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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis
++
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 DVD players, or really ANY other entertainment components ever, have been a carefully balanced vertical business architecture with every piece controlled by the hardware designer like the iPod. Their use of a unique connector has the tendency of being perceived as Apple's technology and as such accessories that screw up operation have the syllogistic result of being perceived as carelessness on Apple's part.
AND
There's an additional risk of the consumer coming to a false 'realization' that non-Apple accessories cannot work as well as first-party solutions - allowing a cheapo charger to damage third-party brandnames.
BUT ALSO
They cannot stop defending their intellectual property. That's not good for them, even without those other speculative conclusions above.
That would be an absolute tragedy for consumers no doubt, oh and um, shareholders.
Sebastian
If it weren't for Apple's proprietary iPod/itunes/docking system, the consumer wouldn't be enjoying $0.99 songs. They would still be enjoying $3.00 sings.
Apple's proprietary system MADE the entire download business. a business that even those companies not seen as doing well with their players, are still selling many more of them than they were BEFORE Apple's proprietary components came about.
If it weren't for Apple's proprietary iPod/itunes/docking system, the consumer wouldn't be enjoying $0.99 songs. They would still be enjoying $3.00 sings.
iPod/iTunes I can understand WRT your argument. I don't get what the docking system has to do with the price of audio tracks.
Patents are supposed to exist for non-obvious inventions, be limited in time and scope, and ultimately benefit the public.
Is there something particularly non-obvious about the iPod dock connector? Something that has a practical benefit, and isn't purely an exercise in obfuscation and preventing compatibility?
I do agree that the product in question here goes way too close to Apple's trademarked logos, and obviously on purpose. Customers have a right to know when they are dealing with an official Apple approved supplier and when they are not. So maybe it'd be fair that they were forced to change the packaging and hand over to Apple a part of the profits gained so far. If their product was not up to "Made for iPod" standards (which could have caused damage to Apple's reputation) that would be further cause for compensation. But that's all.
I'm not saying Apple shouldn't play the system the best it can. It's obligated to. I'm saying the system is fubar.
I know the history, but I can't agree that accessories being compatible with more players is a bad thing for consumers either, but I will agree that Apple has the right to defend their patents as long as it's not an annoying abstract patent.
Sebastian
In a way, we're going through a similar agrument in another thread here that involves Apple's possible music service over 3G.
If Apple loses it's doninance, who do you think will resist the labels demand for much higher fees?
Microsoft? They were the ones willing to give $5 a player to the labels. Anyone else?
I don't think so.
While this is only a part of the sweater, it only needs one thread to unravel the entire thing. It happens slowly at first.
This is what happened to IBM's PC empire. A few small slips, and it was all gone.
Apple is not clearly in the right until a court says so. It is questionably that a court will do this. Apple may own the patents to the Dock, but it doesn't own the Patents to the technology connecting to the Dock. Moreover, the company in question isn't using Apple's "Made for iPod" trademark. It is merely advertising the product works with iPods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samnuva
Apple is clearly in the right. "Made for iPod" is their program, and this company is claiming false membership.
Apple is not clearly in the right until a court says so. It is questionably that a court will do this. Apple may own the patents to the Dock, but it doesn't own the Patents to the technology connecting to the Dock. Moreover, the company in question isn't using Apple's "Made for iPod" trademark. It is merely advertising the product works with iPods.
You've made a good point there.
Until we know if Apple was able to patent the mate to the dock, we won't know the conclusion to this argument.
