One of the problems with the DoJ suit against Apple is that it fails to understand the functions of patents. They protect inventions so that the inventor can profit from them. They also allow for licensing the right to use patents to other companies, but owning a patent does not require licensing it to other companies for a specified time after being granted.  The suit also ignores the difference between a company with patented inventions and a company granted a monopoly to provide goods or services for public benefit. In return, those companies are regulated by the government. Also, industries generally have independent organizations to establish rules for competing fairly. Often, such organizations function better than government regulators, because they have the knowledge to evaluate emerging new technology and encourage the industry to adopt new standards as the technology advances. Now, the industry is jealous of Apple's success with inventing new technologies. Some companies are using their profits to lobby government officials and agencies to stop Apple from inventing new products and manufacturing them at high standards. Those same companies use their profits to enrich the stockholders and corporate officers, but see no benefit from advancing the technology by investing in their own research and development. Making a profit requires more than the ability to count beans. Every new Apple product has been met with ridicule and scorn by the rest of the industry. The Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, iPad and now Apple Vision, together with their unique user interfaces all have suffered the same fate while the naysayers rushed to copy them. The DoJ suit wants Apple to open up their phone texting protocols to competitors, who have made no moves to provide better software to their own customers. The problem is that Apple is not the phone company, nor are their competitors. Every company has the right to send signals compatible with the transmission system's standards. The real culprit here is the FCC, which has been stalemated until recently by political divisions, not technical standards. It could push the industry to adopt newer and better protocols, but seems oblivious to the issue.


Last Active
  • Apple will crush the DoJ in court if Garland sticks with outdated arguments

    For as long as I have been involved with Apple products, which started with an Apple II, I have always heard people from the IBM world reject everything Apple does. Just for the record, I have worked with Windows boxes at various times while working onsite at client companies. The Windows platforms are invariably chaotically organized, inconsistent, and prone to unintended user error. Apple products usually cost more, because Apple takes the time and care to refine the hardware and the software to allow the user to accomplish real work. As a result, Apple has earned customer loyalty, which has made them a highly successful company. Others in the market rely on clever marketing to move the boxes. Now they're jealous and are increasing their vitriolic attacks on Apple, but I have no sympathy for them. They manufacture computers the way Detroit used to make cars. Lots of horsepower and glitzy trim don't make them any better. 

    Most of the charges leveled by the DOJ involve differences in standards and protocols. For a long time, it took a platoon of horses to convert text to or from IBM to Apple format, but Apple led the way in establishing standards that worked for everyone. The same is true of the totally absurd accusation that Apple is deliberately blocking Android messaging formats from iPhones -- solely to profit from forcing people buy iPhones! Standards are great, but that's why we have federal regulatory agencies to establish industry-wide standards. There's your culprit! All the people who hate government regulation are suffering from the chaos that lack of standards causes. We have many standards in the computer industry, from WiFi to telephone signals, but we have been lax in setting up the protocols for modern computers. Yes, patents are involved, but agreeing on standards before implementing them is cheaper than litigation lasting longer than the devices using them. Even worse, identifying competing factions in the industry with political parties is absurd. Just remember what Trump did to the covid pandemic, with various "experts" speaking at the White House in favor of quack cures.

    freeassociate2radarthekatBart Ywatto_cobra