I think a big part of Apple's lawsuits are to illustrate that Apple is an innovator and Samsung, et al, are followers. This message plays with large customers, like government, education, and business enterprise customers. Such customers tend to sign up with a vendor (Apple versus Samsung in this case) and stick with that vendor through multiple product cycles. An such customers care about who innovates and is able to bring leading edge technologies to products without things going all pear shaped in the process. Apple is defending not just its intellectual property from theft, but also its status as a leading innovator that creates solid products.
No argument here. I'm not against Apple defending its IP — in fact I'm always in favour of people defending what they feel is right — I just don't care enough to get worked up over these giants fighting when the end result for me will be minimal, at best. Win or lose I don't think the technology I use or the value of my stocks will be affected by any noticeable amount in the long term. I would like laws changed and the patent and copyrights systems reformed to include a special section for code to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future but I'm not the person that can do that.
You should care, because the day we're left with only 2-3 choices will be a sad one for us as consumers.
Funny you mention that... because I believe we would have even MORE choices if those companies weren't able to just copy anything they feel like. They would be tasked instead with coming out with something innovative themselves.
Heck... who knows what great ideas are at Samsung engineering, that won't see the light of day because the marketing/sales department said it all has to all look and work like Apple?
Instead... we get 1 iPhone, 10 wannabe iPhones, and "Sorry...late to the party but we'll catch up some day because we can't compete like this" device.
Two points in an attempt to take it back to the original post (probably fruitless).
First, the material presented above, showing the dramatic shift in Google's Android development, about the time of Apple's iPhone release, would appear to strongly contradict Hiroshi Locheimer's testimony last week. Specifically where his statements were paraphrased: "He noted that the team of engineers working on the project made a concerted effort to make Android a discrete operating system."
Second, to those that say that Samsung did not develop Android and they should not be sued, wrong. First, that's wrong. They are benefitting from the use of unlicensed, patented (like it or not) for which no licensing fee was paid. Second, as various documents previously reported by AI show, Samsung blatantly copied (and overlayed on their implementation of Android) UI features (e.g., data detectors, slide to lock) patented by Apple. Google may have developed Android but each manufacturer added it's own code to it.
Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google. It has to do with an element of patent law termed Indirect Infringement.
First, let's speak about direct infringement:
Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents. However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.
Now let's discuss indirect infringement.
If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this. Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.
Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages.
Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.
Rubin and these Google people sound like really bad folks. Just wonderin why Apple, the most sue happy tech company on earth never went after these varmints.
I'll even go further to say that even if Samsung gets hit with a multi billion dollar fine it will still have made business sense to have gone the unethical route. The companies that did the honorable thing are barely surviving. I'm in no way advocating what Samsung did, but one can't argue with the numbers Samsung has posted earnings wise.
The other manufacturers need to get their act together and offer some stability in build quality, and product release dates. I truly believe that if they follow that formula they'll be able to gain market share from Samsung, and be able to show some profit.
And doesn't that just put a nasty monkey wrench into your "consumer choice" engine?
This is why I'm scared, because this behavior will have been worth it and demonstrably so! Kill 2 (or more) birds with one stone principle.
Profits = check; killed previous closest competition = check; "doom" the innovator into making another device we can steal unimpeded = check and mate!
Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google. It has to do with an element of patent law termed I<span style="color:rgb(63,69,73);line-height:1.4em;">ndirect Infringement. </span>
First, let's speak about direct infringement:
<span style="color:rgb(63,69,73);line-height:1.4em;">Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents. However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.</span>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);margin-bottom:15px;">If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this. Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.</p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);">Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages. </p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);"> </p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);">Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.</p>
You've completely left out induced infringement which could apply to Google's offer of Android as the OS. Nice write-up tho. Still doesn't make business sense that Apple would not have gone after Google immediately upon Android's public release if infringement of Apple IP was so clear and convincing. It would have nipped everything in the bud and avoided a whole lot of litigation IMHO if Apple had sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It's not like they haven't had Google's source code for several years now.
Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google. It has to do with an element of patent law termed I<span style="color:rgb(63,69,73);line-height:1.4em;">ndirect Infringement. </span>
First, let's speak about direct infringement:
<span style="color:rgb(63,69,73);line-height:1.4em;">Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents. However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.</span>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);margin-bottom:15px;">If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this. Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.</p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);">Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages. </p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);"> </p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);">Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.</p>
All fine and dandy but Samsung directly infringed on Apple's intellectual property and that is what the case is about, at least with respect to slide to lock and data detectors. That was the primary point of my post.
It would be interesting to see Samsung try to blame Google and claim damages. Despite the enormous chutzpah in doing so, I bet it would be difficult to do it successfully. It isn't as if the technology infringed upon was an unknown, fringe component no one ever heard about.
I think Steve should have mentioned the fact that it was also a mobile applications device in addition to the other three. That would have been even more impactful in his presentation.
Ah, so then you're saying if Schmidt was evil or at least unethical in stayin on at Apple for so long then Levinson was also for staying on at Google, and Bill Campbell was evil/unethical going back and forth "advising" both. Fair enough. So why are two unethical people still allowed to serve on Apple's board?
If there is the potential that Apple could have used Levinson or Campbell to glean information on any of Google's secret plans, then yes, it would be unethical for either to remain on Apple's board. As far as I am aware, this is not the case and further, Google is not so very secret at all about its plans; it puts most of its efforts into public beta quite early in the development process. Apple created their own Maps app, but not before Google Maps had been on the market, in view inspect able view of everyone around the world, for years. So there could be little suggestion that Apple used a mole to garner information about the Google maps technology, by way of example. You should have a suspicion of fire before commencing to yell about it.
You've completely left out induced infringement which could apply to Google's offer of Android as the OS. Nice write-up tho. Still doesn't make business sense that Apple would not have gone after Google immediately upon Android's public release if infringement of Apple IP was so clear and convincing. It would have nipped everything in the bud and avoided a whole lot of litigation IMHO if Apple had sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It's not like they haven't had Google's source code for several years now.
A judge might not have allowed the case to go forward. To bring suit, you must show that you have been harmed. And harm is a relative thing; for a company the size of Apple, even the size of Apple in 2008, harm representing some potential future loss that even Apple would not have been able to estimate, might not have gotten the case before a jury.
All fine and dandy but Samsung directly infringed on Apple's intellectual property and that is what the case is about, at least with respect to slide to lock and data detectors. That was the primary point of my post.
It would be interesting to see Samsung try to blame Google and claim damages. Despite the enormous chutzpah in doing so, I bet it would be difficult to do it successfully. It isn't as if the technology infringed upon was an unknown, fringe component no one ever heard about.
I wasn't criticizing your post, but rather adding color to it. And in the eyes of the law, infringement, whether direct or indirect, implies the same damages. Apple, by bringing suit against Samsung, needs only present what evidence it has of infringement, some of which will be represented in Android and some represented by what Samsung added to Android. Samsung is liable for both as it's the company producing the handsets targeted by the lawsuit. The indirect infringement angle merely allows Samsung a potential course of action to recover against Google for those aspects of the infringed IP that exist within the technology provided by Google. My point was that Apple acted rationally in suing Samsung given that it could capture all of the infringing technology regardless of the source. And my point was that it seems odd that Mueller, for his part, left out any mention of why Apple would direct its case against Samsung rather than Google. He left that point hanging; a point which left unspoken falls in favor of Samsung in the court of public opinion.
Try studying all the smart phones pre iPhone, read what Google's plans were to have been and so on. Then look at the earth shattering effect iPhone had on the industry. Then look at all the smart phones after iPhone. Maybe not to you, but to me, the 'obvious' way to use a touch screen, in the way iOS did back then, seems to have evaded everyone but Steve Jobs.
The patent system has a practical viewpoint on what is obvious. If there's a real problem that's been around for awhile, and no one else has come up with your solution, then it isn't obvious.
BTW, a lot of people at Apple deserve credit for coming up with good ideas, not just Steve Jobs.
