You have to wonder if there were more negotiations than just Apple keeping silent that went on, maybe Apple gave some rights to sue for certain patents.
This has always been my hunch and we are probably seeing the continuation of that agreement today. Patents relating to UI in particular.
Originally Posted by iLoveMYiPhoneAndWantToGetaMAC
They are all patent whores. They didn't invent any of it, and they don't use any of it. If they used it, they would already have licenses and would have no need to purchase the patents outright.
Would you rather pay licensing fees to a competitor or own the patents and avoid making the competitor richer? Better yet make sure there is no competitor by owning the patents outright?
From what I understand back in the 90s when Microsoft "bailed Apple out" as a supposed attempt to help keep competition alive Apple & Microsoft made some sort of secret deal. The reality from what I understand is Apple had a pretty strong case against Microsoft for patent infringement and Microsoft decided that with the whole monopoly lawsuits going on they didn't want to risk a legal battle pitting "big evil Microsoft" against "lowly underdog Apple". They struck a deal where Microsoft quietly paid Apple's debt off & Apple had to remain tight lipped about it allowing Microsoft to paint it as a charity deal. You have to wonder if there were more negotiations than just Apple keeping silent that went on, maybe Apple gave some rights to sue for certain patents.
That's all of course silly conspiracy theory. Could be Apple is just trying to strengthen their relationship with Microsoft because they need MS Office to continually get better if they ever hope to break the corporate barrier against Macs.
Conspiracy theories aren't really required. Apple and Microsoft did agree to a broad patent-sharing arrangement as a part of the 1997 deal. We don't know specifically what was shared, but we do know that it happened, and the companies avoided a courtroom battle as a result. Nothing to do with the antitrust case, either. FWIW, Microsoft didn't pay off Apple's debt. Apple actually had about $1b cash on hand at the time. The idea that it was ever a "charity deal" only got started after the fact. At the time the deal went down, anybody who wanted to know the driving force behind it, did know.
Not that weird, after all your biggest enemy is also your best friend. While they all rival each other they may also prefer to join forces to share something rather than let a new rival form.
Right now, it's a free for all about Nortel. I think it's mostly between Apple and Google at this point.
Apple and Google might do well to go in on it together. Neither of them has the history to defend against licensing issues like Nokia's suit. It all comes down to Mutually Assured Destruction.
Originally Posted by iLoveMYiPhoneAndWantToGetaMAC
They are all patent whores. They didn't invent any of it, and they don't use any of it. If they used it, they would already have licenses and would have no need to purchase the patents outright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLoveMYiPhoneAndWantToGetaMAC
But we hate patent trolls. You really think that Apple is now a patent troll?
Can't satisfy you no matter what they do, can they? You call them patent whores for buying patents because YOU CLAIM (and you know this how?) they don't use any of them and then get defensive when someone calls them patent trolls.
They could also be buying these patents to prevent any patent trolls from getting them. Patents trolls acquire lame, obscure patents, then sue big companies claiming they invented such and such first. They either accept an out of court settlement or continue with lawsuit hoping to get lucky. RIMM (blackberry) loss a suit, and had to pay someone $615,000,00.00 (yes 615 MILLION dollars) because (wait for it) blackberries can receive emails !!!! That person is now suing Apple, Nokia etc for the same reason.
I dont remember reading if they used the patents or not. I would assume that they use them or find value in them. Why pay a liscense fee when you can just own them and not pay fee's. With the amount of products Apple makes with patents that cross each product, these fee's add up and fast.
If they already have licenses, there is no logic to spending more. If they are using the technology, they already have licenses. Accordingly, they do no use the technology.
That's a simplistic viewpoint. Do you know if any of them are or aren't licensing any of them, or is that just a wild guess?
My logic is that if they already have licensed the proper rights, they need not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire the rights. Unless they just plan to sue other companies to get the money back with profit.
From what I understand back in the 90s when Microsoft "bailed Apple out" as a supposed attempt to help keep competition alive Apple & Microsoft made some sort of secret deal. The reality from what I understand is Apple had a pretty strong case against Microsoft for patent infringement and Microsoft decided that with the whole monopoly lawsuits going on they didn't want to risk a legal battle pitting "big evil Microsoft" against "lowly underdog Apple". They struck a deal where Microsoft quietly paid Apple's debt off & Apple had to remain tight lipped about it allowing Microsoft to paint it as a charity deal. You have to wonder if there were more negotiations than just Apple keeping silent that went on, maybe Apple gave some rights to sue for certain patents.
That's all of course silly conspiracy theory. Could be Apple is just trying to strengthen their relationship with Microsoft because they need MS Office to continually get better if they ever hope to break the corporate barrier against Macs.
