The main reason entities are "nice" about patents and don't sue unless it's to protect themselves, is because patent suits cost huge amounts of money and are very hard to win, not because of defensive/offensive strategy.
I agree with you. I don't see how that diminishes the differences between offensive/defensive lawsuits.
1) I agree that the only reason that companies (including Apple) don't file more "offensive" patent lawsuits is because it doesn't make financial sense. Like I have said repeatedly in this thread, if it did make financial sense, it would be illegal for the executives to not pursue it. So the fact that Google has not filed many offensive patent lawsuits, is meaningless as to whether they will or will not in the future. They will if it makes financial sense. Just like Apple will, if it makes financial sense for them.
2) The difference between the offensive/defensive lawsuits is that defensive lawsuits would not exist, if the offensive lawsuit had not been filed first. E.g., its highly unlikely Apple would have filed a patent lawsuit against Nokia if Nokia hadn't filed a lawsuit against, precisely because of the reason you mention, i.e., winning a lawsuit against Nokia would cost far more than the settlement they would have won. On the other hand, now that Nokia has filed a lawsuit against them, filing the defensive lawsuit means Apple would have a stronger hand to play in settlement negotiations.
Now, I agree that the moral difference between them is little to none, in my mind (primarily because I don't find filing a patent lawsuit immoral, in the first place, unlike many others). That being said, there is certainly a strategic distinction between the two.
Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to better match the market leader before, have they?
When Google bought android, Smartphones were business oriented devices and the king of the crop were blackberries/WINMO handsets. (First prototype) Then the iPhone was released and it opened a whole new market for smartphones. Suddenly people were buying devices for the "Cool" factor more than ever before and Apple demonstrated that touch screen's gave some serious advantages in the mobile space.
Then, like EVERY OTHER COMPANY in the HISTORY of corporate competition, Google looked at what their competitors were doing and tried to find how they could take their product (android) and try to match this new market force. Since android wasn't out yet, Google could afford to reconfigure their OS without having to worry about an installed base or backwards compatibility. Blackberry, Palm, and Windows ALL did similar reboots to make their devices more "everyday" consumer friendly. Other new OS's, like MeeGo, also adopted this consumer friendly approach.
Again, this is the NATURE of competition. Your competitor does something that makes them money and starts luring customers, and you do something to try and swing the scales back into your favor.
If the iPhone flopped because customers preferred physical keyboards like on a blackberry, what do you think would happen? Apple would release a physical keyboard phone next year instead of a 3g model of a touchscreen only device. Again, that's competition.
And before you say that Apple never listens to market forces, look at the iphone4 launch.
-No physical keyboard = iOS4 allows for iDevices to connect to bluetooth keyboards
-No Multitasking = iOS4 allows for multitasking of third party applications
-No 5 Megapixel Camera-Iphone 4 ads a 5 Megapixel shooter.
-No Customization = iOS4 allows for Folders and Wallpapers
-No Widgets = Apple hasn't implemented this one yet, but no doubt when they do they'll call it magical
-No Open Development = Apple finally officially endorsed applications that were not written natively in iOS, aka Epic games using Unreal Engine. They also allow cross compilers (with stipulations)
-No Camera Flash = iPhone 4 adds a camera
-No swappable Battery = Apple didn't change their stance here, but what they DID do is release a phone and made a point to showcase how much longer their battery lasted.
I'm NOT saying that apple made any changes because of a teaser ad. In fact, I'm sure they didn't. But those are all things that Reviewers and users were pointing out to apple well before and after that commercial aired. Another common issue (screen resolution) was also taken care of by the iPhone4.
I'm not knocking Apple for making those changes. They're what Any company worth their real estate would do. Assessing your competition and making changes to compete with them (or surpass them) is what every company does.
What company would say: Well, Apple was the first one to make a Consumer Smartphone viable, I guess we'll have to just focus on business devices."
Blackberry tried that. And look at how far they've fallen? (and they're now rebooting with QNX)
Jessi, it's not clear at all that Google "stole" multi-touch from Apple. It was more a "line in the sand" drawn by Steve Jobs.
