Netbook maker Acer accuses Apple of starting 'patent war'

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iaeen View Post


    In this case however, is there really anyone who can claim with a straight face that Apple didn't revolutionize the way we think of smartphones



    They absolutely did, but much of the IP that they're litigating with isn't based on that - it's core computer stuff that they patented in the 90s during the software patent gold-rush.



    It's been discussed in the other IP threads, but it bears repeating. Apple is effectively defending the innovation that they really did make using IP that is only tangentially related and that is almost impossible to avoid infringing because the really profound things about the new products were for one reason or another not patentable.



    Quote:

    (whereas the patent trolls have never revolutionized anything at all)



    Kodak and S3 both did in their day - and besides the moment people start portraying this as being about 'ownership' or 'property rights' the distinction between innovation and troll disappears.
  • Reply 62 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Google didn't produce phones (any hardware at all in fact) and had no real control over who would use it or when they'd have their designs ready. So the observation that it took a few months for manufacturers to recognize the value in getting into the smartphone market, and only after Apple was showing success, should be no surprise. Android was ready before the handset manufacturer's that would use it were convinced it was worth pursuing. So the "18 month delay" is no indication at all that it was due to Google trying to copy/steal from Apple.



    Okay, granted... but now you've gone and said that Apple was the point man... Google was just sitting back letting others do the heavy lifting. I think Apple should get some cred for that...
  • Reply 63 of 146
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ... Wang pointed out that the player, which started the patent war, wants either money or market influence and should consider any related losses as costs of doing business ...



    All tech companies want "either money or market influence." Acer certainly would have done the same if they could have.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ... It's also been suggested that Apple could collect a lucrative royalty rate from Android device makers, similar to the $5-per-unit fee Microsoft allegedly collects from HTC. ...



    And exactly why is it that Android is becoming 1) more and more expensive to license despite being "free" and 2) the target of many successful lawsuits, particularly the airtight Oracle suit? I think it's because of a certain corporate character trait that is deeply embedded in Google's culture.



    Google was born and bred on the web. They grew very accustomed to quickly updating their web pages and apps. It's quick and easy to push out updates to your web servers, so they banged out updates and "beta" features as quickly as possible. If there were bugs or design problems, they could fix them later in an equally quick and easy update. Why wait to get it right?



    That fast and loose approach has allowed Google's web apps to grow quickly. But it has also caused Google to paint Android into a corner. By not doing sufficient due diligence and by not protecting themselves legally, they have left their flank exposed. Wide open to attack.



    The same impatience and/or indifference caused their music locker service to end up as little more than a remote disk farm. Google couldn't or wouldn't spend the time and money to massage the record labels into an agreement. And caused them to lose the bidding war for all those vital Nortel patents. And caused them to release the poorly designed remix of WebTV called Google TV.



    One reason for this is the fact that Google's real product isn't software. Or hardware. It's ads. You are Google's product, and they sell your eyeballs on AdMob ads to their customers. Advertisers. And when you look at it from that perspective, developing great software and hardware isn't necessary after all.
  • Reply 64 of 146
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    Holding a finger down for any giving amount of time, is not multi-touch. Multi-touch means more than one point of contact. What you're describing can be done with a mouse and was years before that in Mac OS.



    You're absolutely correct. Thanks for the correction. It's not clear whether Google was shopping around a multi-touch prototype. I'd have to see if I can find more on that.
  • Reply 65 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Actually it was multi-touch, but the long press that Android now uses to bring up menu's instead was used to zoom in.

    ...



    Total BS.



    Al through 2006 Google was looking into getting in the telephone business, while simultaneously strenuously denying it was. it showed various devices to manufacturers, none of which was "multi-touch" and from the sources I've been able to find, it wasn't capacitive touch either but an old school Windows Mobile type touch device.



    *After* Apple announced the multi-touch iPhone they switch gears and within a few months got some partners and created the "Open Handset Alliance" which was by their own description focussed on creating an "answer" to the iPhone. In other words an open source copy of the iPhone.



    In other words, Google was deliberately deceptive about getting into the phone business while Schmidt sat on the Apple board and soaked up all the info about the iPhone. They didn't at that time know what the iPhone was going to be like, (or if Schmidt did he was under NDA), but they were already set on copying it whatever it turned out to be. As soon as it became public knowledge that the iPhone was this revolutionary multi-touch device, they immediately switched to attempting to copy that and to rally the entire industry or as much as they could of it, to fight against Apple.



