Years of patent suit losses prompted Apple to strike back with iPhone filings
Apple's patent filings and subsequent attacks related to the iPhone were reportedly a part of a "deliberate decision over the last decade," stemming from its own losses in intellectual property lawsuits.
It was Apple's own defeats in such legal battles, particularly a $100 million settlement with Creative Technology over a patent for a "portable music playback device," that prompted company co-founder Steve Jobs to focus on filing patents, according to a profile published by The New York Times.
In 2006, when Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone, Jobs declared in a meeting with his senior managers: "We're going to patent it all." Afterward, the company's engineers participated in monthly "invention disclosure sessions," in which virtually any idea was deemed to be a patent by lawyers.
One unnamed former Apple lawyer revealed that the company decided it would file for patent applications "even if we knew it wouldn't get approved."
When the first iPhone was unveiled in 2007, one bulleted feature highlighted by Jobs was simply: "Patented!" When explaining multi-touch technology to the Macworld audience, Jobs declared "And boy have we patented it," prompting laughter and applause.
In April, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook revealed he would rather settle litigation than fight in court. However, he also declared his company will defend its intellectual property.
"Apple has always stood for innovation," the company said in a statement. "To protect our inventions, we have patented many of the new technologies in these groundbreaking and category-defining products. In the rare cases when we take legal action over a patent dispute, it's only as a last resort. We think companies should dream up their own products rather than willfully copying ours, and in August a jury in California reached the same conclusion."
However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products.
Monday's report is the latest in the Times' ongoing "iEconomy" series. The full series, which began in January, can be viewed here.
It was Apple's own defeats in such legal battles, particularly a $100 million settlement with Creative Technology over a patent for a "portable music playback device," that prompted company co-founder Steve Jobs to focus on filing patents, according to a profile published by The New York Times.
In 2006, when Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone, Jobs declared in a meeting with his senior managers: "We're going to patent it all." Afterward, the company's engineers participated in monthly "invention disclosure sessions," in which virtually any idea was deemed to be a patent by lawyers.
One unnamed former Apple lawyer revealed that the company decided it would file for patent applications "even if we knew it wouldn't get approved."
When the first iPhone was unveiled in 2007, one bulleted feature highlighted by Jobs was simply: "Patented!" When explaining multi-touch technology to the Macworld audience, Jobs declared "And boy have we patented it," prompting laughter and applause.
In April, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook revealed he would rather settle litigation than fight in court. However, he also declared his company will defend its intellectual property.
"Apple has always stood for innovation," the company said in a statement. "To protect our inventions, we have patented many of the new technologies in these groundbreaking and category-defining products. In the rare cases when we take legal action over a patent dispute, it's only as a last resort. We think companies should dream up their own products rather than willfully copying ours, and in August a jury in California reached the same conclusion."
However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products.
Monday's report is the latest in the Times' ongoing "iEconomy" series. The full series, which began in January, can be viewed here.
Comments
One unnamed former Apple lawyer revealed that the company decided it would file for patent applications "even if we knew it wouldn't get approved."[/QUOTE]
SMART.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
"In 2006, when Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone, Jobs declared in a meeting with his senior managers: "We're going to patent it all." Afterward, the company's engineers participated in monthly "invention disclosure sessions," in which virtually any idea was deemed to be a patent by lawyers."
One unnamed former Apple lawyer revealed that the company decided it would file for patent applications "even if we knew it wouldn't get approved."
That highlights why the filing of a patent application by someone doesn't mean all competitors should stop work on anything similar.
So? That's standard practice.
It costs a few thousand dollars to file for a patent. If you have a technology that you know won't be approved, it can make sense to file for the patent. When the patent office rejects your patent on grounds of prior art, that gives you an enormous edge if someone sues you for the technology later. You pull out the USPTO decision that says it was not patentable.
Even in a much smaller company than Apple, we sometimes filed for patents that we know would be difficult or impossible to defend. It gives you leverage over the competition and adds one barrier that many competitors would not climb.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=1
Nice straw man. No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar.
They should, however, refrain from making slavish copies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Nice straw man. No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar.
They should, however, refrain from making slavish copies.
Strawman? Strawman for what?
As an aside didn't you yourself make a lengthy post one day about how easy it was for companies to search for patent applications, and that you yourself had done just that? You also advised that companies should avoid working on projects that other companies had already filed patent applications for IIRC. I'll go back and find the posts if need be if you want to deny saying so.
EDIT: I'm correct of course. I had asked:
"Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. . . The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved... assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place."
and your quote in answer:
"Reputable companies do not work on things that they know violate someone else's patents. I can understand why the concept of a 'reputable company' would be confusing to you and Google.
