Submitted by 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.
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.
This passes for news!? Write much?
as news… not. as really awesome point on lame reality with apple and patents. more than definitely.
apple is pro patents when suing someone for them and against when they are being sued. instead of fair competition, they are just big bunch of whiners who can’t decide on which side they belong
So you support patents because you don’t like Apple?
Do you support patents that also require Android produces to pay fees to Microsoft?
No Thom made it very clear in other articles he does not support software patents.
He meant, I think, that Apple should find a different way than software patents to combat their competitors.
Like improving products, lowering prices or who knows maybe even innovation.
Improve products to be equivalent of the Android things that the iDevices are consistently getting better quality reviews than?
Lower prices to be less than the equivalent devices that they’re already on par with, or better than, in most markets?
Innovate like Google did to get to that position? What innovations would that be?
Or maybe, just maybe it’s got something ever so minor to do with Google owning the internet advertising space and there being ads for Android devices on every second page that’s being viewed by the demographic that’s mainly buying them? Not to mention prime time TV which is being flooded with them.
Combine the advertising budget of Google, HTC, Samsung, etc with the I’m getting one of these because everyone else has one of those mentality of young people and the I hate Apple’s walled garden so I’m getting one of these group, and you have a pretty clear answer to the rise of Android. It’s got absolutely zero to do with quality, price (except at the junky low end) or innovation.
ourcomputerbloke,
“Combine the advertising budget of Google, HTC, Samsung, etc with the I’m getting one of these because everyone else has one of those mentality of young people”
But don’t discount the fact that apple advertises very heavily also.
“I hate Apple’s walled garden so I’m getting one of these group, and you have a pretty clear answer to the rise of Android. It’s got absolutely zero to do with quality, price (except at the junky low end) or innovation.”
Well, you could include quality problems like the iphone grip of death…but I’m just pulling your leg.
The apple walled garden is a legitimate reason for customers to avoid apple. If this is causing apple to loose market share, then maybe they should change their offering to align with what more people want.
Apple as a single company is growing the fastest of the lot. But they can’t compete against a whole industry for market share.
That said, patents exist exactly to protect invention IP. The real question is whether they should apply to software – and the real answer to that is easy. Software is written, often iteratively, not invented. It already gets copyright protection (and a kind of defacto trade secret protection too), which is more than adequate. It doesn’t also need patent protection.
I don’t know what Thom’s thoughts are, I was trying to be helpful.
are you seriously suggesting that android users have more of a herd mentality than apple users?
that IS funny.
Going by the number of factual inaccuracies you’ve posted, I’m getting the distinct impression that you’re either a touch biased on this subject or haven’t properly research your subject.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but there’s a lot I should challenge you on:
Android handsets had digital compasses before the iPhones
Android handsets had AR apps before the iPhones
Google also have their product suite, some of which had more functionality or new functionality sooner than on the iPhone
Android also had basic features such as copy/paste, MMS and multi-tasking years before the iOS.
Then there’s a whole host of 3rd party apps that wouldn’t even be permitted on the App Store at the time (different browser rendering engines, software emulation, mature content (and I’m not just referring to porn) and so on.
And finally, from a geeks perspective, Google haven’t tried to criminalise their customers with rooted phones like Apple tried with the jailbreak community.
Now I’m not about to say that any of the above (except perhaps AR) is really all that “innovative”. But then I wouldn’t really class much (if anything) that Apple have done to the iPhone as “innovative” either. Both companies have just created equally evolutionary devices. Neither one stands out as being more “innovative” than the other.
That’s just silly conspiracy nonsense.
The reason Android has succeeded is because of 3 reasons:
* not everyone wants an iPhone
* Android was the next best OS at the time as everything else majorly sucked (though personally even then I preferred it to the iPhones firmware, but that’s purely personal opinion)
* OEMs could bundle Android to their own handsets cheaply so did so readily
Besides, Apple users can’t comment in the slightest about advertising given how massively advertised the iPhone was and how epically Apple hype up the product launches. No other electronic device in history has been hyped, advertised and promoted as heavily as the iPhone has.
As I said above, their combined advertising is still a drop in the ocean compared to the PR Apple generate for the iPhone.
As for the “walled garden” comment, I’d wager that less than 5% of Android users globally opted for Android over iOS for that reason. In fact I’d wager that less than 5% even know what you meant by Apples “walled garden” if they were to read your post. The simple fact is most users don’t understand nor care in the slightest. They just want their hardware to work. Clearly this is something Android succeeded at despite the Apple camp parading the myth that only Apple are capable of creating “it just works” devices.
And finally the “I’m getting one of these because everyone else has one” only applies after Android has already become the popular platform – so it’s completely moot as it doesn’t prove Androids rise. Furthermore, Android handsets are nowhere near as “cool” to own as the iPhone is. So I’m not even sure your point is valid in the current mobile climate.
Wrong, if Android was crap quality then it wouldn’t have sold nearly as well as it has. We’ve all seen arguably lesser smartphone OSs slide down the market shares: WM6.x, Symbian, etc. If Android was really that poor then people simply wouldn’t have migrated from other platforms to Android.
Wrong again, price has been shown to be a deciding factor for many consumers. However just as many Android handsets are also sold that are nearly as expensive as iPhones.
and finally you end on something that is correct – lack of innovation.
Now let’s be honest here, neither Apple nor Google have really innovated. They both took existing ideas and improved it a little. All this talk about Apple inventing multi-touch or having all the cool new smartphone features / apps before any other competing platform is pure bullshit. Apple have beaten Google to the goal post with some features, Google have beaten Apple with others. There really isn’t much to separate the two.
Don’t waste your time
As noticed before by someone else (twitterfire IIRC), ourcomputerbloke is mrhasbean’s new incarnation. He won’t read nor reply.