That's not exactly the story. MS was caught with Apple's patented QuickTime software in their Window's Media player. The work was done for MS by a second party company. Apple got wind of it and spoke to MS. In exchange for allowing MS to continue using it, a deal was struck. MS would agree to upgrade Office for the Mac for at least 5 years, and invest $150,000,000 in Apple, receiving non voting stock in exchange, and for Gates to do a live video appearance at the next Macworld, stating his, and Microsoft's confidence in Apple. The last portion was that Apple and MS would have a patent licensing deal where both could use a number of each other's patents in a number of areas, and not sue each other over patent issues.
Apple and Google might do well to go in on it together. Neither of them has the history to defend against licensing issues like Nokia's suit. It all comes down to Mutually Assured Destruction.
Right now, there seems to be so much bad blood between them, that I wonder if it's possible.
Originally Posted by iLoveMYiPhoneAndWantToGetaMAC
My logic is that if they already have licensed the proper rights, they need not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire the rights. Unless they just plan to sue other companies to get the money back with profit.
Agh! I hate to seem to be responding to someone who's been banned, but I'd like to clear this up for everyone else.
If a hostile party buys a patent that's being licensed, they can refuse to continue that license unless it's been licensed in perpetuity, which is very unusual, though not unheard of. Owning that patent, even in a consortium such as this, eliminates that threat.
Apple and Oracle I get. Steve and Larry are after all buddy buddy.. But MS, hell is slowly freezing over. I guess Apple and MS won't be suing each other over those patents..
Microsoft has a very long history with working with Novell, especially on networking technologies and other things. No surprise that they are involved. All in all, a good example of how large tech companies can work together on a common goal...
I think this about preventing these patents from being open sourced. $450 mil is a drop in the bucket for these companies - any one of them could have paid this sum many times over.
The smart, underdog move would have been for Redhat, Google or Ubuntu to buy the patents and immediately GPL them. Any of them could afford it and it would have completely changed the software landscape.
I think this about preventing these patents from being open sourced. $450 mil is a drop in the bucket for these companies - any one of them could have paid this sum many times over.
The smart, underdog move would have been for Redhat, Google or Ubuntu to buy the patents and immediately GPL them. Any of them could afford it and it would have completely changed the software landscape.
Ubuntu can't afford it. Red Hat is in the red and Google isn't a FOSS haven.
Comments
You have to wonder if there were more negotiations than just Apple keeping silent that went on, maybe Apple gave some rights to sue for certain patents.
This has always been my hunch and we are probably seeing the continuation of that agreement today. Patents relating to UI in particular.
They are all patent whores. They didn't invent any of it, and they don't use any of it. If they used it, they would already have licenses and would have no need to purchase the patents outright.
Would you rather pay licensing fees to a competitor or own the patents and avoid making the competitor richer? Better yet make sure there is no competitor by owning the patents outright?
From what I understand back in the 90s when Microsoft "bailed Apple out" as a supposed attempt to help keep competition alive Apple & Microsoft made some sort of secret deal. The reality from what I understand is Apple had a pretty strong case against Microsoft for patent infringement and Microsoft decided that with the whole monopoly lawsuits going on they didn't want to risk a legal battle pitting "big evil Microsoft" against "lowly underdog Apple". They struck a deal where Microsoft quietly paid Apple's debt off & Apple had to remain tight lipped about it allowing Microsoft to paint it as a charity deal. You have to wonder if there were more negotiations than just Apple keeping silent that went on, maybe Apple gave some rights to sue for certain patents.
That's all of course silly conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy theories aren't really required. Apple and Microsoft did agree to a broad patent-sharing arrangement as a part of the 1997 deal. We don't know specifically what was shared, but we do know that it happened, and the companies avoided a courtroom battle as a result. Nothing to do with the antitrust case, either. FWIW, Microsoft didn't pay off Apple's debt. Apple actually had about $1b cash on hand at the time. The idea that it was ever a "charity deal" only got started after the fact. At the time the deal went down, anybody who wanted to know the driving force behind it, did know.
Right now, it's a free for all about Nortel. I think it's mostly between Apple and Google at this point.
Apple and Google might do well to go in on it together. Neither of them has the history to defend against licensing issues like Nokia's suit. It all comes down to Mutually Assured Destruction.
They are all patent whores. They didn't invent any of it, and they don't use any of it. If they used it, they would already have licenses and would have no need to purchase the patents outright.
But we hate patent trolls. You really think that Apple is now a patent troll?