With the iPod having a stronger ecosystem around it than any other player, more accessories will build for the iPod and more people will buy the iPod instead of something else, and all of those "Made for iPod" labels also work to advertise the iPod, and if the iPod is the main music player and isn't compatible with the more draconian DRM solutions, the labels don't have much choice but to allow music sales that are compatible with the iPod, either through the iTunes Store, or by allowing sales through DRM-free outlets if they want any digital sales at all, and of course since that's where the market is heading (personally I've gone back to CDs, a bit more costly but I can rip to lossless), they can't afford to not have any digital sales. So it's basically a positive feedback loop that allows Apple to maintain dominance on the market, but that doesn't exactly mean that it's better to have most accessories only compatible with the iPod as opposed to the other players on the market, and I think the iPod dock could serve as the base for a new open standard if Apple bothered to open it up, they'd collect quite a bit on licensing fees since it would involve their patents (assuming they're valid) and it wouldn't make Apple responsible for the quality of 3rd party accessories, but of course opening up isn't exactly in their best interests so it's probably not going to happen which is unfortunate.
Holy run-on sentence, Batman!
A careful inspection does reveal one period in the middle, which is a beauty flaw, but it's still one serious wall of text.
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.
No. Appropriating the direct functionality of certain aspects of the competition is done all of the time, always has been. I fully understand that you don't LIKE it, but you need to admit that is how it works, even if you still think that it shouldn't.
Quote:
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 you're basically saying that the only way to resist the labels is for Apple to basically dominate and control the media player market themselves? Well, OK, as true as that is, you still have the problem of the lack of decent competition to the iPod which isn't good for the hardware market which is where the real money is anyway.
It doesn't preclude better competition. If someone actually makes a better player, and that doesn't mean more features, then possibly, people will buy it.
If someone comes out with a better iTunes then iTunes, then possibly people will buy from it.
Nothing lasts forever, including diamonds.
But it's also a fashion decision, so to speak. If your friends have one, you're likely to get one too.
That's happening to Macs now as well. As more people know more people with Macs, the decision to buy a Mac gets easier.
Apple has to stay on its toes. It competes against itself, so we see new, and better, players.
Quote:
With the iPod having a stronger ecosystem around it than any other player, more accessories will build for the iPod and more people will buy the iPod instead of something else, and all of those "Made for iPod" labels also work to advertise the iPod, and if the iPod is the main music player and isn't compatible with the more draconian DRM solutions, the labels don't have much choice but to allow music sales that are compatible with the iPod, either through the iTunes Store, or by allowing sales through DRM-free outlets if they want any digital sales at all, and of course since that's where the market is heading (personally I've gone back to CDs, a bit more costly but I can rip to lossless), they can't afford to not have any digital sales. So it's basically a positive feedback loop that allows Apple to maintain dominance on the market, but that doesn't exactly mean that it's better to have most accessories only compatible with the iPod as opposed to the other players on the market, and I think the iPod dock could serve as the base for a new open standard if Apple bothered to open it up, they'd collect quite a bit on licensing fees since it would involve their patents (assuming they're valid) and it wouldn't make Apple responsible for the quality of 3rd party accessories, but of course opening up isn't exactly in their best interests so it's probably not going to happen which is unfortunate.
Sebastian
That's basically the idea. I don't agree about the standardizing the dock though.
If other manufacturers want to come up with some standard, let them do so. I know that they are trying. They formed some organization to do this, but I don't know how far its gotten. It's been a good two years, I think. That shows why it's not always better for these "standards". A single company can usually come up with something better in less time. When you have to please numerous constituencies, the best design is never adopted.
Even if Apple were to offer this, I'd bet other companies would want to "adapt" and "improve" it. I've seen it happen too often.
No. Appropriating the direct functionality of certain aspects of the competition is done all of the time, always has been. I fully understand that you don't LIKE it, but you need to admit that is how it works, even if you still think that it shouldn't.
Some do, MOST don't.
This is why companies sue.
Actually though, it's "most companies do, some don't."
But those were in better days. now we have rogue states.
We now have the problem of a state like Chine, shielding these manufacturers. Often they only produce a small number of items, and go out of "business", only to pop up again. That's why it's difficult to sue them. Even top governmental involvement has only gotten promises from the Chinese government, and but for a few well publicised cases, no action. Many of these companies are even owned by the chidren of the top officials.
That doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't take action where it can.