Edited 2011-07-12 15:51 UTC
Their success or lack of success in the marketplace is not an excuse for their messed up stance on patents. It doesn’t matter if they are winning or losing, they’re still trying to cheat. Just like Nixon, they’re miserable when out of power, paranoid when in power and always looking to get any advantage regardless of the legality of it.
Android saw light of day 2005 and in the same year was acquired by Google. The first iphone saw light of day 2007.
The other day I heard a TV presenter on a major news channel spoke about iphone being thee revolutionary device. ..The first real smart phone that everyone is copying. This is not true.
Although iphone is a great product it was not the first of its kind and there was a host of features Android had other mobile os’s only recently got or still don’t have.
About your blanket statement about android devices being bad quality..This is false.
Android comes in many jackets and from many companies. Hell even the US army is planning Android devices.
You don’t have to use the Google on Android and you don’t even have to use the Google browser on it, you can install Opera Mini or a host of others. Android does not restrict you in this way. The add aspect is also very low profile. Gmail for example has very low profile add serving. Other free email clients I saw had lots of big slow loading banner adds that is irritating.
Google is an advertising company but an unusual one.
An advertising company that is enabling people and sponsoring open source and other projects in a big way.
I’ve read some of your comments over time, and your degree of hatred seems unusual. I can only hope that you become open to reason.
Google is the nr. 1 advertising company but it does not force you to use it’s search engine.In the end there was going to be a add market leader. Better it be Google.
Edited 2011-07-12 16:27 UTC
Thom is one of the most pro-apple writers on here, look at his previous posts.
Apple whining about software patents when they’re a key member of MPEG-LA is just laughable though.
Apple is the #1 smartphone vendor in the U.S. by units sold: http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/11/apple-is-no-1-smartphone-vendor-in-u-…
Apple takes 50% of the entire handset industry profit worldwide: http://macdailynews.com/2011/07/08/analyst-apple-takes-50-of-handse…
Android’s U.S. growth in 2011 is flat, iPhone is up: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/30/nielsen-androids-growth-curv…
Apple is having no problem’s competing in the marketplace, no matter how many times you claim they are.
Idiots are out in force, I see. You quote Thom saying that Apple needs to counter the rise of Android without underhanded methods. Like, producing a better phone. You may have read it as Thom saying Android reigns supreme. It may not now, but it nearly does, see below.
All your links are dubious.
Apple may by the single largest seller, but are they the single largest selling platform? No, that’s Android.
Apple may take the largest handset profit, all that highlights is they have a large profit margin per handset… we’re not all Apple investors, this doesn’t matter to us.
Android US growth is not flat, just look at these graphs from the raw US comScore data. http://www.catb.org/esr/comscore/ It’s “flat” at 2% m/m growth?!
If they had no problem competing, they would not be suing companies for patent infringement and approaching the ITC to get products blocked from entering the US.
Idiots are out in force, I see. You quote Thom saying that Apple needs to counter the rise of Android without underhanded methods. Like, producing a better phone. You may have read it as Thom saying Android reigns supreme. It may not now, but it nearly does, see below. [/q]
I eagerly await your response.
Well, that’s quite the let down for a response, maybe we’ll get to the meat later.
Oh, so Apple is unsuccessful because six or seven other companies combined beat them in sales. That’s convincing. (Also, I note the lack of any link to back that up, show us the iOS vs Android numbers to prove your point .. and you said platform so remember to include the iPad)
So we’ll just ignore how business’ define success and use our own metric. I mean, look at Motorola, they sell Andriod (the highest selling platform per you) and they’re loosing money. Clearly that’s the way to go.
You’re comparing two different things. The comscore measure shows sales grown, the Neilsen number shows acquisition growth. Apple is growing by gaining more new smartphone users, Android just has a lot of repeat customers.
Or, in the real world, Apple is using all of the tools at it’s disposal which would include intellectual property. Anyone who is claiming that Apple is failing in the market is an idiot, full stop. It takes 6 companies and god knows how many products to compete with Apple and their 2 devices (both over a year old now). I know Apple haters hate that Apple is successful but they are the most successful cell phone company out there by any business measure.
So your suggesting that people are just out there buying android device after android device with relatively fewer new customers than Apple? Apple, the company that EXPECTS its customers to upgrade to each and every revision of their products they produce? Puh-lease! The only thing that matters is units sold. Period.
As for Apple being the most successful cell phone company ever, what the hell are you smoking. They have been in the cell phone market for just over 4 years. If they were the best why wasn’t it Apple that invented the cell phone? Oh wait that’s right. They only know how to take what other people have done and make it new and shiny for their dubs. Seriously, if Apple wants to talk about theft of IP, lets talk about the features they copied off of Android in their latest iPad release announcement (like notifications, split keyboard, PC free).
Edited 2011-07-12 00:12 UTC
Yes. It appears that they do not believe that their products ( despite the slanted numbers given earlier) are capable of meeting the challenge of Android without using software patents. This is what Thom said.
1) If they don’t feel threatened, why are they fighting with HTC? Suing you competitors is a sign of weakness. Though I can understand the trade dress lawsuit against Samsung.
2) Are you a shareholder? Who the *** cares about how much Apple makes. It’s great that they make more off their customers. That means they have a good business. Nothing else. Retire that argument, it’s useless…
3) And yet Android results in 11% more than iPhone still… And it’s not falling.
They are whiners because when they get hit with patent infringement lawsuits, you can’t stop hearing how bad the patents are. But when it comes to their own…
In all fairness, this kind of attitude is not unique to Apple. “Government intervention is bad….unless it favors my company then it is for the good of everyone”, “Regulation is bad….unless it favors my company then it’s for the good of everyone” etc etc etc.
Calls for objectivity fall on deaf ears here.
For some, their preferred provider of products is almost like family. Attacks against Microsoft/Google/Apple/IBM is like an attack towards a family member and receives an appropriately biased, aggressive response (albeit from the safety of an anonymous blog like OSNews).
