“The International Trade Commission voted yesterday to investigate Apple for patent infringement allegations launched by the Google-owned Motorola Mobility. As expected, Motorola is asking for import bans on just about every iOS device, including iPhones, iPods, and iPads. What might be surprising is that Motorola is also asking for a ban on every type of Mac OS X computer, claiming Apple’s iMessage technology infringes a Motorola patent.” Let’s hope all those products get banned. And that all Motorola phones get banned. Let’s hope everything gets banned from the US. And yes, I changed Motorola into Google for the headline.
Well, let’s just divert all container ships to Europe, we’ll gladly take them, for a bit cheaper price of course
Everyone should just stop selling stuff in countries where the relevant industry-related patent law environment is unstable and/or unreliable. Or where you can know for sure you’ll end up in court one day.
As ridiculous as it sounds, I believe this would be a godsend for the industry in the long run. Imagine if one day most of the high-tech devices were banned in the US. Suddenly people wouldn’t be able to buy their precious iPhones and and tablets, while the rest of the world easily could. Maybe then ordinary people would _finally_ start questioning the idiotic patent system and maybe something good would come out of it.
Too bad it will never happen.
Edited 2012-09-20 10:22 UTC
I wish there was some way to avoid all this… I know, abolish software patents!
Seriously though – this is just going to go careening out of control now. Pretty soon Apple and Google are going to step back and shed some tears over all the money, time, and energy they are mutually wasting on this silliness. This is starting to look like a giant stimulus package for patent lawyers.
In the end only the lawyers win.
ps. For my fellow American geeks – I know it is about 800th on the list of import stuff, but find out the stance of your congressional pick when it comes to software patents. The only way to fix this is from the top. It’s the laws fault – not Apple’s or Google’s.
Maybe eventually it will get so bad, almost everyone hears about it. And then, maybe people will start realizing all the bullshit that’s going on and start to do something to try to end it.
But considering this stuff doesn’t make the news like rape, murder, drunk driving, illegal drugs, speeding tickets, celebrities, and who just died… I’m not holding my breath on it.
Meanwhile, the government’s busy trying to strengthen laws that already exist such as various forms of rape, violence, child abuse; attempting to branch them out to where they make no sense (video games, censorship of media/entertainment, enforcement of drug laws, further restrictions on weapons) in the name of “the children” and “anti-violence”. Freedom be damned.
Edited 2012-09-20 08:49 UTC
Actually I think a blow to Apple would be bigger in media than a blow to anyone else, right now.
A ban on “just” the iPhone 5 would be gigantic and a lot of people would take notice.
Of course, even though I wish that it would mean we could finally sit down and fix the laws, I bet it would all be regarded as an attack on Apple and any tweak would be as small as possible just to get everyone back on their yearly iFix.
Oh, and did I mention I’m a hopeless pessimist?
Actually, you’ve got a good point. I was thinking it would be funny and I would get some good quality amusement if virtually every Apple product were banned, but more as a “hah, assholes–that’s what you deserve” kind of way. But banning them would no doubt scare a lot of people, and Apple being as big as they are right now, something like this would be a potentially good thing.
The only problem is, if it happens, it might make the news… but unfortunately, the news reporters will try to paint Apple as the good guys here and Google as the devil, and not speak a word about the events (ie. patent slinging shitfest by Apple) leading up to the Apple ban. Apple’s got everyone, including the press and the news reporters, in their pockets. They’ll flash money in front of these people’s eyes to make sure they keep their trap shut when it means the potential (though IMO well-deserved) tarnishing of Apple’s image.
Edited 2012-09-21 00:41 UTC
Seriously, these idiots are just wasting time. iPhones will not get banned, neither will Macs. We know this. Samsung devices will not be banned either. We know this as well. I think these companies, every single one of them, should investigate just how much their legal department is taking from their bottom line and do some serious budget cuts. It’s become one giant penis-waving contest between these companies, all for nothing. I’d say the law needs to be changed as well but, given how many politicians are lawyers and how many others have their fingers in the cash flow from this shit, we’re not going to see that happen any time soon. Apple, back the fuck off. Google, shut the fuck up. It reminds me of a lot of spoiled little kids saying “well, I had that first! Gimme gimme gimme!”
Fire 90% of their lawyers, and they’ll just hire the same amount back within a few years. The only way to potentially solve this would be to put a legal limit on the number of lawyers that can represent a company, and actually enforce that limit. And no company, government or lawyer is going to approve that.
Edited 2012-09-20 08:38 UTC
It was never Google’s way of doing things to use software patents for agression. Even for defense, they did not file thousands of patents for every fart from any of their engineers.
Apple DOES patent every fart in Cupertino, even those that smell just like long-lingering ones from who-knows-who, a thousand years ago. And then it uses the legal system predatorily to incinerate the competition.
Google was forced by Apple and Microsoft into this battle, and they had to spend many millions of dollars in ammo, buying Motorola and other sources of patents here and there, well after Android was in the market and well after the world was seeded by their own servers and networks, for which they have developed considerably sophisticated software and hardware, from which no known patent battles have emerged.
