Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Jul 2011 22:47 UTC, submitted by Jennimc
Legal If you can't compete, litigate. Not entirely unsurprisingly, the US ITC has sided with a US company against a Taiwanese competitor - the US International Trade Commission judge has ruled that out of ten patents Apple brought into its suit against HTC, the Taiwanese smartphone pioneer is infringing upon two. The ruling has to be reviewed by a panel of six, but if they agree, then some HTC devices may be banned from the US market - unless HTC and Apple can come to a settlement. We also know which two patents - and yes, they're software patents, of course.
Permalink for comment 481244
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: "Merit"
by jack_perry on Sat 16th Jul 2011 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: "Merit""
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Look at it this way: your argument is equivalent to saying that for years BMW couldn't compete with Volkswagen "on merit" simply because in growth, Volkswagens > BMW.


No, Thom is right. Your analogy (like most analogies) is misleading. The best selling Android devices are BMWs in their own right.
"

You are attacking a straw man. I am not an Apple fanboy; quite the contrary. See here, for example:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?479480

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?479478

I don't doubt that Apple is worried about Android, and is using its patent portfolio in an anti-competitive way. I just don't think they're doing it because they think Android will beat them on the "merits"; I think they're doing it because of what I said originally: manufacturing capacity. Apple wants to control completely the devices that use iOS; that means they are the only manufacturer of iOS devices, whereas Google doesn't want to manufacture hardware; they're happy to license them, take the money, and run. Like the PC clones, many, many more Androids can be made than iOS devices.

So the intent of the analogy was not to slur Android, but purely in the means I used it: Thom's use of market growth as a measure of merit is not at all convincing. It's like arguing that "Market growth of Coke > Virgil's Microbrewed Root Beer, so Coke must be better" (or any other drink you wish to insert there).

I hope that helps. The rest of your post is likewise beating that strawman, so I won't reply.

Reply Parent Score: 2