Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Sep 2011 23:33 UTC
Legal Ah, so that's what Google's masterplan is regarding the defense of Android against the patent trolls. HTC has just launched a few more defensive patent lawsuits against Apple, and while that's by far no longer newsworthy, it is this one time. You see, HTC is suing Apple over 9 patents that have only very recently been transferred (namely, a week ago) from Google to HTC. The patents come from Palm, Motorola, and others. This means Google is giving away its patents to Android device makers. Nice of them.
Order by: Score:
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

... HTC's patents suck less.

Reply Score: 1

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

A gold plated piece of shit is still a piece of shit.

Reply Score: 3

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

A gold plated piece of shit is still a piece of shit.

HTC's shit is less shitty.

Not familiar with Mutt, are we?

Reply Score: 1

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

All is fair in love and patent wars I say. I wonder what Apple will do. Pass the popcorn ...

Seriously though, I hope the patent wars die down, what a waste of time and human creativity (and OSNews page space).

]{

Reply Score: 6

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

As long as the US government is allowing companies to sue each other over nonsense, and as long as there is the potential for money to be made while doing so, I suspect we will continue to see such lawsuits.

Software patents are written by lawyers for lawyers, anyway. They certainly aren't written for programmers...

Reply Score: 11

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

as long as there is the potential for money to be made

Ah yes, if there only was real money made. Patent lawsuits only waste money and shift money around from one megacorp to the next. One megacorp's "profit" in this game is the next megacorp's "loss". All paid for by the customer. It absolutely doesn't create anything of value.

Consumers haven't gotten any technologically better iPhones, Android phones , WinPho phones or Blackberries out of these lawsuits. If any, each won claim has given the winning manufacturer the opportunity to just sell the same phone with less incentive for innovation and the losers are artificially forced to sell even more inferior devices.

So who have won? The fat cats in the business of selling less for more.

Reply Score: 5

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

All is fair in love and patent wars...

Not really.

My point in this instance is that HTC's patents/claims are slightly fairer than those of Apple. HTC's patents are vague, too, yet they possess a slight hint of substance and originality. On the other hand, Apple's patents are completely obvious and match some rather conspicuous prior art.

Also, I was alluding to an infamous slogan from the 1990s for an email client.

Reply Score: 2

FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

I don't want them to die down, I want them to go away completely and stop hindering innovation.

An all-out war is probably the only way this could happen. Compare it to a real war.... I want a clear winner, not a long lasting skirmish for the next 50 years.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by testman
by testman on Wed 7th Sep 2011 23:54 UTC
testman
Member since:
2007-10-15

Clever move by Google. By extending some of their patent portfolio to one of their partners, they avoid the negative associations and risks that would have eventuated by taking the lawsuit to Apple directly.

They maintain their image, and defend their Android service. It's good for their brand and their company overall.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by testman
by protomank on Thu 8th Sep 2011 00:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by testman"
protomank Member since:
2006-08-03

Plus, their partners will probally be able to use those patents agains attacks not related to Android, ensuring that they will like to partner instead of wanting that google defend them directly. If this (using those patents in other cases), google is simply being a genious, and no one will care about googlerola anymore, they will go for the patents they can get for free from Android.

Really nice strategy, if true.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by testman
by lemur2 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 01:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by testman"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Clever move by Google. By extending some of their patent portfolio to one of their partners, they avoid the negative associations and risks that would have eventuated by taking the lawsuit to Apple directly. They maintain their image, and defend their Android service. It's good for their brand and their company overall.


I think Google may be able to take this one step further, by creating a Community Cross-License (CCL) pool for Android, similar in concept to the CCL pool Google have already set up for WebM.

http://www.webm-ccl.org/

Perhaps Google might do this once their purchase of Motorola Mobility has finalised. This CCL pool for Android-related patents could then give patent protection to all members of the pool (not just HTC), and prevent them from being able to sue each other.

This in turn would effectively silence critics of Google's purchase of the Motorola Mobility patents. It would set up a co-operative amongst manufacturers of Android devices (as far as patent protection goes) yet still allow for competition between the manufacturers.

It seems, to me anyway, to be a pretty good solution. IMO it would be a huge PR win for Google if they do this.

Edited 2011-09-08 01:51 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by testman
by kristoph on Thu 8th Sep 2011 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by testman"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

No it can't because a patent pool cannot be used offensively, it's purely a defensive vehicle.