Ah... another perfect example of why I despise the current body of patent laws in the United States.
Companies should not be given monopolies over accessory markets simply because they make their plug a different shape.
To do so is actually at odds with the original intent of patents. Patents were legislated in order to further the public good, not because it was "fair" for inventors. The idea was to make it such that secrets were more likely to be divulged and thus benefit the public. Rewarding inventors is how patents accomplish that goal, not the goal itself.
In this specific instance, Apple is hiding behind patent law to prevent competition, not to protect a novel idea whose inception needs to be rewarded in order to motivate future innovation.
With that said, I think the issue here is that a company is claiming false membership in what amounts to certification program for accessories. In my opinion, that false claim is immoral and illegal, while the the use of the dock connector is not.
Ah... another perfect example of why I despise the current body of patent laws in the United States.
Companies should not be given monopolies over accessory markets simply because they make their plug a different shape.
To do so is actually at odds with the original intent of patents. Patents were legislated in order to further the public good, not because it was "fair" for inventors. The idea was to make it such that secrets were more likely to be divulged and thus benefit the public. Rewarding inventors is how patents accomplish that goal, not the goal itself.
In this specific instance, Apple is hiding behind patent law to prevent competition, not to protect a novel idea whose inception needs to be rewarded in order to motivate future innovation.
With that said, I think the issue here is that a company is claiming false membership in what amounts to certification program for accessories. In my opinion, that false claim is immoral and illegal, while the the use of the dock connector is not.
You're wrong in this.
The intent was to BOTH insure fair return for the inventor, AND insure widespread adoption for the public good.
It also gave others the opportunity (for those who could travel to Washington, a difficult, expensive, and perilous journey in those days) to look at the invention and its patents, in the hope of working out some other way of accomplishing the same thing, or accomplishing something even better.
Comments
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 DVD players, or really ANY other entertainment components ever, have been a carefully balanced vertical business architecture with every piece controlled by the hardware designer like the iPod. Their use of a unique connector has the tendency of being perceived as Apple's technology and as such accessories that screw up operation have the syllogistic result of being perceived as carelessness on Apple's part.
AND
There's an additional risk of the consumer coming to a false 'realization' that non-Apple accessories cannot work as well as first-party solutions - allowing a cheapo charger to damage third-party brandnames.
BUT ALSO
They cannot stop defending their intellectual property. That's not good for them, even without those other speculative conclusions above.
That would be an absolute tragedy for consumers no doubt, oh and um, shareholders.
Sebastian
If it weren't for Apple's proprietary iPod/itunes/docking system, the consumer wouldn't be enjoying $0.99 songs. They would still be enjoying $3.00 sings.
Apple's proprietary system MADE the entire download business. a business that even those companies not seen as doing well with their players, are still selling many more of them than they were BEFORE Apple's proprietary components came about.
You must be VERY young not to know this.
If it weren't for Apple's proprietary iPod/itunes/docking system, the consumer wouldn't be enjoying $0.99 songs. They would still be enjoying $3.00 sings.
iPod/iTunes I can understand WRT your argument. I don't get what the docking system has to do with the price of audio tracks.
Is there something particularly non-obvious about the iPod dock connector? Something that has a practical benefit, and isn't purely an exercise in obfuscation and preventing compatibility?
I do agree that the product in question here goes way too close to Apple's trademarked logos, and obviously on purpose. Customers have a right to know when they are dealing with an official Apple approved supplier and when they are not. So maybe it'd be fair that they were forced to change the packaging and hand over to Apple a part of the profits gained so far. If their product was not up to "Made for iPod" standards (which could have caused damage to Apple's reputation) that would be further cause for compensation. But that's all.
I'm not saying Apple shouldn't play the system the best it can. It's obligated to. I'm saying the system is fubar.
I know the history, but I can't agree that accessories being compatible with more players is a bad thing for consumers either, but I will agree that Apple has the right to defend their patents as long as it's not an annoying abstract patent.