Whenever I read Apple related articles, especially on OSNews, I start to wonder about the attitude towards Apple, why things “seem worse” when its Apple at the wheel. Your point is spot-on… it is rare that a corporation does not take the stance of whatever is good for “me” is good. Actually, publicly traded companies may have an obligation towards that attitude. So why does it seem worse to people when it’s Apple?
I’m guessing that, like with most things, it’s a combination of factors. I think that part has to due with the image that the company projected at the beginning and for a while. If you take that image statement at face value (silly, yes, but not unfair) than there actions of late seem more than just hypocritical, they take on the aspect of betrayal.
I think that there is also the “hipster” stereotypes that have become associated with the brand: happy, multi-ethnic plastic looking people advertising type of shit… black turtleneck, Starbucks trolling pretentious types prefering the brand. If you belong to such a group that is, of course, OK – but these types of things do make many people angry, for various different reasons. I think that some of this carries through to the brand*.
Finally, I think that a lot of the policy decisions over the last couple of years have been poor ones and even worse when measured from a PR perspective. I won’t say that they’re setting the bar, but they are certainly partaking in their fair share of loathesomeness. It gets to their point where, nice product or not, consumer culture or not, you begin to want these guys to fail on general principle. Maybe others are far more evil and far less visible – I can only say point them out to me and I’ll condemn their actions as well.
Interestingly, all of these positions have some validity in a discussion of principles. But I agree with you that it becomes silly to come to expect anything better of a corporation. And by that, I do not intend to advocate a position of resignation and especially not endorsement. Merely expectation – it should not be all shocking that Apple does the same hypocritical, antisocial and morally-objectionable-but-technically-legal things that coprorations are famous for.
—
* On a side point and BTW- people that use an Apple computer or device and do not fit one of these stereotypes really ought to chill out when these points get brought up. The fact that you do not belong to the subset that obviously must exist in some capacity does nothing to invalidate the association or image that the Apple brand has picked up like herpes. Get out the Venn diagrams if you require help with this concept. And in this case, I have seen the types of people described with Apple computers in Starbucks. I know that they exist. I also know plenty of people that use an Apple computer and don’t fit the bill. I tease them pretty badly about it all – especially when they ask me to fix the dman thing.
danger_nakamura,
Personally, I think all large companies have a tendency to become greedy and overzealous. When they become so large that they can dictate how customers should do things instead of listening to us, that’s a sign that they are becoming a crappy company.
It doesn’t matter if it’s microsoft, apple, google, or whoever…after a certain size, they start focusing on market control strategies rather than customer needs. They become inconsiderate of customers and give no regard to ethics. Current society rewards these mega corps by making them evermore powerful even as they become less customer-friendly.
I agree. Its a shame, probably the inevitable endgame of the ideas behind the “corporation” and exacerbated heavily by public trading. Is there *no* way to structure things so that people are encouraged to just do “good business.” Yes, I know, laws. But that seems to leave to the letter/leave-out-the-spirit of-the-law adherance game. It’s hard to concieve of a solution that doesn’t involve the inpractical and messy business of tearing everything down (I mean everything) and starting from scratch. And a lot of people won’t like this.
I’ve been advocating delisting and going private again to anyone that will listen at the company that I work for. It wouldn’t solve everything but it would be a great start. It seems impossible to trade publicly and not slowly become evil. We were better off as a private LLC and we don’t actually NEED investor capital for what we do. Not that I deal with anyone of consequence or that anyone would listen to little ole me.
OK – I’m taking off the Pollyanna hat now. You can breathe again 🙂
So what company are you working for?
Don’t want to lose my job after badmouthing them on the internet! 🙂
Government is supposed to keep the playing field level, but corruption kind of screws that up.
It’s possible. You would have to have a long term consumer and innovation focused domestic policy. Right now, our domestic policy heavily favors big business, because Americans believe big business is benevolent. I’m not really sure where this comes from. I could be remnants from the time when people could be company men, or it could be from the Cold War where we hyped up capitalism, which has created drones chanting slogans. Either way, the reverence for big business is detrimental.
Oh, I don’t know, I used to work for a fairly evil, but small company.
Need a new hard drive for our product?
Here’s a five year old stock used hard drive for $500 plus shipping. Thanks for being lazy enough to call us instead of going to best buy.
Agreed! All corporations, and also people, are whiners and hypocrites. I don’t really see a lot of people admitting their hypocrisy though…
Do you believe that competing is a sign of weakness? Do you think HTC wouldn’t be filing lawsuits against Apple if they felt it would help their business? Anyone who thinks that filing lawsuits isn’t just another part of business isn’t living in reality. This is how things have been done for 100s of years.
If Thom wants to talk about successful competition then pointing out that Apple is the most profitable cell phone company in the world is hugely important. How do you propose we measure the success of a business, by taking a poll?
Which is irrelevant as to whether or not Apple is successfully competing. By any rational measure they are extremely successful in the cell phone business.
So this is all a matter of you being butthurt because Apple doesn’t say exactly what you want them to say. And, honestly, I see no real hypocrisy in complaining about what you see as bad patents even if you support patents in general, which is what I believe you mostly hear from Apple. The fact that you believe Apple’s patents are also bad still doesn’t make they hypocrites.
Really, it’d be a lot easier if someone put up a “we hate business” banner somewhere on this site so that it’s clear we’re not even trying to have a rational discussion.
#1 Where is the lawsuit against everyone else? You know, since it helps in competing… When you’re not sure what to throw at your competitor, you load up the lawyer catapult.
#2 – He didn’t even mention competing. So I reiterate my point – retire that argument because it’s irrelevant. When we’ll be talking earnings calls and profits, then be my guest and use that argument.
#3 – Who said they are not competing? Didn’t I say that they are running a very good business? Or the pseudo-religious anger blinded you to see only the criticism?