IMO Mr. Jobs was more upset over Google entering the smartphone business at any level. Apple and Google had numerous meetings over Android and it's ongoing development, both before and after the iPhone design was completed. News accounts indicate Apple knew what Google was doing with it, while at the same time Google reportedly felt they had to do what was necessary to prevent their business from being beholden to the goodwill of other market forces, primarily Microsoft at that time. Multi-touch was one feature that Steve Jobs probably felt defined the iPhone user experience.
Unfortunately Apple may have no grounds to claim it's theirs to begin with. Elan, a Taiwanese company, appears to have actually patented that very feature 10 years earlier. And Apple was certain to have been aware of that when they filed their own patent application. In 2006 Synaptics had already been served notice that use of some multi-touch features allegedly violated Elam's patent. And what claim Apple may imagine they hold to other parts of multi-touch may actually be owned by the University of Delaware. Apple's patent was largely dependent on the work of two employees, who had done much of the work in conjunction with the University when they were students there.
True, somebody might have attempted to "steal" the idea behind multi-touch and claim it as their own. But it wasn't Google.
Apple didn't patent multi-touch screens, just their pinch to zoom gesture or the screen scrolling straight as opposed to not (prior art exists for that).
They themselves are being sued for double touch on the patent for double click.
It seems to me that RIM is in the process of going downhill and fast. At least if they bought $900 million worth of patents, they'd have something to sell off when bankruptcy hits. The trouble is I fear they would just use it to litigate and take a Microsoft approach to technology. That is, not being forward thinking anymore, but running scared and suing anyone with a dime.
Since RIM is dead in the water with its latest offerings, it's going after the "national treasure" so it can liquidate it's capital assets and hire Paul Allen so RIM wil become the continent's leading patent troll.
How sad is it that companies can survive on and waste money on "ideas" which do not even fit the proper definition of property. What monumental waste of productivity and time. The world would be a better place without IP.
Now RIM gets to live on through the purchasing of "ideas" instead of innovating.
Cross-licensing with RIM or whoever wins the patent portfolio may be just as well as owning them outright. Apple's legal staff would need to double in size just to enforce licensing from offenders.
I'd actually like to see someone like Cisco, Juniper Networks, or F5 grab these patents.
What RIMM has, just like GOOG, is identity crisis. Instead of trying to make their business phones better, RIMM is trying to get market shares in the consumer market, which IMO is the wrong move....
Except people only want to carry one phone. They don't want a cumbersome business issued phone and a fun easy to use personal phone. That's just too much stuff to keep track of. That's why businesses opened up to the iPhone. Their employees wanted them and when given a choice tend to choose them over other phones.
I don't think there is a market for 'business' and 'consumer' phones anymore. People want one phone that can do everything. Meet their needs for business as well as personal life.
You're right, companies do change, but Google has been a voice against Patent litigation for quite awhile, and Larry Page even moreso than Schmidt.
And this isn't a "Closed V Open" debate. There are very closed companies, with huge patent portfolios (IBM) that rarely, if ever go after others with lawsuits.
So yes, while they CAN change, there is no way for you to know that they will, and so all we can do is go off of what they're saying now, and what they've done historically.
Ah, the Google/Android astroturfer is back.
But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen. And yes, that is saying a lot, but it's entirely true. As others have pointed out, the reason Google has been a voice against patent litigation is that they have no patent portfolio to speak of. They don't need to "change" to become dangerous, they already are a dangerous, outlaw company. So, no, the world would not be a better place if Google had more patents in its quiver.
So, yes, your line is total bullshit. But, I applaud your chutzpa in trying to pass off such brazen misinformation.
But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen. And yes, that is saying a lot, but it's entirely true. As others have pointed out, the reason Google has been a voice against patent litigation is that they have no patent portfolio to speak of. They don't need to "change" to become dangerous, they already are a dangerous, outlaw company. So, no, the world would not be a better place if Google had more patents in its quiver.
So, yes, your line is total bullshit. But, I applaud your chutzpa in trying to pass off such brazen misinformation.
And again, you make wild claims while providing no evidence. Why is it that you bother replying again?
Sure - just as Google was all in favor of Open software - until it suited their purposes to act otherwise.
And just as Google is in favor of intellectual property rights - until it suits their purposes to act as if copyrights don't exist.