In the real world, it happens all the time. Companies of any significant size get regular reports of patent abstracts in their field. Obviously, no one would suggest that you search 500,000 patent applications every year, but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application (or, you can dig up prior art to show that you were there first). You might also get some ideas for ways around the patent which would not fall under the claims of the patent but might accomplish the same thing. My company had only about 50 employees. If we could afford a Nerac abstract, I'm sure that both Google and Samsung could. Again, reputable companies stay on top of what's happening in the world and make an effort not to violate others' intellectual property."
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151081/google-prepping-software-patch-to-help-samsung-dodge-galaxy-nexus-injunction/40#post_2140229
This is however, quite sad, and we all lose now...
"However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Strawman? Strawman for what?
Perhaps "strawman" was not the right word -- the phrase "rewrite history" probably better describes what he had in mind -- but I think he was probably referring to the likely intended implication of your post: that Google shouldn't have "stopped" work on Android just because Apple filed for patents. (You can deny that was your intention, but given your job and posting history, it's not a big leap of logic to understand where you are coming from.)
So, just so your "idea" doesn't gain any unwarranted traction, let's review: Google bought and began work on an OS project named "Android", a Blackberry knockoff with no resemblance to Android today, prior to Apple's announcement of the iPhone. After Apple's announcement of the iPhone, Google, then, started work on an entirely new project, also named Android, but bearing no more resemblance to the original "Android" project than a Blackberry did to the original iPhone in 2007 -- i.e., none.
The logical, and most likely intentioned, implication of your post is that, "It's all well and fine that Apple filed for these patents, but that doesn't mean Google should have stopped work on Android." The flaw in your implied argument is that it depends on a sleight of hand regarding the name "Android" where it's pretended that the "Android" of January 2007 is the direct ancestor of today's Android. Despite the fact that both have the same name, that's just not true. So, in fact, Google wouldn't have need to stop work on anything if they had continued on their previous course. What in fact happened was that Google immediately started copying iOS and the iPhone, after Apple did all the heavy lifting themselves, as quickly as they could, even though they knew Apple was patenting those technologies and would likely receive a substantial number of significant patents based on them.
Google simply didn't care whether the technology would be patented or not. Just like they don't care whether WebM is patent encumbered or not. They weren't going to bear the brunt of the risk anyway. They just did what they always do: steal, copy, give it away.
I am glad apple is patenting everything , but Apple is not the only company doing this, Qualcomm has had the mentality since day one, you call in their building and the have patents they have been awarded hanging on all the walls.
And that is what is wrong with the patent world we live in. I know they're doing what is necessary to protect themselves but that is what makes it sad. i don't have a solution, just thinking that all that money could be so much more productive elsewhere.
Originally Posted by emig647
This is however, quite sad, and we all lose now...
"However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products."
Originally Posted by MarquisMark
And that is what is wrong with the patent world we live in. I know they're doing what is necessary to protect themselves but that is what makes it sad. i don't have a solution, just thinking that all that money could be so much more productive elsewhere.
So basically, "Innovate, don't litigate," when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
So you're claim is that you don't know the difference between "work on something similar" and "work on things that they KNOW violate someone else's patents"?
I'll buy that. Your posts here indicate that even simple concepts often elude you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So you're claim is that you don't know the difference between "work on something similar" and "work on things that they KNOW violate someone else's patents"?
I'll buy that. Your posts here indicate that even simple concepts often elude you.
You were very obviously posting about patent applications in general, which speaks directly to the post you seem to take issue with. It also disproves what you said in post 5:
Quote: "No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar."
"...but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application"
BTW, how do you infringe on someone else's application?
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
This is however, quite sad, and we all lose now...
"However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products."
You do understand that purchasing patents means buying companies that have patents they want? Google paid $12.5 billion for Motorola last year
For those that haven't read the entire article, it's absolutely worth a few minutes time to do so IMO
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
Quote:
When the first iPhone was unveiled in 2007, one bulleted feature highlighted by Jobs was simply: "Patented!" When explaining multi-touch technology to the Macworld audience, Jobs declared "And boy have we patented it," prompting laughter and applause.
One of the defining aspects of Apple's history is the widespread belief that Apple's inventions in the 1980s were stolen by Microsoft. Everyone in that audience who laughed and applauded understood what Jobs was referring to. It is outrageous that something similar is happening again, and some of the blame goes to Jobs in my opinion. Schmidt should not have been on the board, or should have been kicked to the curb much earlier than he was.
Originally Posted by shadash
One of the defining aspects of Apple's history is the widespread fact that Apple's inventions in the 1980s were stolen by Microsoft.
Fixed, but yes, agreed. It's astonishing that something didn't happen to Schmidt personally, really. A black eye, even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products.
Sad, just like how some countries manage to waste big-time money (and human lives) on wars when they are teetering with economic problems back home.
We need some real reforms.
Originally Posted by spacerays
We need some real reforms.