That is if you're the only company to choose from.
I agree but as a consumer I'd prefer choice even if I never intend in choosing something else.
This post reminds my of the Death or Mambo joke.
Two sailors from a shipwreck wash up on a tropical island and are immediately taken into custody by the local tribesmen. Brought before the chief, they are accused of violating the tribe's sacred ground. The chief offers each man a choice of punishment. "You must choose. Death. Or Mambo." The first man to be given this choice looks at the other, then back at the chief. Knowing he really has only one choice open to him, he sheepishly states, "I choose Mambo." There's a uproar among the villagers as the first sailor is bend over a log and repeatedly sodomized by one after another of the village men. The chief then turns to the second sailor, a rather strong looking young fellow who has been looking on aghast at the proceedings. "Now you must choose. Death. Or Mambo." This sailor wastes no time in his reply. He puts out his chest and defiantly states, "I choose Death!" to which the chief replies...
If there is the potential that Apple could have used Levinson or Campbell to glean information on any of Google's secret plans, then yes, it would be unethical for either to remain on Apple's board. As far as I am aware, this is not the case
As far as I know it's not the case with Schmidt either. There's as much evidence that Schmidt acted unethically as there is for Levinson or Campbell. In effect zero unless you count FTC concerns over the sharing of directors.
So I know it's a popular theory that Schmidt was stealing from Apple, put out there by a small number of Apple fans. Do you have any independent reports that show Schmidt stealing from Apple, or any Apple statements to that effect? If not is it logical for you to be so anxious to believe it happened despite any evidence for it, or could it instead be more an emotional response?
As far as I know it's not the case with Schmidt either. There's as much evidence that Schmidt acted unethically as there is for Levinson or Campbell. In effect zero unless you count FTC concerns over the sharing of directors.
So I know it's a popular theory that Schmidt was stealing from Apple, put out there by a small number of Apple fans. Do you have any independent reports that show Schmidt stealing from Apple, or any Apple statements to that effect? If not is it logical for you to be so anxious to believe it happened despite any evidence for it, or could it instead be more an emotional response?
Go back and read my posts. Nowhere do I infer that Schmidt was stealing from Apple. That's the reason I brought up the issue of ethics. I believe it's unethical for him to have remained on the Apple board during a time when Apple was developing the iPhone and Android subsequently switched direction to fast-follow the iPhone interaction model. Just as a person who could be seen as having a conflict of interest bows out of a negotiation or other situation even if that person's ethics are unassailable and that person would never allow such conflict to come into play. It's optics and it's the right thing to do. And yet, Schmidt did not inform Apple that Google was engaged in fast-following the iPhone interaction model and Schmidt did not instead step down from the Apple board during this critical period in the development of the two companies' products.
Comments
No argument here. I'm not against Apple defending its IP — in fact I'm always in favour of people defending what they feel is right — I just don't care enough to get worked up over these giants fighting when the end result for me will be minimal, at best. Win or lose I don't think the technology I use or the value of my stocks will be affected by any noticeable amount in the long term. I would like laws changed and the patent and copyrights systems reformed to include a special section for code to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future but I'm not the person that can do that.
Funny you mention that... because I believe we would have even MORE choices if those companies weren't able to just copy anything they feel like. They would be tasked instead with coming out with something innovative themselves.
Heck... who knows what great ideas are at Samsung engineering, that won't see the light of day because the marketing/sales department said it all has to all look and work like Apple?
Instead... we get 1 iPhone, 10 wannabe iPhones, and "Sorry...late to the party but we'll catch up some day because we can't compete like this" device.
Wow... what a choice... :no:
Two points in an attempt to take it back to the original post (probably fruitless).
First, the material presented above, showing the dramatic shift in Google's Android development, about the time of Apple's iPhone release, would appear to strongly contradict Hiroshi Locheimer's testimony last week. Specifically where his statements were paraphrased: "He noted that the team of engineers working on the project made a concerted effort to make Android a discrete operating system."