It is still open, as in, they're still releasing the software. The problem is that they allowed a product to launch (Xoom) before the software was finalized for an AOSP build. And yes, that is a problem when it comes to claiming to be "open" But they're not "changing their stance" on what they're doing. They rushed this build to market and it bit them in the ass. Now, if they delay Ice Cream AOSP (or whatever they call it) then we have a problem.
And there's a pretty big difference between "IP" like code, or music, or apps, and "IP" like Apple's "Using a touch screen to unlock a touch screen" patent.
And there's a pretty big difference between "IP" like code, or music, or apps, and "IP" like Apple's "Using a touch screen to unlock a touch screen" patent.
It would be helpful if you bothered to learn something about a topic before commenting on it.
Apple's patent involves a very specific action to a very specific screen function. Before Apple did it, who had the sliding "slide to unlock" function like Apple's?
It would be helpful if you bothered to learn something about a topic before commenting on it.
Apple's patent involves a very specific action to a very specific screen function. Before Apple did it, who had the sliding "slide to unlock" function like Apple's?
No, it's actually not a "Very specific action" They're claiming the entire process of unlocking the touch screen by interacting with the touch screen, save for a simple tap, or using a password (both listed as references)
It's Not just for the "Slide to unlock" option. Apple left the wording vague enough to cover all methods of touch screen unlock, and they named several phones in the lawsuit that used different methods of unlock. And even if it was a "specific" method they were suing for, then the only phones they could name in the lawsuit would be (possibly) those built using AOSP Android 2.0 or higher. Which they didn't.
But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen.
Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to better match the market leader before, have they?......
And before you say that Apple never listens to market forces, look at the iphone4 launch.
..... etc etc
This is blather. No one said that Apple never listens to market forces. You're just making it up -- just like Google, in this business -- as you go along.....
Comments
The main reason entities are "nice" about patents and don't sue unless it's to protect themselves, is because patent suits cost huge amounts of money and are very hard to win, not because of defensive/offensive strategy.
I agree with you. I don't see how that diminishes the differences between offensive/defensive lawsuits.
1) I agree that the only reason that companies (including Apple) don't file more "offensive" patent lawsuits is because it doesn't make financial sense. Like I have said repeatedly in this thread, if it did make financial sense, it would be illegal for the executives to not pursue it. So the fact that Google has not filed many offensive patent lawsuits, is meaningless as to whether they will or will not in the future. They will if it makes financial sense. Just like Apple will, if it makes financial sense for them.
2) The difference between the offensive/defensive lawsuits is that defensive lawsuits would not exist, if the offensive lawsuit had not been filed first. E.g., its highly unlikely Apple would have filed a patent lawsuit against Nokia if Nokia hadn't filed a lawsuit against, precisely because of the reason you mention, i.e., winning a lawsuit against Nokia would cost far more than the settlement they would have won. On the other hand, now that Nokia has filed a lawsuit against them, filing the defensive lawsuit means Apple would have a stronger hand to play in settlement negotiations.
Now, I agree that the moral difference between them is little to none, in my mind (primarily because I don't find filing a patent lawsuit immoral, in the first place, unlike many others). That being said, there is certainly a strategic distinction between the two.
I think its amazing that people still try to deny this.
This was the Dec 2007, Google Android prototype...
http://gizmodo.com/#!334909/google-a...pe-in-the-wild
Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to better match the market leader before, have they?
When Google bought android, Smartphones were business oriented devices and the king of the crop were blackberries/WINMO handsets. (First prototype) Then the iPhone was released and it opened a whole new market for smartphones. Suddenly people were buying devices for the "Cool" factor more than ever before and Apple demonstrated that touch screen's gave some serious advantages in the mobile space.
Then, like EVERY OTHER COMPANY in the HISTORY of corporate competition, Google looked at what their competitors were doing and tried to find how they could take their product (android) and try to match this new market force. Since android wasn't out yet, Google could afford to reconfigure their OS without having to worry about an installed base or backwards compatibility. Blackberry, Palm, and Windows ALL did similar reboots to make their devices more "everyday" consumer friendly. Other new OS's, like MeeGo, also adopted this consumer friendly approach.