Thank you for proving my point from another post – all people are hypocrites, but some have convinced themselves that they are not.
I don’t hate business. I hate corporations, just because at the end of the day you can’t really blame them for anything bad they do. Corporations are the epitome of communal responsibility – no one is really responsible for anything. Thankfully not all businesses are corporations.
“I don’t hate business. I hate corporations, just because at the end of the day you can’t really blame them for anything bad they do.”
I largely agree with your stance on the ridiculousness of software patents in general. It has everything to do with a corporate land grab and nothing to do with innovation.
But I’m not understanding your distinction between business and corporations. Don’t all legal businesses either incorporate or form an LLC (in the US)? Maybe you are using a definition of corporation which I am not familiar with?
Can I assume that you mean a public corporation owned by shareholders who consider themselves to be isolated from the immoral actions of their company?
Exactly that.
If you were not so US centric, you’d see the writing on the wall, just like Apple does. There are countries where their market collapsed. Yes, vanished. They went from a 70% market share in Korea to basically 1-2%, while Android got itself a 95% market share. Check the trends in Taiwan and Japan as well. These are all “early-adopter” markets – trend setters, so to speak, especially in Asia.
This also tells quite a different story from NIELSEN:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-US-monthly-201007-201105
If you were not so US centric, you’d see the writing on the wall, just like Apple does. There are countries where their market collapsed. Yes, vanished. They went from a 70% market share in Korea to basically 1-2%, while Android got itself a 95% market share. Check the trends in Taiwan and Japan as well. These are all “early-adopter” markets – trend setters, so to speak, especially in Asia. [/q]
Except, those are all made up numbers. The most recent data I could find shows iOS has 26.5% of the Korean market: http://nielsfootman.com/android-winner-korea-smartphone-boom/
And Korea, specifically, it’s difficult to say much because smartphone penetration is very low (only 18% of registers phones there are smartphones, approximately 10 million units total), new device releases can cause massive swings in market share.
In Japan the iPhone makes up 38% of the market and is the single best selling phone: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-05-10/android-handsets-surpas….
I’m not going to bother looking Taiwan’s numbers since it’s pretty clear you didn’t bother to either.
Which is funny because that graph shows Android growth has been flat since March.
But, hey, post something with completely made up numbers that fits what the people moderating here want to see and get voted up. So congrats on that.
Did you check the title you linked to for ffs? Let me spell it out for you: Android the Big Winner in Korea’s Ongoing Smartphone Boom Is that the best you can come up with to counter my points? Besides, I didn’t make up those numbers – they come from statcounter:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-KR-monthly-201007-201105
Nice try. However, I was talking about iOS vs Android, not manufacturer X vs Y. And again, for god’s sakes, take a look at the title of the article: Android Handsets Surpass IPhone in Japan Smartphone Market Share
Alright, I’ll do you the favour. Android and iOS marketshare met at about 37% in February. Since than, iOS marketshare shrank to 32% while Android grew to about 45%. The rest of the smartphone OSs didn’t change much (about 5% in the same period). It is clear that Android is eating into iOS marketshare on the high-end – unless you suggest the Taiwanese (and the Japanese) are buying cheap Android handsets coming from Chinese mom & pop shops
Fell in March than started to grow in April. In the same time period, iOS shrank.
Do I detect a hint of bitterness there? Hey, all I’m saying is that Android is eating Apple’s lunch, and they can see it – indeed, it would be rather foolish of Apple not to perceive Android as a threat. A year ago, things looked different. The so called analysts expected Android growth on the low-end, and Apple is not interested in that. By now, it is pretty clear that they were wrong. Apple sees that. Apple fanboys apparently don’t. Instead, you’re trying to discredit me by strawmen arguments: you changed the subject from Android vs iOS to Apple iPhone vs other manufacturers. I never mentioned specific handsets – I was writing about smartphone OSs.
Please don’t move the goal posts. You said “They went from a 70% market share in Korea to basically 1-2%, while Android got itself a 95% market share.” Fact is, iOS has 26.5% of the market, 26 times bigger than what you claimed. I never said Android is doing poorly, I simply said iOS is doing a fine job competing with it. If I said Android was doing poorly then the title of the article would be relevant. It would also make me sound as idiotic as the people saying Apple is competitive in the cell phone market.
Which, again, is irrelevant to what I’m saying. However, it does show that in the “trend-setting” Japan, the iPhone is very popular and sells very well. Which is not what you were claiming.
Regarding iOS vs Android, you realize that iOS in aggregate is going to be bigger than just iPhone, why try splitting that hair since it will make the Japanese numbers look even better for iOS?
So, again, Apple holds 30% of the market. A far cry from the 1-2% number you were trying to peddle before. Regarding “eating into” anything, it is very difficult without the overall smartphone growth numbers to read anything into it. In high growth markets in Asia, both Apple and Android could be growing very fast, Android could just be growing faster.
It didn’t grow in April, it recovered in April. In other words, it’s flat since March.
No, you don’t detect bitterness, you detect exasperation for people make claims without the slightest shred of evidence or, even worse, reading into or distorting evidence into meaningless crap. Of course Apple considers Android a threat, they also consider Nokia and RIM a threat. I bet they worry even more about some company that no one has even head of yet coming up with the next new thing. On the flip side, anyone claiming that Apple isn’t successfully competing is an idiot. And hyperbole like “eating Apple’s lunch” is ludicrous.
Finally, you responded to me, not the other way around. My point is and has been that Apple is very successfully competing. A single company with 2 devices maintaing a 30% share in a competitive market against 6 or more companies with dozens or hundreds of devices is such a ridiculously good job of competing that I find it outright insane that people would even debate it. HTC, Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, RIM etc. would kill to be in Apple’s position. My bias isn’t against Android, it’s against factually incorrect, misleading, downright stupid posting that isn’t even brushing up agains reality. And, honestly, I’m not really sure what the difference is between talking about Android vs iOS and talking about iPhone vs Android since iOS in aggregate is always bigger than iPhone by itself and there is basically no share for Android outside of the smartphone market.