Second, to those that say that Samsung did not develop Android and they should not be sued, wrong. First, that's wrong. They are benefitting from the use of unlicensed, patented (like it or not) for which no licensing fee was paid. Second, as various documents previously reported by AI show, Samsung blatantly copied (and overlayed on their implementation of Android) UI features (e.g., data detectors, slide to lock) patented by Apple. Google may have developed Android but each manufacturer added it's own code to it.
Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google. It has to do with an element of patent law termed Indirect Infringement.
First, let's speak about direct infringement:
Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents. However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.
Now let's discuss indirect infringement.
If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this. Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.
Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages.
Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.
Priceless.
And doesn't that just put a nasty monkey wrench into your "consumer choice" engine?
This is why I'm scared, because this behavior will have been worth it and demonstrably so! Kill 2 (or more) birds with one stone principle.
Profits = check; killed previous closest competition = check; "doom" the innovator into making another device we can steal unimpeded = check and mate!
You've completely left out induced infringement which could apply to Google's offer of Android as the OS. Nice write-up tho. Still doesn't make business sense that Apple would not have gone after Google immediately upon Android's public release if infringement of Apple IP was so clear and convincing. It would have nipped everything in the bud and avoided a whole lot of litigation IMHO if Apple had sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It's not like they haven't had Google's source code for several years now.
It would be interesting to see Samsung try to blame Google and claim damages. Despite the enormous chutzpah in doing so, I bet it would be difficult to do it successfully. It isn't as if the technology infringed upon was an unknown, fringe component no one ever heard about.
I think Steve should have mentioned the fact that it was also a mobile applications device in addition to the other three. That would have been even more impactful in his presentation.
Ah, so then you're saying if Schmidt was evil or at least unethical in stayin on at Apple for so long then Levinson was also for staying on at Google, and Bill Campbell was evil/unethical going back and forth "advising" both. Fair enough. So why are two unethical people still allowed to serve on Apple's board?
If there is the potential that Apple could have used Levinson or Campbell to glean information on any of Google's secret plans, then yes, it would be unethical for either to remain on Apple's board. As far as I am aware, this is not the case and further, Google is not so very secret at all about its plans; it puts most of its efforts into public beta quite early in the development process. Apple created their own Maps app, but not before Google Maps had been on the market, in view inspect able view of everyone around the world, for years. So there could be little suggestion that Apple used a mole to garner information about the Google maps technology, by way of example. You should have a suspicion of fire before commencing to yell about it.
You've completely left out induced infringement which could apply to Google's offer of Android as the OS. Nice write-up tho. Still doesn't make business sense that Apple would not have gone after Google immediately upon Android's public release if infringement of Apple IP was so clear and convincing. It would have nipped everything in the bud and avoided a whole lot of litigation IMHO if Apple had sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It's not like they haven't had Google's source code for several years now.
A judge might not have allowed the case to go forward. To bring suit, you must show that you have been harmed. And harm is a relative thing; for a company the size of Apple, even the size of Apple in 2008, harm representing some potential future loss that even Apple would not have been able to estimate, might not have gotten the case before a jury.
That is if you're the only company to choose from.
I agree but as a consumer I'd prefer choice even if I never intend in choosing something else.
All fine and dandy but Samsung directly infringed on Apple's intellectual property and that is what the case is about, at least with respect to slide to lock and data detectors. That was the primary point of my post.
It would be interesting to see Samsung try to blame Google and claim damages. Despite the enormous chutzpah in doing so, I bet it would be difficult to do it successfully. It isn't as if the technology infringed upon was an unknown, fringe component no one ever heard about.
I wasn't criticizing your post, but rather adding color to it. And in the eyes of the law, infringement, whether direct or indirect, implies the same damages. Apple, by bringing suit against Samsung, needs only present what evidence it has of infringement, some of which will be represented in Android and some represented by what Samsung added to Android. Samsung is liable for both as it's the company producing the handsets targeted by the lawsuit. The indirect infringement angle merely allows Samsung a potential course of action to recover against Google for those aspects of the infringed IP that exist within the technology provided by Google. My point was that Apple acted rationally in suing Samsung given that it could capture all of the infringing technology regardless of the source. And my point was that it seems odd that Mueller, for his part, left out any mention of why Apple would direct its case against Samsung rather than Google. He left that point hanging; a point which left unspoken falls in favor of Samsung in the court of public opinion.