Again, this is the NATURE of competition. Your competitor does something that makes them money and starts luring customers, and you do something to try and swing the scales back into your favor.
If the iPhone flopped because customers preferred physical keyboards like on a blackberry, what do you think would happen? Apple would release a physical keyboard phone next year instead of a 3g model of a touchscreen only device. Again, that's competition.
And before you say that Apple never listens to market forces, look at the iphone4 launch.
Remember this ad?
http://youtu.be/GnaAQwGcBks
Look at what the pointed out:
-No physical keyboard = iOS4 allows for iDevices to connect to bluetooth keyboards
-No Multitasking = iOS4 allows for multitasking of third party applications
-No 5 Megapixel Camera-Iphone 4 ads a 5 Megapixel shooter.
-No Customization = iOS4 allows for Folders and Wallpapers
-No Widgets = Apple hasn't implemented this one yet, but no doubt when they do they'll call it magical
-No Open Development = Apple finally officially endorsed applications that were not written natively in iOS, aka Epic games using Unreal Engine. They also allow cross compilers (with stipulations)
-No Camera Flash = iPhone 4 adds a camera
-No swappable Battery = Apple didn't change their stance here, but what they DID do is release a phone and made a point to showcase how much longer their battery lasted.
I'm NOT saying that apple made any changes because of a teaser ad. In fact, I'm sure they didn't. But those are all things that Reviewers and users were pointing out to apple well before and after that commercial aired. Another common issue (screen resolution) was also taken care of by the iPhone4.
I'm not knocking Apple for making those changes. They're what Any company worth their real estate would do. Assessing your competition and making changes to compete with them (or surpass them) is what every company does.
What company would say: Well, Apple was the first one to make a Consumer Smartphone viable, I guess we'll have to just focus on business devices."
Blackberry tried that. And look at how far they've fallen? (and they're now rebooting with QNX)
Jessi, it's not clear at all that Google "stole" multi-touch from Apple. It was more a "line in the sand" drawn by Steve Jobs.
IMO Mr. Jobs was more upset over Google entering the smartphone business at any level. Apple and Google had numerous meetings over Android and it's ongoing development, both before and after the iPhone design was completed. News accounts indicate Apple knew what Google was doing with it, while at the same time Google reportedly felt they had to do what was necessary to prevent their business from being beholden to the goodwill of other market forces, primarily Microsoft at that time. Multi-touch was one feature that Steve Jobs probably felt defined the iPhone user experience.
Unfortunately Apple may have no grounds to claim it's theirs to begin with. Elan, a Taiwanese company, appears to have actually patented that very feature 10 years earlier. And Apple was certain to have been aware of that when they filed their own patent application. In 2006 Synaptics had already been served notice that use of some multi-touch features allegedly violated Elam's patent. And what claim Apple may imagine they hold to other parts of multi-touch may actually be owned by the University of Delaware. Apple's patent was largely dependent on the work of two employees, who had done much of the work in conjunction with the University when they were students there.
True, somebody might have attempted to "steal" the idea behind multi-touch and claim it as their own. But it wasn't Google.
Apple didn't patent multi-touch screens, just their pinch to zoom gesture or the screen scrolling straight as opposed to not (prior art exists for that).
They themselves are being sued for double touch on the patent for double click.
RIM = Really Interested in Moolah.
Now RIM gets to live on through the purchasing of "ideas" instead of innovating.
I'd actually like to see someone like Cisco, Juniper Networks, or F5 grab these patents.
I think its amazing that people still try to deny this.
This was the Dec 2007, Google Android prototype...
http://gizmodo.com/#!334909/google-a...pe-in-the-wild
What if the form factor still made it to production LOL
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US...EN?localeId=33
Hell, why didn't Steve tell 'em "that's a brilliant design. You should go all out with it"
You're right, companies do change, but Google has been a voice against Patent litigation for quite awhile,
Sure - just as Google was all in favor of Open software - until it suited their purposes to act otherwise.
And just as Google is in favor of intellectual property rights - until it suits their purposes to act as if copyrights don't exist.
What RIMM has, just like GOOG, is identity crisis. Instead of trying to make their business phones better, RIMM is trying to get market shares in the consumer market, which IMO is the wrong move....