There is a reason Google 'sold' these patents to HTC. HTC needed patents they could use offensively and so they had to be the patent owner to have the right to use them in that way.

Apple is not going to take this lying down I bet. Tim Cook has something to prove. I say they should take it to Google and let the two of them go at it directly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by testman
by lemur2 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by testman"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No it can't because a patent pool cannot be used offensively, it's purely a defensive vehicle. There is a reason Google 'sold' these patents to HTC. HTC needed patents they could use offensively and so they had to be the patent owner to have the right to use them in that way.


It is true that only the patent owner can sue another party.

In order for this to work for a patent pool, all that would be needed is for the pool (established as a separate legal entity) to own the patents. Then the pool could sue any patent agressors against Android OEMs on behalf of said OEMs.

Apple is not going to take this lying down I bet. Tim Cook has something to prove. I say they should take it to Google and let the two of them go at it directly.


Alternatively, Apple could join the patent pool that Google raised to protect Android, and it could then become a "smartphone" patent pool instead of an "Android" patent pool.

All the members of the smartphone patent pool would cross-license other members, and thereby promise not to sue other members. After a while, anyone who wanted to make a smartphone would simply join the pool.

Patent problem solved for everybody, all patent lawsuits over smartphones are settled. Everbody wins, even the public, except perhaps patent lawyers.

Edited 2011-09-08 03:03 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by testman
by FunkyELF on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by testman"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

It is true that only the patent owner can sue another party.

In order for this to work for a patent pool, all that would be needed is for the pool (established as a separate legal entity) to own the patents. Then the pool could sue any patent agressors against Android OEMs on behalf of said OEMs.


You just described a patent troll ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by testman
by lemur2 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by testman"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No it can't because a patent pool cannot be used offensively, it's purely a defensive vehicle. There is a reason Google 'sold' these patents to HTC. HTC needed patents they could use offensively and so they had to be the patent owner to have the right to use them in that way.


PS: There would need to be a single legal entity which owned all the patents of the hypothetical Android patent pool. That entity could then sue other parties (patent agressors who were not members of the pool) on behalf of pool members.

The Open Handset Alliance is a good candidate to become just such an entity.

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_overview.html

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html

Edited 2011-09-08 03:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by testman
by molnarcs on Thu 8th Sep 2011 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by testman"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

No it can't because a patent pool cannot be used offensively, it's purely a defensive vehicle.

There is a reason Google 'sold' these patents to HTC. HTC needed patents they could use offensively and so they had to be the patent owner to have the right to use them in that way.


That was truly silly, even coming from you. HTC was sued by Apple so when they counter-sue, they are using those patents defensively. HTC did not initiate (offensive use of patents) lawsuits against Apple, it sued Apple in response (defensive use of patents) to being sued by Apple.

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: Comment by testman
by Laurence on Fri 9th Sep 2011 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by testman"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26



HTC was sued by Apple so when they counter-sue, they are using those patents defensively. HTC did not initiate (offensive use of patents) lawsuits against Apple, it sued Apple in response (defensive use of patents) to being sued by Apple.

Now you're just arguing semantics.

While they might be defending themselves, a counter-sue is still going on the offensive. Which was the point the original poster was making; if HTC own the patents then they're not sitting around avoiding getting attacked, they're counter-attacking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by testman
by molnarcs on Fri 9th Sep 2011 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by testman"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

"

HTC was sued by Apple so when they counter-sue, they are using those patents defensively. HTC did not initiate (offensive use of patents) lawsuits against Apple, it sued Apple in response (defensive use of patents) to being sued by Apple.

Now you're just arguing semantics.

While they might be defending themselves, a counter-sue is still going on the offensive. Which was the point the original poster was making; if HTC own the patents then they're not sitting around avoiding getting attacked, they're counter-attacking.
"

Using patents defensively and offensively are well established terms. Using patents defensively has only one possible interpretation: suing back. Original poster claimed HTC is using these patents offensively, which is plain nonsense. Offensive use would be suing others without getting sued or threatened first. I stand by what I wrote - saying that counter-suing is offensive patent use is bullshit. It's by definition defensive, unless you can propose another way to use patents defensively. Perhaps printing them, rolling them up tightly, then hitting the lawyers on their head until they withdraw their patent lawsuits could be considered another case of "defensive patent use" but I doubt it would work.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by testman
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 9th Sep 2011 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by testman"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Perhaps printing them, rolling them up tightly, then hitting the lawyers on their head until they withdraw their patent lawsuits could be considered another case of "defensive patent use" but I doubt it would work.