Try studying all the smart phones pre iPhone, read what Google's plans were to have been and so on. Then look at the earth shattering effect iPhone had on the industry. Then look at all the smart phones after iPhone. Maybe not to you, but to me, the 'obvious' way to use a touch screen, in the way iOS did back then, seems to have evaded everyone but Steve Jobs.
The patent system has a practical viewpoint on what is obvious. If there's a real problem that's been around for awhile, and no one else has come up with your solution, then it isn't obvious.
BTW, a lot of people at Apple deserve credit for coming up with good ideas, not just Steve Jobs.
That is if you're the only company to choose from.
I agree but as a consumer I'd prefer choice even if I never intend in choosing something else.
This post reminds my of the Death or Mambo joke.
Two sailors from a shipwreck wash up on a tropical island and are immediately taken into custody by the local tribesmen. Brought before the chief, they are accused of violating the tribe's sacred ground. The chief offers each man a choice of punishment. "You must choose. Death. Or Mambo." The first man to be given this choice looks at the other, then back at the chief. Knowing he really has only one choice open to him, he sheepishly states, "I choose Mambo." There's a uproar among the villagers as the first sailor is bend over a log and repeatedly sodomized by one after another of the village men. The chief then turns to the second sailor, a rather strong looking young fellow who has been looking on aghast at the proceedings. "Now you must choose. Death. Or Mambo." This sailor wastes no time in his reply. He puts out his chest and defiantly states, "I choose Death!" to which the chief replies...
[choose your punch line]
"Death it is! Death by Mambo."
"Death it is! But first, a little Mambo."
As far as I know it's not the case with Schmidt either. There's as much evidence that Schmidt acted unethically as there is for Levinson or Campbell. In effect zero unless you count FTC concerns over the sharing of directors.
So I know it's a popular theory that Schmidt was stealing from Apple, put out there by a small number of Apple fans. Do you have any independent reports that show Schmidt stealing from Apple, or any Apple statements to that effect? If not is it logical for you to be so anxious to believe it happened despite any evidence for it, or could it instead be more an emotional response?
But still, this is an IDEA, and alleging that such an idea can be "stolen" (in a legal rather than just business ethics sense) has got it WRONG!
US law -- and the Constitution -- is what it is on the principle of protection for the implementation of ideas.
Lots of very smart people, including legal scholars, economists, public policy analysts, courts, and lawyers agree with that.
So, please go on to something else. Or stick to your branch of law.
I wonder what your law school profs would have thought of that, if you'd had the guts to tell them that.
Quid pro quo is not an ethical defense.
Tell that to millennia of Judeo-Arabic-Christian forms of jurisprudence.....
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
As far as I know it's not the case with Schmidt either. There's as much evidence that Schmidt acted unethically as there is for Levinson or Campbell. In effect zero unless you count FTC concerns over the sharing of directors.
So I know it's a popular theory that Schmidt was stealing from Apple, put out there by a small number of Apple fans. Do you have any independent reports that show Schmidt stealing from Apple, or any Apple statements to that effect? If not is it logical for you to be so anxious to believe it happened despite any evidence for it, or could it instead be more an emotional response?
Go back and read my posts. Nowhere do I infer that Schmidt was stealing from Apple. That's the reason I brought up the issue of ethics. I believe it's unethical for him to have remained on the Apple board during a time when Apple was developing the iPhone and Android subsequently switched direction to fast-follow the iPhone interaction model. Just as a person who could be seen as having a conflict of interest bows out of a negotiation or other situation even if that person's ethics are unassailable and that person would never allow such conflict to come into play. It's optics and it's the right thing to do. And yet, Schmidt did not inform Apple that Google was engaged in fast-following the iPhone interaction model and Schmidt did not instead step down from the Apple board during this critical period in the development of the two companies' products.