not destroy the market:
Yes.
And yet, it happens all the time, defensibly so.
This shows you know nothing about business, or technology.
This shows you know nothing about business, or technology.
No, it means you are somehow unaware of the existence of countless consumer products that freely borrow parts of each others designs without permission and without penalty.
No, it means you are somehow unaware of the existence of countless consumer products that freely borrow parts of each others designs without permission and without penalty.
Perhaps if you could name these products were...
- Copyright
- Patents
- Trademarks
- Industrial design rights
- Utility models
- Geographical indication
- Trade secrets
- Related rights
- Trade names
- Domain names
- Sui generis rights
- Database rights
- Mask work
- Plant breeders' rights
- Supplementary protection certificate, and
- Indigenous intellectual property
...is an expensive but ultimately fruitless endeavor to protect one's property.No, it means you are somehow unaware of the existence of countless consumer products that freely borrow parts of each others designs without permission and without penalty.
No. What it means is that I'm aware of products that ATTEMPT to LOOK like other, more popular products. If all, or part, of any product is patented, it can't be duplicated, as long as that patent is still in effect.
What you don't seem to know, is that many companies also license others to use their patents, under certain conditions, as Apple does, with its partners. They get paid for that.
Over the past few years, I've owned a 5G iPod, 5.5G iPod, and I now have a 32GB iPod touch. I've NEVER purchased accessories direct from Apple or through any Apple-approved manufacturers like Belkin.
I've always gone straight to eBay to get cheap ass docking stations, speaker docks, wall chargers, sync cables, and car chargers. Typically, I can get a wall charger and a car charger together for about $6 or $7 shipped even after the crazy high shipping charges. Surely at that price, these companies (Accstation, everydaysource, etc.) aren't paying any royalties.
And I've never had a problem with this "non-approved" accessories over the years.
Remember, it is not enough to just have the patent -- Apple needs to be seen taking actions to protect its property, otherwise they lose their rights over the property. It is not Apple's fault that the US patent system encourages these lawsuits - and forces Apple to sue today, or to lose their rights over the patent tomorrow. It is not about them targetting a small company, that is adding "value" to the iPod ecosystem.
Also, Apple is filing this law suit to make sure that the Accessories that are out there meet Apple's high standards, and dont reduce the experience Apple has worked so hard to create! Apple's main edge is their control over hardware and software, that allows them to create a better experience for the user - if that is diluted by cheap, suboptimal accessories, it is a definite loss to Apple, and damages their reputation.
Remember, it is not enough to just have the patent -- Apple needs to be seen taking actions to protect its property, otherwise they lose their rights over the property. It is not Apple's fault that the US patent system encourages these lawsuits - and forces Apple to sue today, or to lose their rights over the patent tomorrow. It is not about them targetting a small company, that is adding "value" to the iPod ecosystem.
Also, Apple is filing this law suit to make sure that the Accessories that are out there meet Apple's high standards, and dont reduce the experience Apple has worked so hard to create! Apple's main edge is their control over hardware and software, that allows them to create a better experience for the user - if that is diluted by cheap, suboptimal accessories, it is a definite loss to Apple, and damages their reputation.
Also, Apple is filing this law suit to make sure that the Accessories that are out there meet Apple's high standards, and dont reduce the experience Apple has worked so hard to create! Apple's main edge is their control over hardware and software, that allows them to create a better experience for the user - if that is diluted by cheap, suboptimal accessories, it is a definite loss to Apple, and damages their reputation.
This sort of argument has been repeated several times, but I really don't buy it at all. That's basically like suggesting that a person that buys a $1 cable for a $100 DVD player is automatically going to blame the DVD player maker if the cable doesn't work. I know you'll find some wacko that would think that, but for the most part, I don't think that would be the general case.
++
Seriously, where are all these crazy people who think that some damned fool accessory maker who makes really cheap iPod accessories that don't work is going to put Apple out of business coming from?
Sebastian
No one thinks that. But it could damage their iPod business if every player manufacturer began to make players compatible with the vast number of accessories out there for the iPod, that will now work ONLY with the iPod. Part of the success of the iPod is due to that large number of accessories that no other player has, from the really cheap ones, to the multiple thousand dollar ones.
Make every player compatible, and the wall of accessories that now says "iPod", will instead say, "player".
Let me play devil's advocate here and ask you if you think that should cover all dock-like accessories? What if I come up with a radical new idea for an iPod dock that is significantly different in design and functionality from Apple's dock? Are you suggesting that Apple should be able to extend the legal reach of the patent for its own dock design to stop me from selling mine? If so, then you're missing the point behind patents. Patents exist to encourage innovation, not to allow one party to stifle another's innovation (and possible competition.) And patents definitely don't exist so one party can control the quality of products produced by another party.
Part of me agrees that if Apple's patented ideas are being misappropriated, then they are in the right. But if this move is just to squash competition (and I have to say, it sure looks like it to me) then I hope Apple gets their ass handed to them in court.
Besides that, does anyone else think it odd that Apple is going after people making iPod accessories? I mean, they're creating reasons why people might be drawn to buy an iPod. They're on Apple's team to some extent. Talk about your circular firing squad.
What would it benefit an accessory maker to come up with a radically new docking system? The whole point of an accessory is to compliment. This product has iPod all over it, so obviously they're trying to use the popularity of the iPod to sell their product. And I'm not sure how many people would say "wow, these speakers are awesome! I think I'll go buy an iPod so I can use them!" There are plenty of other players out there with their own accessories. People generally buy an iPod because that's what they want.
Although Apple products are a lot easier to find now, Apple's biggest draw, I think, comes from word of mouth. This was especially true when the iPod came out and the patent was granted. Apple has always had early adopters who will buy the product either because they love Apple or because it's the next big thing. Their sales continue to increase because people tell their friends. The average person doesn't distinguish between Apple and the company who makes the accessory. And poor accessories result in more than just not being able to play the iPod through the speakers. Like someone else said, it can completely fry the iPod. And so even if people don't blame Apple, if the product is under warranty Apple has to pay for repairs, provided the iPod is still under warranty. And most people who would buy accessories for it would do so within the first two years.
That is why the sellers of styrofoam cups will monitor local newspapers and you will see retractions when they are caught saying "the party enjoyed drinks in styrofoam cups" or the such and have to say "expanded polystyrene cups". The same applies to what they print on the box. Use my name and if I do not protect it, I lose it.
Them is the rules of the game. Period.
en