    These are all known facts that anyone can look up.



    Google and particularly Schmidt did everything they could to copy the iPhone short of actually breaking the law. Before Apple's board started talking about it, Google had no plans to enter the market. Schmidt however seems to have been actively looking into the phone business in early 2006, probably because as a member of the board he knew where Apple was about to jump. When asked even a month previous to the announcement of the iPhone, Google denied being interested in phones, and denied that they were thinking of making a Phone OS. They only got started to be interested in phones when they saw that Apple was going to be.



    The second the info about multi-touch was public, Schmidt's NDA no longer applied and the copying of the multi-touch interface began in earnest. Facts.
  • Reply 66 of 146
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    Okay, granted... but now you've gone and said that Apple was the point man... Google was just sitting back letting others do the heavy lifting. I think Apple should get some cred for that...



    As far as the handset manufacturers were concerned, you're probably correct that Apple was taking point. It doesn't mean that Google was just "sitting back" tho. They reportedly had an interest in entering the mobile space years before they could convince a manufacturer or two to join in. Take a look at the timeline link I posted earlier if you haven't already.



    BTW, there's a smartphone history posted here. Interesting read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History
  • Reply 67 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    I think it is simpler than you want to make it - as simple as the concept of ownership. If I own something, then I retain the right to allow you to use it on whatever terms I want to establish, or to not allow you to use it at all. Why? Because it is mine - it belongs to me. Your inability to come to terms with my ownership is not grounds for me to consider surrendering it.



    Except ownership in the patent world is simply never that clear. There can be many reasons why the patent is invalid or inapplicable. This is why Apple chooses to fight so many infringement cases against it - not because it wants to 'steal'. Google can make the same case in many of these instances.



    This is why the law doesn't class infringing patents as theft.
  • Reply 68 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    As far as the handset manufacturers were concerned, you're probably correct that Apple was taking point. It doesn't mean that Google was just "sitting back" tho. They reportedly had an interest in entering the mobile space years before they could convince a manufacturer or two to join in. Take a look at the timeline link I posted earlier if you haven't already.



    BTW, there's a smartphone history posted here. Interesting read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History



    Oh... I've read all of that backwards and forwards... it still doesn't tell me who knew what and when... or how.



    As mentioned... I'll leave that up to the courts.



    HTC and Acer should listen to themselves... and innovate instead of bitching.
  • Reply 69 of 146
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


    What Schmidt and Wang have shown us is that Apple has a much stronger IP claim then most of us thought and they are terrified.



    This sums it all up.
  • Reply 70 of 146
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Kodak and S3 both did in their day



    Fair enough. I'm not going to apply a double standard. If Apple infringed on IP they deserve to be taken to court and to pay. I'm just trying to argue against the claim that the existence of patent trolls proves that the patent system is evil/its all hopeless/there is no such thing as IP.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    and besides the moment people start portraying this as being about 'ownership' or 'property rights' the distinction between innovation and troll disappears.



    Not so. Patent trolls exist by patenting ideas that require no thought because they are broad/obvious, and therefore don't deserve to be patented. The distinction is that the patent trolls try to own something they didn't create (or buy), or that doesn't exist.
  • Reply 71 of 146
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    I think the lameness of Acer's response points to a problem in the Android universe-- most of the hardware parters are market "losers" who participated in the PC race to the bottom and whose business model is predicated on razor thin margins and volume.



    As such, they're not well positioned to spend any real money on R&D, and their contribution to the mobile space is going to be limited to dropping in current parts and minor case variations. What counts for "innovation" in the Android market are things like the Asus Transformer, which simply bundles a clip-on keyboard.



    Acer cannot actually compete with Apple in any meaningful way; all they can do is hope Google keeps doing popular things with Android and try to shave a few more pennies off their selling price. Beyond that, they'll dick around with case design and put mega giga on the box every time they upgrade another commodity part. Their current bellyaching is a testament to that-- they would prefer to live in a world where they can make a comfortable living as a parts assembler operating in the markets Apple creates and we all agree to pretend touch phones and tablet designs just sort of fall out of the sky. In this, they are sadly typical of Android hardware partners.
  • Reply 72 of 146
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Apple (add MS too) is trying their their best to litigate Android out of existence rather than let normal market forces rule.



