Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Jul 2011 21:34 UTC, submitted by sb56637
Legal Blah blah Apple whines about a bunch of software patents again. Go cry in a corner, Jobs. Either find a strategy that counters the rise of Android, or just suck it up and be a man about it. Oh, HTC is the target this time around. Again. Whatever.
Thread beginning with comment 480345
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
..good !!
by martini on Tue 12th Jul 2011 02:31 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

Good One Thom !!!

Guys, it seems that you don't understand anymore how the patents are being used. Please remember this classic article (March 9, 2010) from Jonathan Schwartz (ex SUN CEO)

http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy...

Patents are being used to threaten the competition. If you see you competition has similar (or bigger) guns.. you just chicken out and play like nothing happened.

The system is so screwed up.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ..good !!
by Jennimc on Tue 12th Jul 2011 05:08 in reply to "..good !!"
Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

Guys, it seems that you don't understand anymore how the patents are being used. Please remember this classic article (March 9, 2010) from Jonathan Schwartz (ex SUN CEO)


I'm familiar with that article however this isn't a threat to avoid competition. This is payback for Google stealing Apple's IP. (Remember, their CEO was on Apple's board of directors and was privy to Apple's mobile agenda during development thereby prompting Google to build an OS based on the same ideas. Apple doesn't sue Google directly because they give their OS away for free. They can sue them but part of a legal argument to gain restitution is to illustrate in court how much you lost and how much they gained from their illegal activity. Since Google's profit is garnered by advertising, it makes more sense to go after Google's OS integrators (Can't call them licensees) to get rid of their revenue stream.

It's not like these other companies are being sidelined by Apple... they too are outside their legal justifications as well but the end result is to give payback to Google.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: ..good !!
by Fergy on Tue 12th Jul 2011 07:16 in reply to "RE: ..good !!"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I'm familiar with that article however this isn't a threat to avoid competition. This is payback for Google stealing Apple's IP. (Remember, their CEO was on Apple's board of directors and was privy to Apple's mobile agenda during development thereby prompting Google to build an OS based on the same ideas.

And this is why software patents are stupid. Android didn't steal a single line of code from IOS yet they made a comparable alternative. This shows that the programmers for both OS's were smart enough to make it. IOS is nothing special and any group of competent programmers could write it from scratch without ever seeing an i-device.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: ..good !!
by JAlexoid on Tue 12th Jul 2011 22:17 in reply to "RE: ..good !!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

This is payback for Google stealing Apple's IP.(Remember, their CEO was on Apple's board of directors and was privy to Apple's mobile agenda during development thereby prompting Google to build an OS based on the same ideas.

So what? When that issue arose they asked Schmidt to leave. And if he did get some IP out of there, then they could sue him for it. But they don't.

Apple doesn't sue Google directly because they give their OS away for free.

Let me check... Yep! Hasn't stopped Oracle from suing. Though they might regret it. If their patents get invalidated... some already have been invalidated on a preliminary basis.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ..good !!
by elsewhere on Wed 13th Jul 2011 02:05 in reply to "RE: ..good !!"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I'm familiar with that article however this isn't a threat to avoid competition. This is payback for Google stealing Apple's IP. (Remember, their CEO was on Apple's board of directors and was privy to Apple's mobile agenda during development thereby prompting Google to build an OS based on the same ideas. Apple doesn't sue Google directly because they give their OS away for free. They can sue them but part of a legal argument to gain restitution is to illustrate in court how much you lost and how much they gained from their illegal activity. Since Google's profit is garnered by advertising, it makes more sense to go after Google's OS integrators (Can't call them licensees) to get rid of their revenue stream.


The board was aware that Google had acquired Android, which (I believe) pre-dated Eric joining the board, and he was left out of discussion regarding Apple's mobility strategy. He only left the board voluntarily when the SEC raised the specter of conflict of interest and possible market collusion between Apple and Google. There was no "stolen IP".

They're likely not going after Google directly for a number of reasons, not the least of which Google has the resources to fight a long fight, and the fact that both companies remain co-dependent for now between Google services and iOS. (However, I don't see that lasting in the long run, Apple doesn't like depending on anyone)

There's also the point that Google is only providing code to the OEMs, and code can't infringe a patent until it is actually compiled and turned into an actual implementation. They may simply not be able to sue Google for that reason.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: ..good !!
by kaiwai on Tue 12th Jul 2011 07:00 in reply to "..good !!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Which makes me wonder whether there should be a limit of 3 months - you have 3 months to file a claim against a company and their products whom you think have violated their patents, failure to do so means that you're not allowed to sue that company. Then add onto of that products must ship within 6 months of the patent being filed and the failure to do so will mean said technology goes into public domain (people who generate patents that don't result in products in the marketplace will cease milking the system).

Those two I believe will resolve the issue but I doubt it'll happen.

Edited 2011-07-12 07:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ..good !!
by vodoomoth on Tue 12th Jul 2011 08:46 in reply to "RE: ..good !!"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

It won't happen because it's not practical:

1- you can't know everything of all products that may infringe upon your patents, even with the best will and the best "watchers" monitoring the industry's, activities, publications, releases, product launches, etc.
2- afaik, the time needed for having a patent granted after the filing is not constant and as such, it can't be predicted when the patent will be obtained. Thus, you can't reckon with that filing-granting time and plan product shipping ahead.
3- even if reason 2 could be dismissed/solves/bypassed/or else, the time to market a patented "thing" might take more time than the six months you suggest: what about very small teams in startup companies? Think about a brand new technique for frequency decomposition invented by one person. Finding the funding, raising money, convincing investors, hiring people, coordinating developments into a product with a high-enough quality to not look like crap in these ever-demanding times we're living in... that would take more time than a few months, probably years, even with an unlimited supply of money. The situation might well be even more complicated in case it takes a prototype or working artifact to apply for a patent (can someone confirm this?)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ..good !!
by elsewhere on Wed 13th Jul 2011 02:12 in reply to "RE: ..good !!"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Which makes me wonder whether there should be a limit of 3 months - you have 3 months to file a claim against a company and their products whom you think have violated their patents, failure to do so means that you're not allowed to sue that company. Then add onto of that products must ship within 6 months of the patent being filed and the failure to do so will mean said technology goes into public domain (people who generate patents that don't result in products in the marketplace will cease milking the system).


There is the concept of laches, which is sometimes used as a defense against submarine patents, that is similar to what you're suggesting. That is, if a patent holder sits on a patent knowing that it is being infringed and waiting for an optimum time to strike and maximize their return, they could very well lose their right to receive relief for that infringement.

It's not as straight-forward and clear cut as trademark law (protect it or lose it), and the time frames are in years and not months, but at least the conceptual framework is there and has been applied by the courts in the past.

But I don't think that will change anything either.

Reply Parent Score: 2