Sebastian
In a way, we're going through a similar agrument in another thread here that involves Apple's possible music service over 3G.
If Apple loses it's doninance, who do you think will resist the labels demand for much higher fees?
Microsoft? They were the ones willing to give $5 a player to the labels. Anyone else?
I don't think so.
While this is only a part of the sweater, it only needs one thread to unravel the entire thing. It happens slowly at first.
This is what happened to IBM's PC empire. A few small slips, and it was all gone.
iPod/iTunes I can understand WRT your argument. I don't get what the docking system has to do with the price of audio tracks.
Please read my post to Slewis.
Apple is clearly in the right. "Made for iPod" is their program, and this company is claiming false membership.
Please read my post to Slewis.
I still don't see the relevance. It reads more like a slippery slope fallacy than anything else.
I still don't see the relevance. It reads more like a slippery slope fallacy than anything else.
That's your term. there is nothing false about the "slippery slope". It's a common failing.
Apple is not clearly in the right until a court says so. It is questionably that a court will do this. Apple may own the patents to the Dock, but it doesn't own the Patents to the technology connecting to the Dock. Moreover, the company in question isn't using Apple's "Made for iPod" trademark. It is merely advertising the product works with iPods.
You've made a good point there.
Until we know if Apple was able to patent the mate to the dock, we won't know the conclusion to this argument.
That's your term. there is nothing false about the "slippery slope". It's a common failing.
There are valid reasons why that sort of argument is discouraged, as outlined in many of the collections of logical fallacies.
Besides, Slewis made a better argument on the topic.
With the iPod having a stronger ecosystem around it than any other player, more accessories will build for the iPod and more people will buy the iPod instead of something else, and all of those "Made for iPod" labels also work to advertise the iPod, and if the iPod is the main music player and isn't compatible with the more draconian DRM solutions, the labels don't have much choice but to allow music sales that are compatible with the iPod, either through the iTunes Store, or by allowing sales through DRM-free outlets if they want any digital sales at all, and of course since that's where the market is heading (personally I've gone back to CDs, a bit more costly but I can rip to lossless), they can't afford to not have any digital sales. So it's basically a positive feedback loop that allows Apple to maintain dominance on the market, but that doesn't exactly mean that it's better to have most accessories only compatible with the iPod as opposed to the other players on the market, and I think the iPod dock could serve as the base for a new open standard if Apple bothered to open it up, they'd collect quite a bit on licensing fees since it would involve their patents (assuming they're valid) and it wouldn't make Apple responsible for the quality of 3rd party accessories, but of course opening up isn't exactly in their best interests so it's probably not going to happen which is unfortunate.
Holy run-on sentence, Batman!
A careful inspection does reveal one period in the middle, which is a beauty flaw, but it's still one serious wall of text.
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.
No. Appropriating the direct functionality of certain aspects of the competition is done all of the time, always has been. I fully understand that you don't LIKE it, but you need to admit that is how it works, even if you still think that it shouldn't.
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.
Some do, MOST don't.
So you're basically saying that the only way to resist the labels is for Apple to basically dominate and control the media player market themselves? Well, OK, as true as that is, you still have the problem of the lack of decent competition to the iPod which isn't good for the hardware market which is where the real money is anyway.
It doesn't preclude better competition. If someone actually makes a better player, and that doesn't mean more features, then possibly, people will buy it.
If someone comes out with a better iTunes then iTunes, then possibly people will buy from it.
Nothing lasts forever, including diamonds.
But it's also a fashion decision, so to speak. If your friends have one, you're likely to get one too.
That's happening to Macs now as well. As more people know more people with Macs, the decision to buy a Mac gets easier.
Apple has to stay on its toes. It competes against itself, so we see new, and better, players.