Can't satisfy you no matter what they do, can they? You call them patent whores for buying patents because YOU CLAIM (and you know this how?) they don't use any of them and then get defensive when someone calls them patent trolls.
What a way to p*ss away millions of dollars...
They could also be buying these patents to prevent any patent trolls from getting them. Patents trolls acquire lame, obscure patents, then sue big companies claiming they invented such and such first. They either accept an out of court settlement or continue with lawsuit hoping to get lucky. RIMM (blackberry) loss a suit, and had to pay someone $615,000,00.00 (yes 615 MILLION dollars) because (wait for it) blackberries can receive emails !!!! That person is now suing Apple, Nokia etc for the same reason.
I dont remember reading if they used the patents or not. I would assume that they use them or find value in them. Why pay a liscense fee when you can just own them and not pay fee's. With the amount of products Apple makes with patents that cross each product, these fee's add up and fast.
If they already have licenses, there is no logic to spending more. If they are using the technology, they already have licenses. Accordingly, they do no use the technology.
That's a simplistic viewpoint. Do you know if any of them are or aren't licensing any of them, or is that just a wild guess?
My logic is that if they already have licensed the proper rights, they need not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire the rights. Unless they just plan to sue other companies to get the money back with profit.
From what I understand back in the 90s when Microsoft "bailed Apple out" as a supposed attempt to help keep competition alive Apple & Microsoft made some sort of secret deal. The reality from what I understand is Apple had a pretty strong case against Microsoft for patent infringement and Microsoft decided that with the whole monopoly lawsuits going on they didn't want to risk a legal battle pitting "big evil Microsoft" against "lowly underdog Apple". They struck a deal where Microsoft quietly paid Apple's debt off & Apple had to remain tight lipped about it allowing Microsoft to paint it as a charity deal. You have to wonder if there were more negotiations than just Apple keeping silent that went on, maybe Apple gave some rights to sue for certain patents.
That's all of course silly conspiracy theory.
That's not exactly the story. MS was caught with Apple's patented QuickTime software in their Window's Media player. The work was done for MS by a second party company. Apple got wind of it and spoke to MS. In exchange for allowing MS to continue using it, a deal was struck. MS would agree to upgrade Office for the Mac for at least 5 years, and invest $150,000,000 in Apple, receiving non voting stock in exchange, and for Gates to do a live video appearance at the next Macworld, stating his, and Microsoft's confidence in Apple. The last portion was that Apple and MS would have a patent licensing deal where both could use a number of each other's patents in a number of areas, and not sue each other over patent issues.
Access to all those UNIX Patents, for one, will benefit OS X.
Possibly, but Attachmate at least owns the Unix copyright.
The patents in question are worth something because years ago Microsoft ended up paying millions for "licensing".
Apparently paying more???
Apple and Google might do well to go in on it together. Neither of them has the history to defend against licensing issues like Nokia's suit. It all comes down to Mutually Assured Destruction.
Right now, there seems to be so much bad blood between them, that I wonder if it's possible.
My logic is that if they already have licensed the proper rights, they need not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire the rights. Unless they just plan to sue other companies to get the money back with profit.
Agh! I hate to seem to be responding to someone who's been banned, but I'd like to clear this up for everyone else.
If a hostile party buys a patent that's being licensed, they can refuse to continue that license unless it's been licensed in perpetuity, which is very unusual, though not unheard of. Owning that patent, even in a consortium such as this, eliminates that threat.
Apple and Oracle I get. Steve and Larry are after all buddy buddy.. But MS, hell is slowly freezing over. I guess Apple and MS won't be suing each other over those patents..
Microsoft has a very long history with working with Novell, especially on networking technologies and other things. No surprise that they are involved. All in all, a good example of how large tech companies can work together on a common goal...
He's the latest troll. Just put him on ignore and be done with it.
melgross is a Global Moderator here. He will kick your ass before he bans u lol!
The smart, underdog move would have been for Redhat, Google or Ubuntu to buy the patents and immediately GPL them. Any of them could afford it and it would have completely changed the software landscape.
Possibly, but Attachmate at least owns the Unix copyright.
The patents in question are worth something because years ago Microsoft ended up paying millions for "licensing".
Apparently paying more???
Attachemate is keeping the copyright to protect it's SUSE Linux rights.
http://www.novell.com/company/policies/patent/
I think this about preventing these patents from being open sourced. $450 mil is a drop in the bucket for these companies - any one of them could have paid this sum many times over.
The smart, underdog move would have been for Redhat, Google or Ubuntu to buy the patents and immediately GPL them. Any of them could afford it and it would have completely changed the software landscape.
Ubuntu can't afford it. Red Hat is in the red and Google isn't a FOSS haven.