I didn’t say Apple can’t compete. Of course it can. I disagreed with your numbers. Fact is, we simply quote different sources for our numbers. Example: I provided a direct link to Korean market share figures, where you can very clearly see that iOS marketshare is around 4-5%. You cited a NIELSEN survey that says it’s 30%. Now we play the “my facts are better than your facts” (provided they are facts at all) but refrain from name calling and whining about moderation.
Reading your other posts you seem to accept litigation as part of doing business. I disagree with that point. Even if most companies litigate (there’s no evidence for that) it is still something I abhor, especially when they use software patents to stifle innovation. I’m against software patents, and defended my position ad nauseum, don’t want to open that can of worms again. As long as there are companies that prefer competing on the merit of their products/services (Google comes to mind) instead of litigation, there is a place for criticism, whether you like it or not.
I snipped a bit because I think we agree. I’d simply like to mention that I wasn’t intending to call you a name specifically, but the class of people (like Thom) who claim Apple can’t compete. Also I think it should be pretty obvious looking at this thread that anyone who doesn’t follow along with the OSNews mindshare (Apple bad, Android good, patents bad) gets moderated down, someone who agrees gets moderated up. Which is a pretty good way to shut out actual communication and I find that a terrible thing.
I accept that litigation is a part of business because it is. Denying that is denying reality. Accepting that something is true and agreeing with it are different and, personally, I wish that litigation was not as prevalent as it is. However, you need to work within the realm of what is, not what you wish it is and if you own intellectual property that gives you an advantage and aren’t using it then you aren’t a terribly rational business person. Business isn’t about making friends, it isn’t about market share, it’s about making money. The sooner the average OSNews poster (again, this isn’t directed at you specifically but the reader in general) accepts this, the sooner they may be able to start making sense of what’s going on. Google simply doesn’t have much ammo so of course they are against these lawsuits (they weren’t trying to buy the Nortel patents because they’d look good on Google’s lawn, they bought them to use in litigation … perhaps not offensively but you can be sure they’d file countersuits if someone sued them). On the flip side, the fact that Google isn’t stepping in on these Android lawsuits doesn’t say much for Google’s character either. In my opinion if you aren’t willing to defend your creation then who should.
rhavyn,
“Also I think it should be pretty obvious looking at this thread that anyone who doesn’t follow along with the OSNews mindshare (Apple bad, Android good, patents bad) gets moderated down, someone who agrees gets moderated up…The sooner the average OSNews poster accepts this, the sooner they may be able to start making sense of what’s going on.”
So what if many of us are against software patents?
You yourself said “Accepting that something is true and agreeing with it are different”. So why is it that you claim stereotypical osnews posters are unable to make sense of what’s going on instead of merely disagree with what’s going on?
This article is the living proof of what I’m saying. Pointing out that apple can and does successfully compete gets me modded to 0. Was I factually incorrect? Was I trolling? Being against patents, great. Dont like apple, fine. Choose to say something that is factually wrong and then mod down someone who points it out. Wel that I think is wrong and that’s what happens articles like this one.
rhavyn,
I didn’t realize the moding was the basis for your claims that osnews posters are uninformed.
I’m convinced some people are voting using phantom accounts. I too have seen perfectly sensible posts less provocative than yours be moded down while trolls are moded up. Considering active posters are blocked from voting, I wouldn’t put much weight in their accuracy.
I think discussing comment moding has been considered taboo in the past so I won’t mention it further.
There are plenty of criticism of both Android and Apple here. However, you are right about patents – Thom and most of the readership is against software patents.
I agree that for an interesting conversation you need multiple perspectives. However, with software patents, everything that could be said has been said. It has been discussed to the death (and I’m not interested in hearing yet another analogy), way before the raise of Android and high-profile patent litigation.
If you take everything in consideration, software/ideas patents are bad for everyone, except the lawyers of course and entrenched monopolies. I thought this was settled among geeks a long time ago… Well, it was. The question of the validity of software patents surfaced again in board discussions once high-profile companies got involved, companies with rabid followers. Yeah, I do have Apple in mind here, for only in Apple vs Somebody do I see this issue opened again.
iPhone owners always seem to be harping on about how much profit Apple makes from them, but they never seem to stop and consider that this might mean that they’re being ripped off when they buy their phones.
Contrary to what people say, Android really is not free when HTC has to pay legal fees because Google refuses to indemnify its OEMs.
Meanwhile, noticeably absent from the list of devices Apple complains about are any Windows Phones.
What?
Android handset manufacturers have to pay any legal costs regarding patent claims. Microsoft guarantees legal protection from such claims to their OEMs.
From what I understand Microsoft and Apple have several agreements – at the end of the day its of no benefit them fighting each other when the greatest threat is from Android and alternative platforms. It reminds me of the whole ‘licensing’ shake-down regarding Linux on the server – either you compete or you make your competitors pay royalties and thus drive up the cost to equal parity to your own product.
With that being said most of the growth I see in Android devices in New Zealand are in the sub $500 category – something that Apple really has no interest in competing against. If Apple want to compete and keep mindshare then all they need to is show the statistics when it comes to units sold and average price of said units – all very nice for the Android fanboys to boast about low cost phones but if the users are cheapskates who refuse to hand over $1.29 for a game then where is the ecosystem for the long term sustainability of the platform?
I don’t know – oh wait, let’s check.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201007-201105
Ah, so it leaves it at right around 92%.
Edited 2011-07-12 07:39 UTC
I may be missing something, but iOS is above Android in every market except Asia by quite a bit according to the data I see presented to me. Which graphs are you looking at? I assumed “MobileOS”…. “MobileBrowser” is slightly in Android’s favour, but really – what are these stats trying to prove?