WHERE CAN I SIGN UP FOR THIS WHACKING OF LAWYERS YOU SPEAK OF? I DEMAND TO KNOW.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by testman
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 11:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by testman"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Clever move by Google. By extending some of their patent portfolio to one of their partners, they avoid the negative associations and risks that would have eventuated by taking the lawsuit to Apple directly.

They maintain their image, and defend their Android service. It's good for their brand and their company overall.


And so ethical. Here is the route by which one of the patents came into play. U.S. Patent No. 6,473,006 on a "method and apparatus for zoomed display of characters entered from a telephone keypad"; originally filed by Phone-com, which assigned it to Openwave, then sold to a French company named Purple Labs, which sold it on to Myriad's French subsidiary (Myriad has Java-related litigation going with Oracle), sold by Myriad to Google last year and by Google to HTC on August 29, 2011 (recorded on September 1).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by testman
by r_a_trip on Thu 8th Sep 2011 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by testman"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Patents aren't ethical, not anymore. These days it is what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine too.

The drive to create innovations has a long time ago left the putrid patent business.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by testman
by FunkyELF on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by testman"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Clever move by Google. By extending some of their patent portfolio to one of their partners, they avoid the negative associations and risks that would have eventuated by taking the lawsuit to Apple directly.

They maintain their image, and defend their Android service. It's good for their brand and their company overall.


Well said.... the time will come for Apple and Google to have it out directly but the time is not now. Google is helping their allies. They already bought the patents; lending them out for defensive purposes probably doesn't cost them too much.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by testman
by andydread on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by testman"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Clever move by Google. By extending some of their patent portfolio to one of their partners, they avoid the negative associations and risks that would have eventuated by taking the lawsuit to Apple directly.

They maintain their image, and defend their Android service. It's good for their brand and their company overall.


It has nothing to do with 'protecting Google's image' as Apple's PR has been disseminating lately. The deal is Apple sued HTC not Google. Google cannot simply jump into the case.. HTC has file countersuits against Apple and Google is helping HTC. Its as simple as that. We know that Apple PR has been trying to cast this development as 'Google fighting a proxy war to protect their public image' And many variations of that argument are already flooding forums worldwide.

Reply Score: 5

...
by Hiev on Thu 8th Sep 2011 02:39 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Thom, ain't there a way to block this fghgfh spammer for ever?

Reply Score: 10

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 05:46 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

This means Google is giving away its patents to Android device makers.

According to the BBC these patens weren't given away, but bought by HTC.

Reply Score: 2

Shabby journalism
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 09:22 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Why use the term 'patent troll' in this context?

My understanding of the term is that it refers to those whose sole business is the exploitation of patents for monetray gain. Using patents to defend a legitimate actual product is not being a troll, that's just using patents for the purpose they were intended.

You may dislike Apple's use of patents, or consider it unreasonable. You may feel that Apple started a war and that when one starts a war one shouldn't complain about being counterattacked (which I agree with by the way). But using the term troll in relationship to it is inaccurate and just devalues the word by reducing it a mere insult thereby draining it of meaning.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Shabby journalism
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2011 09:25 UTC in reply to "Shabby journalism"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why use the term 'patent troll' in this context?


"Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered (by the party using the term) unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention."

Emphasis mine. "Often" - so not always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Shabby journalism
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Shabby journalism"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

From that same page:

Patent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law.[13]

Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following:
Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[8]

Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;[14][15]

Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;[16]

Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;[17] or

Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers.[18]

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Shabby journalism
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2011 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shabby journalism"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

one or more of the following


Yeah... So you just also confirmed the term can be perfectly applied to Apple.

Some may not like seeing their precious company labelled as such, but if the shoe fits...

Edited 2011-09-08 09:52 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Shabby journalism
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shabby journalism"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Very true, pick the cherries that you like most.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Shabby journalism
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2011 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shabby journalism"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

By not labeling Apple as such, you're also picking the cherries you like the most - you know that, right?

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Shabby journalism
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shabby journalism"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I don't pick cherries, I object against lowering the definition of "patent troll" to an extend that it fits any company that sues another company over patents.