Except people only want to carry one phone. They don't want a cumbersome business issued phone and a fun easy to use personal phone. That's just too much stuff to keep track of. That's why businesses opened up to the iPhone. Their employees wanted them and when given a choice tend to choose them over other phones.
I don't think there is a market for 'business' and 'consumer' phones anymore. People want one phone that can do everything. Meet their needs for business as well as personal life.
So, no one here ever thought there may be tax and business advantages from one Canadian corporation buying another?
What tax and business advantages? How would it be any different from a US company buying a Canadian company (or vice versa)?
You're right, companies do change, but Google has been a voice against Patent litigation for quite awhile, and Larry Page even moreso than Schmidt.
And this isn't a "Closed V Open" debate. There are very closed companies, with huge patent portfolios (IBM) that rarely, if ever go after others with lawsuits.
So yes, while they CAN change, there is no way for you to know that they will, and so all we can do is go off of what they're saying now, and what they've done historically.
Ah, the Google/Android astroturfer is back.
But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen. And yes, that is saying a lot, but it's entirely true. As others have pointed out, the reason Google has been a voice against patent litigation is that they have no patent portfolio to speak of. They don't need to "change" to become dangerous, they already are a dangerous, outlaw company. So, no, the world would not be a better place if Google had more patents in its quiver.
So, yes, your line is total bullshit. But, I applaud your chutzpa in trying to pass off such brazen misinformation.
Ah, the Google/Android astroturfer is back.
But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen. And yes, that is saying a lot, but it's entirely true. As others have pointed out, the reason Google has been a voice against patent litigation is that they have no patent portfolio to speak of. They don't need to "change" to become dangerous, they already are a dangerous, outlaw company. So, no, the world would not be a better place if Google had more patents in its quiver.
So, yes, your line is total bullshit. But, I applaud your chutzpa in trying to pass off such brazen misinformation.
And again, you make wild claims while providing no evidence. Why is it that you bother replying again?
Oh right, Troll.
Sure - just as Google was all in favor of Open software - until it suited their purposes to act otherwise.
And just as Google is in favor of intellectual property rights - until it suits their purposes to act as if copyrights don't exist.
It is still open, as in, they're still releasing the software. The problem is that they allowed a product to launch (Xoom) before the software was finalized for an AOSP build. And yes, that is a problem when it comes to claiming to be "open" But they're not "changing their stance" on what they're doing. They rushed this build to market and it bit them in the ass. Now, if they delay Ice Cream AOSP (or whatever they call it) then we have a problem.
And there's a pretty big difference between "IP" like code, or music, or apps, and "IP" like Apple's "Using a touch screen to unlock a touch screen" patent.
And there's a pretty big difference between "IP" like code, or music, or apps, and "IP" like Apple's "Using a touch screen to unlock a touch screen" patent.
It would be helpful if you bothered to learn something about a topic before commenting on it.
Apple's patent involves a very specific action to a very specific screen function. Before Apple did it, who had the sliding "slide to unlock" function like Apple's?
It would be helpful if you bothered to learn something about a topic before commenting on it.
Apple's patent involves a very specific action to a very specific screen function. Before Apple did it, who had the sliding "slide to unlock" function like Apple's?
No, it's actually not a "Very specific action" They're claiming the entire process of unlocking the touch screen by interacting with the touch screen, save for a simple tap, or using a password (both listed as references)
This is the patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,657,849
It's Not just for the "Slide to unlock" option. Apple left the wording vague enough to cover all methods of touch screen unlock, and they named several phones in the lawsuit that used different methods of unlock. And even if it was a "specific" method they were suing for, then the only phones they could name in the lawsuit would be (possibly) those built using AOSP Android 2.0 or higher. Which they didn't.
Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to copy the market leader before, have they?
There. Fixed it for you. And I agree with this wholeheartedly
But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen.
Careful. You might break his heart.
Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to better match the market leader before, have they?......
And before you say that Apple never listens to market forces, look at the iphone4 launch.
..... etc etc
This is blather. No one said that Apple never listens to market forces. You're just making it up -- just like Google, in this business -- as you go along.....