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201007-201105-bar
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-na-monthly-201007-201105-bar
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-eu-monthly-201007-201105-bar
You might want to re-read Kaiwai’s (admittedly, hypothetical) question. I was trying to make a point. I’m too busy to elaborate, but it should be pretty obvious.
nice bargraph – take a look at the lines. we are not talking about current market share, we are talking about trends. And looking at the trends, the future does not look very bright for iOS. In a few countries, iOS grows as fast as Android. In most markets, iOS grows slower. And again, in some markets, Android wiped the floor (or is about to) with iOS. The reason this is cause for alarm for Apple is that this is the juicy bit of the high-end market, precisely the one they are interested in.
Years ago everyone predicted that Android will flood the market with cheap Chinese handsets. However, it appears now that high-end Android handsets (some more expensive than Apple’s offerings) are chewing at their marketshare. I’m pulling this out of my ass, but I would bet that 95% of Android growth is due to units sold in Apple’s price-range (about $500 non-subsidized). Apple wouldn’t mind a 80% Android marketshare if it was on the low-end. They are not interested in the low-end. Unfortunately for them, Android’s eating Apple’s high-end lunch. Hence the litigation.
What happened in June 2010? iPhone 4. When was it widely available? Late June, early July. When was the last Apple hardware refresh? June 2010. When was the last Android hardware refresh? Yesterday, pretty much… if not yesterday, certainly last week. What will be the REAL interesting point, the REAL indicator is what happens after the next iPhone hardware refresh. If that shows a similar decline, I’d have to then agree with you. As it stands, Worldwide, Android is still quite a way behind and iOS fluctuates depending on which regions get what hardware (due to the staggered worldwide release schedules that Apple seems to cling to.)
Essentially – yes, I saw the line graphs, no I do not take them at face value as telling the whole story. That is why looking at the bar graphs is also telling. It shows you how far Android is still behind iOS, despite the rapid growth and over 10:1 ratio of handsets manufacturers.
Edited 2011-07-13 09:41 UTC
Change your graphic to line, and you will have a surprise…
The bars do now show the current trend.
Which means NOTHING given it doesn’t take into account the ability and willingness to spend money on applications/games – there is study after study showing that Android users have the lowest rate when it comes to willingness to purchase games/applications. Sorry, a platform longevity cannot just run on scented clouds of loveliness but whether it attracts applications to enhance the platform from merely a phone into a hand held device that has phone capabilities along side a whole host of others.
2008 called, they want your argument back.
The Android Market is PACKED with applications. Your argument is invalid.
Oh how cute; how about checking the study just recently in regards to the ‘Angry Birds’ creator – oh thats right, anything that shakes your convictions that Android will steam roll the market you simply ignore in favour of whining about iOS and the ‘evils’ of the ‘walled garden’.
…as opposed to your incessant whining about money?
The cold and harsh facts from reality are this: despite years of talk from Apple fanboys about how the Android Market would never reach the levels of popularity the iOS App Store has, the fact is that the Android Market is incredibly packed – App Store-like profits or no.
Your argument is theory. My argument is reality.
http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2011/01/25/unhappy-with-slow-g…
That doesn’t then include the lack of quality free applications – I can log onto the AppStore and see my bank offering me an application (ASB Bank), the ebay equivalent in NZ called ‘TradeMe’ offering a iOS application, a television guide that allows me to setup my set top box to record the shows I like (SkyTV) etc. etc. You tell me about the thousands of applications that are available and I’ll be my bottom dollar most of their are pointless shit that are of no use to me or the system requirements are high enough which exclude a good portion of end users anyway!
What study? Link?
And you do know that Angry Birds is free on Android?
Isn’t it ad-supported?
Yes, it is. But given that it’s free from the Market, I don’t see where Angry Birds fits into Kaiwai’s “Android users have the lowest rate when it comes to willingness to purchase games/applications” argument.
Which wasn’t always that way – when they launched on Android they quickly found that Android users were more reluctant to part with their cash than iOS users hence it necessitated the need for a free version.
The lack of premium purchases is noted here:
http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2011/01/25/unhappy-with-slow-g…
And here we are a good 6 months afterwards and not a single thing has happened. Sorry, developers want a business model that is sustainable for the long term – it is amazing how short peoples memories are when it came to giving away free shit in the late 90s. Once again the same mistakes are made again and people here are convinced that this time it’ll be all different – the definition of insanity is doing something the same thing over and over again then expecting different results.
I think you’re wrong about that (although I stand to be corrected). I believe that Angry Birds was free on Android from launch. Also, according to Wikipedia, Rovio are raking in over US$1 million in advertising revenue per month from the Android version. It’s quite possible that they’re making much more money by giving it away for free than they ever would by trying to sell it.
And they are making even more money from the marketing deals with operators.
That is a load of BS. 6 months ago Android Market paid apps were not available in as many countries as they are today.
Angry Birds is doing very well on iOS in both the paid and free section. I bought it for 79 euro cent, which could still be considered stealing if you look at the quality of the game and the hours I have invested in it.
Still, there is no paid ‘n’ ad-free version for Android. One must ask why as it’s doing well on both paid/free version as mentioned above.
My guess would be either they don’t expect many users to buy it, too much hassle to get the payments or a combination of both.
I don’t know how the ads work. If they get paid per view the might make a lot of money, but if it’s per click I doubt it will be much. You tap Angry Birds because you want to play it, not to exit it again by clicking on an ad.
Would I talked to him personally statement suffice? His comments are much more positive than your’s.