There are companies that only acquire with the purpose to sue, never intending to do anything constructive with them. I don't think anyone, except those companies, would not call them patent trolls.

IMHO there is a big gap between those companies and companies that defend patents they do use, intend to use, "invented, etc... You're just putting everything on one heap, making the term "patent troll" pretty useless as it would mean everyone is one.

Hell, lets call you a patent troll because you keep bringing up stories about them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Shabby journalism
by r_a_trip on Thu 8th Sep 2011 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shabby journalism"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, maybe Apple can't accurately be described as a patent troll, but Apple certainly is a patent diva.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Shabby journalism
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Shabby journalism"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Thom - why not drop the pedantic crap and just raise your game a bit? It's not hard to be a better journalist and it''s very easy to be a poor one. Generally the best way to be a better journalist is to be especially careful when writing articles about stuff you have strong feelings about, you need to make sure that you are generally being as accurate as possible. If your strong feelings are justified then the facts alone will support them, no need for distortion or hyperbole.

In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to products they have made and which they claim their competitors are copying without permission. That's what patents are for. To use the term the 'troll' in relation to such activity simply devalues the word and empties it of all meaning. It just becomes synonymous with 'bad' so why use the word troll at all unless what you want to do is simply to smear.

You may think that the aim of Apple's actions is to curtail free competition in which case say so and the word troll is meaningless in relation to such behaviour. You may feel software patents in general are a bad thing in which case if you want to use the word troll in relation to software patents then use it against all those claiming software infringements, in my opinion still a misuse of the word but at least a consistent misuse. As I said using it in the way you did is wielding it as an insult and a smear and is piss poor journalism.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Shabby journalism
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shabby journalism"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

> In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to
> products they have made and which they claim their
> competitors are copying without permission. That's
> what patents are for.

Sounds like typical lawyer's talk. After all laws are in place, why not abuse them, right? Wrong. Using patents in such manner is unethical and is called patent trolling.

Edited 2011-09-08 15:03 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Shabby journalism
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shabby journalism"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The difference between HTC/Google and Apple is that Apple actually invented the technology it accused HTC -- and by proxy, Google -- of "stealing" (to use Steve Jobs' verb). One of the patents Apple cited in its 2010 suit -- Patent No. 7479949 -- is a 358-page document signed by Jobs himself that covers everything from the way a finger touches the screen of a smartphone to the heuristics that turn those touches into commands.

HTC and Google, by contrast, are accusing Apple (whose smartphone designs they have plainly copied) of violating patents they bought fourth or fifth hand.

"Patents were meant to encourage innovation," Google's chief legal counsel David Drummond wrote last month in his famous open letter." Google's enemies, he complained, were using and "bogus" patents to try to "strangle" Android. "Fortunately," he added, "the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means."

Indeed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Shabby journalism
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shabby journalism"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

More from the Apple shill Mueller.

His article is bullshit. Not only was it known since AT LEAST March of this year that top-tier OEMs get pre-release access (LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc.), the document itself isn't new either. On top of that, the document mentions OEMs and general, and then gives MBOTH Motorola and Verizon as examples.

In other words, it's the usual smoke and mirrors from Mueller.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Shabby journalism
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shabby journalism"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Ah, so it's true, but it's still bravo sierra because Mueller reported it.

Reply Score: 2

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

... than you for offering an example of some. Here is a counterpoint to the claims and conclusions offered by FM:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-foss-pate...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Shabby journalism
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shabby journalism"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The difference between HTC/Google and Apple is that Apple actually invented the technology


Funny. The Dutch courts disagreed with that one, and threw most of the patents and design stuff out the window.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Shabby journalism
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shabby journalism"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"The difference between HTC/Google and Apple is that Apple actually invented the technology


Funny. The Dutch courts disagreed with that one, and threw most of the patents and design stuff out the window.
"

So again why are people so indignant? Either Apple's patents are spurious and will fail or not and will succeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Shabby journalism
by andydread on Fri 9th Sep 2011 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shabby journalism"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

"[q]The difference between HTC/Google and Apple is that Apple actually invented the technology


Funny. The Dutch courts disagreed with that one, and threw most of the patents and design stuff out the window.
"

So again why are people so indignant? Either Apple's patents are spurious and will fail or not and will succeed. [/q]

People are indignant because Apple is threating their ability to write code with software patents that is why. That is the main reason. And any company that tries to usurp code that they did not write with have a lot of tech people up in arms. The notion that you cant write your own code with out Apple hauling you into court is ludicrous but that is what is happening.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Shabby journalism
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shabby journalism"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Did the court disagree Apple invented the technology or did it disagree Samsung was infringing?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Shabby journalism
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shabby journalism"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In fact - both.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Shabby journalism
by molnarcs on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shabby journalism"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to products they have made and which they claim their competitors are copying without permission. That's what patents are for.