With the iPod having a stronger ecosystem around it than any other player, more accessories will build for the iPod and more people will buy the iPod instead of something else, and all of those "Made for iPod" labels also work to advertise the iPod, and if the iPod is the main music player and isn't compatible with the more draconian DRM solutions, the labels don't have much choice but to allow music sales that are compatible with the iPod, either through the iTunes Store, or by allowing sales through DRM-free outlets if they want any digital sales at all, and of course since that's where the market is heading (personally I've gone back to CDs, a bit more costly but I can rip to lossless), they can't afford to not have any digital sales. So it's basically a positive feedback loop that allows Apple to maintain dominance on the market, but that doesn't exactly mean that it's better to have most accessories only compatible with the iPod as opposed to the other players on the market, and I think the iPod dock could serve as the base for a new open standard if Apple bothered to open it up, they'd collect quite a bit on licensing fees since it would involve their patents (assuming they're valid) and it wouldn't make Apple responsible for the quality of 3rd party accessories, but of course opening up isn't exactly in their best interests so it's probably not going to happen which is unfortunate.
Sebastian
That's basically the idea. I don't agree about the standardizing the dock though.
If other manufacturers want to come up with some standard, let them do so. I know that they are trying. They formed some organization to do this, but I don't know how far its gotten. It's been a good two years, I think. That shows why it's not always better for these "standards". A single company can usually come up with something better in less time. When you have to please numerous constituencies, the best design is never adopted.
Even if Apple were to offer this, I'd bet other companies would want to "adapt" and "improve" it. I've seen it happen too often.
There are valid reasons why that sort of argument is discouraged, as outlined in many of the collections of logical fallacies.
Besides, Slewis made a better argument on the topic.
He did make a good argument, but this one is still valid. I could point out a number of times its happened.
No. Appropriating the direct functionality of certain aspects of the competition is done all of the time, always has been. I fully understand that you don't LIKE it, but you need to admit that is how it works, even if you still think that it shouldn't.
Some do, MOST don't.
This is why companies sue.
Actually though, it's "most companies do, some don't."
But those were in better days. now we have rogue states.
We now have the problem of a state like Chine, shielding these manufacturers. Often they only produce a small number of items, and go out of "business", only to pop up again. That's why it's difficult to sue them. Even top governmental involvement has only gotten promises from the Chinese government, and but for a few well publicised cases, no action. Many of these companies are even owned by the chidren of the top officials.
That doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't take action where it can.
Companies should not be given monopolies over accessory markets simply because they make their plug a different shape.
To do so is actually at odds with the original intent of patents. Patents were legislated in order to further the public good, not because it was "fair" for inventors. The idea was to make it such that secrets were more likely to be divulged and thus benefit the public. Rewarding inventors is how patents accomplish that goal, not the goal itself.
In this specific instance, Apple is hiding behind patent law to prevent competition, not to protect a novel idea whose inception needs to be rewarded in order to motivate future innovation.
With that said, I think the issue here is that a company is claiming false membership in what amounts to certification program for accessories. In my opinion, that false claim is immoral and illegal, while the the use of the dock connector is not.
Ah... another perfect example of why I despise the current body of patent laws in the United States.
Companies should not be given monopolies over accessory markets simply because they make their plug a different shape.
To do so is actually at odds with the original intent of patents. Patents were legislated in order to further the public good, not because it was "fair" for inventors. The idea was to make it such that secrets were more likely to be divulged and thus benefit the public. Rewarding inventors is how patents accomplish that goal, not the goal itself.
In this specific instance, Apple is hiding behind patent law to prevent competition, not to protect a novel idea whose inception needs to be rewarded in order to motivate future innovation.
With that said, I think the issue here is that a company is claiming false membership in what amounts to certification program for accessories. In my opinion, that false claim is immoral and illegal, while the the use of the dock connector is not.
You're wrong in this.
The intent was to BOTH insure fair return for the inventor, AND insure widespread adoption for the public good.
It also gave others the opportunity (for those who could travel to Washington, a difficult, expensive, and perilous journey in those days) to look at the invention and its patents, in the hope of working out some other way of accomplishing the same thing, or accomplishing something even better.