Curious to know about this study… Everything I’ve seen shows Rovio generating $1M+ per month in ads, equating to about $2.00 generated per year for each download. Not only is the “free” app generating more revenue per download than on iOS (especially after Apple’s cut), but the ad-driven model generates a recurring revenue stream as opposed to a one-time purchase that the developer has to continue supporting. People are actually requesting a paid-version, but Rovio isn’t providing one.
There’s quite a number of high quality apps that are ad-driven, some offer a paid ad-free version, some don’t bother. Given the growth of apps in the android market, and the improving quality:crap ratio, I don’t believe the platform is having trouble attracting developers.
On the ad front, I think it’s also telling to note that Apple had to quietly slash the prices they were charging for iAd, pretty substantially. Advertisers were resisting the premium price for a service that was limiting them to a single platform for viewers.
Do you:
– work with consumer mobile technologies?
– are a consultant in consumer mobile space?
– own a consumer oriented mobile tech company?
If neither, than I suggest you read a bit of what VentureBeat has to say and I am seeing first hand – selling apps is a dead end business already. Thanks to Apple for driving the mobile app price down into the gutter.
Do you realize this only applies to US, south corea and one or two contries more, right?
Here in Brazil, for example, Apple can’t use their mafia payment tatics, as there are no such thing as software patents. SO Samsung, HTC, and others can sell their phones here without paying any extra money to Apple or Microsoft.
So what? The legal costs are extraordinarily high in just those countries alone. Plus, the resulting damages should they actually infringe on any of the patents in question would be staggering.
Hence why HTC and other Android OEMs are Microsoft patent licensees. Meaning Microsoft makes money for every handset sold globally, for patents in the United States.
So they are not insulated from the thread of patent litigation simply because it is a United States law.
My point is; that Android is not free if they have to:
A) License patents from Microsoft (and given the fact that HTC and others have done so, they’ve decided that the risk isnt worth the reward of dragging it out in the courts)
B) If they DONT settle, then they need to pay exorbitant legal fees, and even more in damages should they lose.
Android is not free, there are hidden costs everywhere. Thats just one of them.
Since it’s a cost of doing business in US. I suggest that all those expenses are paid by US customers.
Am I the only one tired of hearing about this site’s (let’s be real… Thom’s) opinion that software patents and those whom defend theirs should be taken down a few pegs.
Probably. Software patents are the greatest threat to software and OS development so it’s pretty relevant to osnews.
No you’re not. Though, we might be for different reasons: I am still waiting for a valid reason why James Watt’s separating of the condensation chamber from the piston in steam engines was patentable, why pharmaceutical molecules extracted from the bark of tropical trees are patentable, why changing the proportion of cement in concrete is a valid basis for a legitimate patent but anything software is not patentable. Maybe that there’s been a patent granted for the pad that serves as a brake on strollers. Why are these patentable and software isn’t, I haven’t been able to figure it out.
IMO, they should not, along with DNA sequences, but I digress.
One reasonable argument:
http://paulspontifications.blogspot.com/2011/04/patent-5893120-redu…
I didn’t read the entire linked content but I wholly agree that algorithms are nothing more than math formulas. I even taught program correctness using Hoare’s logic.
However, and this is why I posted the previous examples of patentable things, especially the James Watt example, many patented “things”, be they methods, appliances, or “items” (if I can put it that way), are just as trivial as in software. Note that some things aren’t trivial by nature, and the light bulb is one example of genuine inventions that comes to mind.
Someone on this site once posted an example of a patent about linked lists… I agree, it is shocking! Someone else also gave this reason for software to not be patentable: “it’s math and math is in the nature, it’s not invented, it’s only discovered”… not sure I would agree if I were Andrew Wiles. So is any non-totally-artificial molecule. In that respect, Aspartame is patentable, quinine isn’t (more correctly, should have never been – if it ever was-). After all, quinine is found in the bark of a tropical tree.
Now if we could list all patented molecules, I’m sure we would find that many of them (e.g. ephedrine) can be found in the nature. So why are pharmaceutical companies patenting molecules left and right?
My argument for the patentability of software is that we shouldn’t remove software from the realm of patents “just” because there are instances of granted software patents that are downright stupid patent granting, like the linked list one. That kind of quirks also exist in other fields, including ones where things are not really “invented” in the strictest sense, but “discovered”. The changing of the size of gravel in concrete is one of those trivial things. Watt’s moving the condenser away from the piston to avoid heat loss is another.
But in the end, I agree with Thom’s argument I’ve read a few days ago that one can’t patent ideas, only implementations and as such, software always being an implementation of (an) idea(s), it is already covered by copyright. That, despite ignoring the economic side of patents, is a true argument, which other args aren’t to me.
I don’t agree that math is in nature. Math, and numbers themselves, were invented by man. Numbers are abstract symbols, sometimes denoting amounts of something (“3 peanuts”), sometimes standing as symbols of themselves (“3”). And math itself is an abstract concept, sometimes applied to a concrete situation (“2 peanuts and 3 peanuts gives you 5 peanuts”) and sometimes remaining purely in the abstract realm “2 + 3 = 5”).
There’s nothing in nature about “math”. Sure, a water molecule consists of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, due to the way physics works, but it was man that assigned the symbol “2” to denote the amount of hydrogen atoms involved; nature couldn’t care less about that. And it was man that created math and created equations that describe the laws of physics, but nature doesn’t care about those equations. The laws of physics existed in nature before any intelligent race created equations to describe them.
So I disagree with the notion that “math is in nature”, unless one goes down the road of “man is in nature, therefore anything man does is in nature, and man created math, therefore math is in nature – Q.E.D.”, at which point every idea, thought, dream, or fantasy is in nature, including every invention and every invention idea, whether those inventions are made out of atoms or made out of bits.
However that doesn’t rule out the “discovered” concept. Isaac Newton invented calculus, and I’d argue that calculus didn’t “exist in nature”, but one could argue that it did already exist in the “abstract”, waiting to be “discovered” by a member of an intelligent species probing the abstract realm. But that could be said of any invention, be it software or physical.