Have many times, how many pictures, how many prior art, how much more proof do you apple fanboys need to get into your thick heads: Apple is suing companies with patents related to ideas they copied. One of the patents involved in Apple's recent patent trolling is the rectangular shape with screen and some buttons. Yes it's in their actual products (the iPad) and there are countless prior art from other manufacturers. They are suing with patents of so called "inventions" that 1) they most definitely did not invent 2) are way too obvious to call them inventions. Some of their patents may have some merit, but that's not what critics of Apple are railing against. It's the rest.

Edited 2011-09-08 17:43 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Shabby journalism
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shabby journalism"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to products they have made and which they claim their competitors are copying without permission. That's what patents are for.


Have many times, how many pictures, how many prior art, how much more proof do you apple fanboys need to get into your thick heads: Apple is suing companies with patents related to ideas they copied. One of the patents involved in Apple's recent patent trolling is the rectangular shape with screen and some buttons. Yes it's in their actual products (the iPad) and there are countless prior art from other manufacturers. They are suing with patents of so called "inventions" that 1) they most definitely did not invent 2) are way too obvious to call them inventions. Some of their patents may have some merit, but that's not what critics of Apple are railing against. It's the rest.
"


In which case Apple's claims won't stand up in court in which case why are you getting worked up by it? The only reason people are so worked up is because Apple actually have a case and might win.

What really upsets people is that Apple aren't pussies anymore. They stopped being losers a while back and started playing hardball and winning and it drives people potty. Back in the desktop era the whole industry leeched off Apple for its R&D and Apple, run by bozos back then, let them. It must have enraged Steve Jobs, watching from his exile, and I am sure he was determined that if he ever got another shot with Apple that he wouldn't let it happen again. He did get another shot and Apple morphed into an innovation machine chewing up product sector after product sector with startling new devices. But this time around Apple wants to stop others copying them. And so they play hard on the patent front.

Good. Copying is bad for innovation.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Shabby journalism
by elsewhere on Thu 8th Sep 2011 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shabby journalism"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Good. Copying is bad for innovation.


Innovation by it's very nature necessitates "copying". Innovation is improvement of an existing idea.

The iPhone is a package of pre-existing ideas and concepts that was put together in an innovative way. There is no aspect of the iPhone that is inherently unique and doesn't build on an idea or invention that already existed in one way or another.

Apple achieved massive first-mover advantage in the market with the iPhone, that is the reward for innovation. It's up to them to continue building forward, they shouldn't get to draw a line in the sand and say "Ok, guys, pack up and go home because we've now perfected the smart phone and we'll sue you if you try to build a better one." The iPhone wouldn't exist if Apple didn't have the previous work of other companies to draw off of.

Copyright laws exist for a reason, and should be the standard by which software and creative work is protected, not patents. Patents are intended to protect inventions. Legally protected monopolization of ideas and concepts is bad for innovation.

I do agree with you that it's up to the courts to sort this mess out.

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: Shabby journalism
by darknexus on Fri 9th Sep 2011 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Shabby journalism"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Innovation by it's very nature necessitates "copying". Innovation is improvement of an existing idea.


No, that's refinement, not innovation. To innovate is to create something new. What Apple does is take current ideas and change them, evolve them from a certain perspective, into something shiny. I'm not saying this is bad, and it sure has worked for them, but I wish people would stop claiming Apple innovates. They do not.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Shabby journalism
by MOS6510 on Fri 9th Sep 2011 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Shabby journalism"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Look up "innovation" in a dictionary and compare it with "invention".