    Apple can't just let normal market forces rule. Ripped-off copies of the intellectual property they worked so hard to develop have entered the market.
  • Reply 73 of 146
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    As far as the handset manufacturers were concerned, you're probably correct that Apple was taking point. It doesn't mean that Google was just "sitting back" tho. They reportedly had an interest in entering the mobile space years before they could convince a manufacturer or two to join in. Take a look at the timeline link I posted earlier if you haven't already.



    BTW, there's a smartphone history posted here. Interesting read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History



    This isn't about when Google decided to enter the phone industry; this is about Google stealing Apples innovative features/design.



    Google's innocence rests on a claim that they developed these features/designs independently from Apple, but to suppose that would be to suppose that Google was writing software to run on hardware that did not exist outside of Apple's labs.
  • Reply 74 of 146
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Every firm inevitably infringes on patents when they produce a new product, it's probably impossible at this point to avoid it because Patents have been allowed that are insanely broad or obvious in light of prior art.



    True, and when a complaint is heard and a supporting judgment is made, as in, for example, the ruling against Apple in the Nokia case or the playlist patent case you referred to, the offending companies pay up and shut up. Or, if you are in the Android Army, you whine & cry about it.



    Thompson
  • Reply 75 of 146
    nobodyynobodyy Posts: 377member
    To be honest, when Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 they said they patented the hell out of it, so one could easily expect lawsuits for clones.



    Apple does seem to be going all out, I'm sure they'll just license out their patents instead of injunctions, though. It was just later (when the patents were granted) than sooner that Apple would actually start suing others for their intellectual property, I guess.
  • Reply 76 of 146
    I'm sure Acer would be more than happy to create IOS tablets but Apple has a monopoly on their software and hardware. How is it that Microsoft gets sued for bundling their software and viewed as anti-competitive yet Apple gets away with it all the time?
  • Reply 77 of 146
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Al through 2006 Google was looking into getting in the telephone business, while simultaneously strenuously denying it was.



    They had no plans to produce a phone, and of course they'd deny rumors about what their actual plans were as much as possible. Apple's denied several things that actually were in the works. But there's also no way that Apple was unaware that Google had plans for a mobile OS. My personal feeling is that Apple/Steve Jobs wanted to keep Google close to make sure they knew what they were up to. That's why Schmidt was invited to the board. IMO, it's was Apple's idea to mine Google, not the other way around.



    If you read the timeline posted again here, I think it may be clearer:

    http://searchengineland.com/gphone-t...timeline-10996
  • Reply 78 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iaeen View Post


    Fair enough. I'm not going to apply a double standard. If Apple infringed on IP they deserve to be taken to court and to pay. I'm just trying to argue against the claim that the existence of patent trolls proves that the patent system is evil/its all hopeless/there is no such thing as IP.



    The entire patent system may not be evil/hopeless. Just the software patent part, especially in the US.



    Quote:

    Not so. Patent trolls exist by patenting ideas that require no thought because they are broad/obvious, and therefore don't deserve to be patented. The distinction is that the patent trolls try to own something they didn't create (or buy), or that doesn't exist.



    If you are a software developer, and you read some of Apple's patents such as the '647 patent, it's very hard not to come to the same conclusion.



    It's understandable why practising entities such as Apple and MS would choose to act in the same fashion as the trolls. By doing so they develop large IP arsenals that can be used both in offense or defence. That doesn't make it something that I want to cheer for though.



    The only real difference between much of Apple's IP and say Personal Audio LLC's, is that Apple wouldn't use their patents against a small player and PA LLC would.
  • Reply 79 of 146
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by phoebetech View Post


    I'm sure Acer would be more than happy to create IOS tablets but Apple has a monopoly on their software and hardware. How is it that Microsoft gets sued for bundling their software and viewed as anti-competitive yet Apple gets away with it all the time?



    Are you an out of work employee from Psystar...
  • Reply 80 of 146
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iaeen View Post


    Google's innocence rests on a claim that they developed these features/designs independently from Apple, but to suppose that would be to suppose that Google was writing software to run on hardware that did not exist outside of Apple's labs.



    Legally speaking, for patents that is not the case. Independent creation would only immunise them from copyright infringement.



    As to it being impossible that Google would create software that couldn't run on anything that existed, that's silly. MS has done that plenty of times - that's what emulators are for. You can be quite sure that Apple had the iPhone version of iOS running on emulation long before they had any hardware that could run it natively.
Sign In or Register to comment.