————————————
As for “ideas shouldn’t be patented”, I don’t agree with that as a general principle (though I agree with it in particular instances). If the idea isn’t obvious (and particularly, if the idea took a large amount of resources to come up with and develop), then why not?
And if we say, “only implementations (not ideas) can be protected (via patents, copyright, or other mechanism)”, then how similar does implementation B have to be to the original implementation A in order to say that B infringes on A? Does changing the order of program instructions in B free it from infringment charges on A, even if changing the order of those instructions doesn’t affect the “output” of the program? Does B’s using a linked list whereas A used a binary tree free B from infringemnent charges on A? Or in the physical (non-software) world, if an invented device is made from brass and someone makes a copy of it using steel, is the copy freed from infringement charges because it’s a different “implementation”?
At one extreme is “B infringes A only if B is an exact copy of A” and at the other extreme is “B infringes A if B implements the same idea as A, even if the implementation is totally different”. I’d disagree with both of those extremes, generally speaking. I’d judge on a case-by-case basis whether B infringes on A, depending on the “idea” itself. Most software patented “ideas” describe, not just a general concept, but the implementation as well – not the exact source code, but an “algorithm” (that could be implemented by an infinite number of source codes), or more broadly, a fairly well-defined method, that could be implemented by numerous “algorithms”, but those algorithms would all look quite similar to one another. The “idea” that is patented is typically the concept PLUS the described method (and sometimes the two are intertwined and unseparable). And if implementor B alters the “method” enough (that is, enough to be considered of some significance (not something like using a hash table rather than a tree)), then B can be free of infringement charges on A.
But I don’t think these things are black-and-white. Apple does push the envelope with its “look-and-feel” claims.
Really? Math isn’t nature? What we write down is abstract. The letters we use is an abstract. The symbols we use is an abstract. But math is not symbols.
Problem is that software “inventions” staggeringly lack the inventive step.
I would agree to software patents under one* major provision – either patents or copyrights. Need be, the inventor could choose one or the other. But the patent should have the implementation source code in public domain.
* – And obviously enforcement of state of the art, inventive step(see why EPO said no to 1Click), public disclosure and prior art.
Because the actual molecules are not patentable, maybe? The process of extraction or synthesis is patentable though. But if they are, it’s as stupid as allowing a patent on DNA.
Oh! I got a better one! Why can’t the amalgamation of folklore by JRRTolkien be patented? Or Why can’t JKRowling patent the idea behind Harry Potter?
Or one even better: Why can’t mathematical, chemical and physics formulas/equasions/processes be patented?
When you’ll need to license the right to type on your keyboard or vibrate the air molecules with frequencies detectable by the human ear, then you’ll understand…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?)
Let me quote my newest acquaintance in the IP law profession: Startup companies don’t have time and money to file for a patent. In US actual costs of filing are in $X0’000(tens of thousands) and in EU, slightly cheaper, at over €10’000.
The patents that I reviewed in 2006 and 2007 have only just been granted in US. And that is for a major US corporation with basically an army of patent lawyers on it’s retainer.
There is no need for a working prototype.
Then the situation is even worse than I initially thought, almost defying the purpose of patents, weren’t they supposed to foster innovation?
Anyway, patenting something is still possible with support from a business incubator or another type of business support. In fact, my previous comment describes my own start-up company project: I am joining an incubator next September for a software project based on frequency decomposition and analysis AND any patent-related fees would be paid by the incubator, to be reimbursed later.
Well… Be prepared for scrutiny of your invention.
But you’ll see. Either your application will be overly technical or it will be transformed by the lawyers into something you would never recognise…. But I bet you’ll be violating quite a few of some of the obvious patents. Well… That is the cost of doing business in US.
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.
At least someone is making Apple pay with their own currency.
http://techmento.com/2011/07/10/apple-loses-playlist-patent-suit-mu…
martini,
“At least someone is making Apple pay with their own currency.”
Ouch!
However, like in the MS-i4i case, I still am against software patents even when they’re used against the very corps which support the broken patent system.
I second the above.
As much as I enjoy seeing both Apple and Microsoft (two companies I personally despise) get a taste of their own medicine, I believe –all– software patents should be abolished. Period. End-of-point. (And from where I’m sitting I could easily abuse this broken system)
– Gilboa
My comment for that case is: Payback is a bitch.
Other than that, i4i should have filed for copyright infringement, since they worked on the product with MS.
Here´s the real story why this is happening:
Straight from the article:
“Apple, once best known for its Mac computers, now relies on its iPhone for about 50 percent of sales and the iPad tablet for 12 percent, according to first-quarter figures compiled by Bloomberg.”
Of course,Steve Jobs is SO smart that he is doing exactly the same thing he did to the Mac, wait for it to become a fringe product because he has to have absolute control over the platform.
Had he released the software to other manufacturers, Mac OS would today rule supreme. But the unchallenged assumption that integration is only good if the software and hardware come from the same company will eventually lead Apple to where it is today in the PC business, relevant but small. Maybe that´s the way Steve likes it.
It´s clear that hardware manufacturers know how to put a good product and have known so for a long time: look at Samsung, HTC, Nokia, etc. Then, Android came along and offered an innovative product that they can all ship. Of course , they are going to do so.
I really hope that manufacters had the corage to say no to Apple mafia tatics and that the trade comission starts blocking imports of phones. This would make the US market to be almost 100% of Apple, prices would rise to heavens (an iPhone would cost 5.000 $) and inovation would be simply.. well, none.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world, without this pathetic software patents, would just enjoy cheap, faster, and better phones running open-source software.
I really wanted to see that!
Greed makes Apple and MS become patent trolls.
Some people would burn you for putting MS and Apple in the same bag.
But this move really shows how Apple is desperate to protect its market share by instilling mistrust into the android platform.