Reply Score: 2

RE: Shabby journalism
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 15:00 UTC in reply to "Shabby journalism"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Apple fully deserves the patent troll title, because they use all kind of ridiculous patents in offensive manner to fight competition to ensure their monopoly. Troll doesn't necessarily mean that they don't produce any technology.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Shabby journalism
by Not2Sure on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Shabby journalism"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Apple fully deserves the patent troll title, because they use all kind of ridiculous patents in offensive manner to fight competition to ensure their monopoly. Troll doesn't necessarily mean that they don't produce any technology.


What market are they exercising monopoly power over exactly?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Shabby journalism
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shabby journalism"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The "better than the rest" and "it just works" market I guess.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Shabby journalism
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shabby journalism"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Tablet for example. How else can you call their attempt to ban Samsung from producing Galaxy, if not monopolistic aspirations? I don't think there is any point in describing the obvious.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Shabby journalism
by Not2Sure on Thu 8th Sep 2011 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shabby journalism"
RE[5]: Shabby journalism
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Shabby journalism"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Please, don't engage in demagogy. Patents in this case are used to ban competition, not to protect "intellectual property".

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Shabby journalism
by darknexus on Fri 9th Sep 2011 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Shabby journalism"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Tablet for example. How else can you call their attempt to ban Samsung from producing Galaxy, if not monopolistic aspirations? I don't think there is any point in describing the obvious.


No, there isn't. The logically minded already understand both sides and have an educated opinion, whereas the true Apple fanboys/fangirls (in the negative sense) are like someone hooked on a substance. You can talk until you're blue in the face, but they won't listen until something actually happens that affects them in a profound way. As for the all corporations are evil types, well they're like the rabid anti-drug zealots that scream the same crap over and over and over again without actually looking at the facts first. Neither of these extremes are credible in the least, though they do provide some good entertainment from time to time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Shabby journalism
by andydread on Fri 9th Sep 2011 03:23 UTC in reply to "Shabby journalism"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Why use the term 'patent troll' in this context?

My understanding of the term is that it refers to those whose sole business is the exploitation of patents for monetray gain. Using patents to defend a legitimate actual product is not being a troll, that's just using patents for the purpose they were intended.

You may dislike Apple's use of patents, or consider it unreasonable. You may feel that Apple started a war and that when one starts a war one shouldn't complain about being counterattacked (which I agree with by the way). But using the term troll in relationship to it is inaccurate and just devalues the word by reducing it a mere insult thereby draining it of meaning.

Patent troll is one who makes no products and acquires patents for the purpose of licensing them to others through litigation threats and actions.

I think the proper term for what Apple is doing is 'anti-competitive and frivolous use of patents' The act of filing numerous obvious software patents in order to drive competitors from the marketplace.

Microsoft is waging a similar campaign in order to drive up the price of open source software by demanding according to Barnes & Noble "shockingly high fees" to deploy Android on their devices. They have pledged to do this and it is under way.

Basically my take is that these companies want to use patents as a means of taking ownership of other's code. If you sit down at your computer and write code you now have to be concerned with Apple and Microsoft asserting patents even if your code is completely different from theirs. That is using patents to take control of others code. A very scary development indeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Shabby journalism
by shmerl on Fri 9th Sep 2011 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Shabby journalism"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Call it patent racketeers then. Trolls doesn't sound much worse.

Reply Score: 3

Patents
by OSGuy on Thu 8th Sep 2011 10:17 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

sorry, deleted my comment

Edited 2011-09-08 10:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

It's not about being "nice"!
by usr0 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 10:48 UTC
usr0
Member since:
2006-10-27

It's about defending their own business (Android in this case). Not a single smart company acts out "niceness" including Apple, Google and Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

Apple is a patent troll
by ozonehole on Thu 8th Sep 2011 11:40 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

Nitpick the definition of "patent troll" all you want. Just like pornography, I know it when I see it. I've got no problem labeling Apple a patent troll. Like Thom said, "if the shoe fits..."

I know it's painful for the Apple-faithful to admit it. Like a victim of spousal abuse, you guys don't want to see it, even when it's blatantly obvious to everyone else. Your favorite company is one of the worst-behaved corporate citizens in the tech industry. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears won't change that.

Edited 2011-09-08 11:43 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: Apple is a patent troll
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 13:15 UTC in reply to "Apple is a patent troll"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Nitpick the definition of "patent troll" all you want. Just like pornography, I know it when I see it. I've got no problem labeling Apple a patent troll. Like Thom said, "if the shoe fits..."

