radarthekat

"Most investment analysts believe that Apple will have a good quarter, with some predicting a record-breaking one..."

I've been quiet.  Haven't mentioned this to tip off any analysts.  Just been waiting to see if there's any analyst out there who would pick up on it?  What's the nugget of information I've been holding back?  The Sep - Dec 2011 holiday season, Apple's 2012 fiscal first quarter, was a 14 week quarter for Apple; Apple ends each quarter on the last Saturday of each calendar quarter.  Shhh, don't tell the analysts, but, the Sep - Dec quarter just ended was another one.  It's the first 14-week holiday quarter for Apple since 2011.  And that adds about 8% to the length of the quarter versus other years, which have 13 weeks.  

True Apple earnings devotees will recall that Apple earnings remained flat in its 13-week 2013 fiscal Q1 versus its 14-week 2012 fiscal Q1, and analysts derided the company as having reached the end of its growth.  Doomed.  But none would give voice to the fact that Apple matched its previous year Q1 earnings with a shorter holiday quarter.  We can expect the same, I'm certain, this year and next, when Apple surprises to the upside with this next quarterly report, only to disappoint expectations next year when they're back to a typical 13-week holiday quarter.  

Just to be clear on terms...

randominternetperson said:

wizard69 said:

daven said:

I guess Foxcon won't be building a factory in Wisconsin after all.

No I think this is an example of Apple getting a little STUPID in their old age.   To sight a similar patent in you patent filing just seems to be inviting a lawsuit.   Apple basically said hey this is where the idea came from.

Right, because Apple is one monolithic mind.  Every word in every patent filing is reviewed by every executive and represents the unanimous opinion of the Apple hive mind.  Alternatively, this could have been a mistake by the patent attorneys working for Apple at that particular time.  Nah, it must be that Apple hive mind thing.  It's getting old and senile.  Dare I say, Apple is doomed, as a logical consequence? 

It suggests neither.  Related patents are always called out as prior art in patent filings.  The fact Apple was aware of WARF's work strengthens Apple's case of non-infringement, because it implies Apple had reviewed the prior art and would have made efforts in development of its own methods to avoid infringement.  Could it have inadvertently infringed regardless?  Sure.  But it wouldn't have infringed knowingly if aware of the prior art.  Also, a court's/jury's decisions on complex IP infringement can be a very subjective thing, depending upon the particular expertise, or lack thereof, on the part of those making the deliberation.  A judge might know patent law, but might not know all that's needed to make a valid determination regarding the specific art under review.  Apple is appealing, in the end they might have to pay, these things happen in the course of developing technology products.  Life will go on.

The company is Arris Composites.  What they do might just be revolutionary and incorporated heavily into the design of an Apple car. 

Mariner8 said:

I’m mostly looking forward to seeing / helping to develop assistive tech for people with disabilities on this platform.  Eye-gaze controls and selection activation can be a godsend for people with motor control problems (please find a way to finalize a selection with something other than a hand gesture).  

Selections-to-speech will be easy.  Selections-to environmental controls will be a cinch, and much more. 

A very primitive precursor to the capability you are thinking about was created by my first startup.  We developed a headset to replace the mouse on the original 1984 Mac, to allow quadriplegics to use the computer.  The headset used three ultrasonic transducers, along with one in the base station, to detect end measure head motions.  Even when you glance with your eyes from one place on screen to another, your head almost imperceptibly moves, and the most sensitive of the three settings on our device would easily pick this up and move the mouse cursor to exactly what you looked at.  Customers swore it was reading their minds.  

It’s a conceptual message, not an attack on anyone’s creative process or disrespect for legacy creative tools or equipment.  The obvious implication is that the iPad Pro incorporates all that historic goodness.  I guess we’ll be seeing plenty of revenge “Will It Blend?” YouTube videos featuring the new iPad Pro.  Or maybe people could just lighten up.  

Hmm, let me get this straight.  Apple's market cap, today, is $570b.  In Sept 2012 after the iPhone 5 intro, it reached $665b.  

comcastsucks said:

It seems weird that this isn't all on Broadcom. All Apple did was buy parts from them. Imagine if you had to research if everything you buy for your business has proper patenting. But then again, I'm no lawyer. Or doctor. Or ballet dancer. Or construction worker. 

Your take on this is correct.  Apple has insisted that, because it used common Wi-Fi chips supplied by Broadcom, and since it didn't create the technology that infringed on the patents, Apple was therefore "merely an indirect downstream party."  This is actually a thing, called indirect infringement and the court was correct in not accepting Apple’s argument, 

"failed to establish that such term had acquired distinctiveness..."

Thats exactly the point I made back in the days of the Samsung/Apple trademark battle of 2012.  Here's my argument from back then, which may shed some light on how trademarks work...

Apple - Apple vs Samsung (Design Patents)

Since the Apple vs Samsung trial there has been much written about the merit of design patents.  I thought I'd provide a bit of insight here for those who might not be conversant in the topic.

Among Apple's assertions in its lawsuit was that Samsung copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents.  These particular patents are known as design patents.  It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist.  There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law.  Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.

Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark.  By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger.  Why?  For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores.  The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal.  This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.

Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law.  This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas.  Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively.  Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement. 

Here's what this case was about:  After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law.  Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand.  After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products.  Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand.  Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari.  Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari.  The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.

But how does this relate to design patent law? 

The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers.  Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.

This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.