I know it's painful for the Apple-faithful to admit it. Like a victim of spousal abuse, you guys don't want to see it, even when it's blatantly obvious to everyone else. Your favorite company is one of the worst-behaved corporate citizens in the tech industry. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears won't change that.


Because they sue people they think are infringing their patents?

The only reason anyone is getting excited about all this is because of the possibility that Apple might win i.e. that the patents might be valid legally.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Apple is a patent troll
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple is a patent troll"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

No, because they sue out of greed and fear of competition.

Reply Score: 5

danger_nakamura Member since:
2011-06-21

Hi Tony.

Some people believe that in some (many?) cases, exercising your "rights" is not necessarily the classy thing to do. To use another phrase - its not quite cricket. I'm sorry you don't see it, but Apple comes off really, really badly with people that think this way.

Imagine a world which the sole means used by Apple to obtain success was to continually shut up their opponents by building products that people love - products that people will buy even if there is a cheap knockoff available.

Its a world in which I'd be cheering them on.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 14:56 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

I expected something better from Google. A defensive patent pool for all open source mobile industry, not just for Android associates.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:18 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

There are clearly no business owners posting comments on this. In reality, an sane company does what it can to protect it's interests and none of these companies are doing anything that far apart from the others.

And btw, moral "behavior" judgments have no place in business.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And btw, moral "behavior" judgments have no place in business.


What kind of bullshit is that? So if a dictator asks you to make computers for him so he can more efficiently track his subjects and torture them, a business should not take that into consideration? Wtf?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

IBM didn't.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by shmerl on Fri 9th Sep 2011 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

That's why IBM still has this dirty spot in their reputation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"And btw, moral "behavior" judgments have no place in business.


What kind of bullshit is that? So if a dictator asks you to make computers for him so he can more efficiently track his subjects and torture them, a business should not take that into consideration? Wtf?
"

Are you actually trying to make this comparison, or is your reply meant to be taken as a joke? I really hope the latter. And clearly any company is expected to work within the bounds of law. Not that that should have to be pointed out but for some reason it seems I should.

The is a huge disconnect between Joe Average's perception of business, and the reality of what it actually is. If people lack understanding, they should acknowledge it rather than pretend all that inexperience adds up to anything remotely sane.

Edited 2011-09-08 18:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The is a huge disconnect between Joe Average's perception of business, and the reality of what it actually is.


I actually own a business. Don't act all hoity-toity.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"The is a huge disconnect between Joe Average's perception of business, and the reality of what it actually is.


I actually own a business. Don't act all hoity-toity.
"

Anyone with a couple hundred bucks and 30 minutes to fill out paperwork can call themselves a "business owner". Maybe I should have been more specific but I have a feeling it wouldn't have mattered. People with the 'company X is evil' mentality aren't usually receptive to anything outside of that narrow view. I don't know if you yourself fall into that group or not, and I don't really care either way. But, if I had to guess, I know what it would be based on the bias I've seen.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

That's like saying if "everyone" around are unethical crooks, just because laws are all screwed up, why not to be like that as well. Fail. Don't be a crook.

Edited 2011-09-08 18:37 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 8th Sep 2011 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

That's like saying if "everyone" around are unethical crooks, just because laws are all screwed up, why not to be like that as well. Fail. Don't be a crook.

I think you've forgotten a few things... First, (un)ethical behavior is largely open to interpretation based on the individuals beliefs. Second, your *opinion that a company is doing something "unethical" doesn't automatically make them crooks. Lastly, if you're going to judge, judge everyone by the same stick -- you'll find that most companies have far more in common than not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I don't argue that most are. Fortunately not all though, and those who prefer to be honest, deserve credit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Fri 9th Sep 2011 01:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And btw, moral "behavior" judgments have no place in business.


And that's why we need regulations.

Reply Score: 4

Lessons of history
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 8th Sep 2011 21:38 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

Apparently Steve-O skipped history class that day... you know, the day the teacher explained why it's a bad idea to fight a war on multiple fronts.

Edited 2011-09-08 21:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Fri 9th Sep 2011 21:55 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

It's funny to me that people are throwing around this "patent troll" label as if it actually has any significance in any way, or any real meaning beyond a weak attempt to offend/demean.

Tell the truth, how many of you "patent troll" slingers were pointing your finger when you posted?

Reply Score: 1