I don’t think this is a particular patent war that Google intends to win: it looks to me like they intend to poison the well and stop this nonsense altogether. If the judges do indeed ban import of any iDevice into the US of A, many people will roar bloody murder, and Apple must take note.
Apple are so cynical, though, and the belief they invented everything themselves is so inground in their corporate culture, they will present this as a strike by carpetbaggers against their creativity, unlike the aggressions from their side, which are oh, so legitimate. But it is time they accept that they are carpetbaggers themselves, that 99.9% of what they do is based on ideas learned and copied from elsewhere, with 0.1% of a (very nice) sauce poured on. This 0.1% might be exquisite enough to have the world beating at their doors to buy their products, but it must not give them the right to block others from making their own sauce, even if they take inspiration from Apple’s ideas. After all, the others are also pumping out ideas that Apple is snorting greedily when nobody looks.
I hope Google prevails, and then Samsung with their appeal, and Apple loses face and is shown to be the serial imitator/improver every other company is, and the whole legal patent system implodes pushed by its considerable negative energy.
One can hope, but the more cynical side of me says that’s probably not the case. Even if it were, tactics of poisoning the well often have a nasty habit of coming back to poison the poisoners along with the rest. I do hope the entire system implodes but, should that happen, we need to be ready to make sure that whatever replaces it isn’t even worse. A vacuum is filled quite quickly when power is broken, and often that which steps in ends up making what came before look like a land of fairies and unicorns by comparison.
This is a spiralling escalation. Neither Apple, nor Google, nor ex-Motorola are innocent here.
Apple has a stupidest stance there , though. Claiming that bounceback is the “unique” feature of iOS, while Windows Phone happily has that as well…
Agreed. I’m not an “all commerce is evil” type, but it does seem that there’s some threshold that companies inevitably reach once they get big enough or successful enough, where the legal and/or marketing departments assume control. Some would probably say that threshold is called an “IPO” – though I could name more than a few privately-operated companies that behave exactly the same way.
Hear, hear. If there were one change to patent law that I’d most like to see, it would be an end to selective/strategic enforcement of IP. Trademark owners can’t pull that kind of BS, so why are patent owners allowed to? I’d say make it work just like trademark law, especially the “enforce it or lose it” aspects… especially now that the distinction is being blurred with things like “trade dress” patents.
Not that I have any real expectation that will happen. I think the sad fact of the matter is: the only people/organizations with the power to change patent law are exactly the same people who benefit from the current laws. And as long as that fact holds true, then I have no expectation that we’ll see any significant changes (well, except changes for the worse).
Google hasn’t patented anything historically because their valuable innovations are trade secrets. They don’t want their crawling, ranking, tracking, and AdSense algorithms to be public domain after 20 years, or to risk competitive implementations in the meantime in foreign markets that don’t respect patents. As long as they can prevent leaks, they can keep their core business proprietary indefinitely.
Google’s money comes from selling web traffic to advertisers, which they can do more effectively the more they give away for free. A couple gigs of e-mail storage means a lot of data for them to mine and advertise against. It’s convenient for them to espouse a pro-freedom stance because it’s in their interests for all content to be searchable (readily available in open formats): scanning and digitizing old books, for instance. It also wins them a lot of sympathy from users: they’re giving out a lot of content and services gratis (free beer). If copyrights and patents disappeared entirely, Google’s business would be healthier than ever.
So don’t mistake their free swag for charity or their former anti-IP stance for morality. It’s all just the convenient choice of trade secret over legal protection: http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html
Again, there aren’t any lawsuits because the secrets haven’t leaked.
They felt safe making bold moral statements like “don’t be evil” because they didn’t foresee a time when they’d have to be, i.e. when they’d be making and distributing I.P.
As soon as they actually made and sold something, they’d be just as litigious as everyone else when it gets copied: they’re using their control of the OHA to prevent hardware partners from implementing unauthorized versions of supposedly free software, and now that they’ve bought a company that makes and sells products, they’ve gone on the offensive with Motorola’s old patents.
Their only user-facing (or as OSNews calls it, “obvious”) innovation is minimal, text-based Web design and advertising, which I don’t think was ever patentable, but I welcome evidence to the contrary. It’s worth noting that Apple has gone the complete opposite direction with their vision of advertising: iAd is all about maximizing advertising content without pulling the user away into a new browser window. It’s as un-Google-like as it gets.*
Meanwhile, almost everything Apple innovates is user-facing and completely visible (again in OSNews parlance, “obvious”). All of their value is in the user experience, which is much easier to copy than secret algorithms or metallurgical methods, and it’s also much easier to copy than it is to create from scratch. Hence Apple’s obsession with patent protection.
It’s a half-truth at best to say Apple is the aggressor here. Google bought Android because they saw the trend of data flowing through cell phones instead of traditional PCs. So far so good — they needed to be a part of that emerging market. But when it came time to produce a product, they cheated. They scrambled to copy from more established players. Originally it was going to be Blackberry, because that’s what a data-heavy device looked like when Google started making prototypes, but they changed course at the first sight of iPhone.
My point is to stop painting Google as an innocent philanthropist who was minding its own business when big bully Apple came along and stole all its toys. If Google had done something original in Android instead of copying Java and iOS, these lawsuits wouldn’t be happening, just as they’re not happening to WebOS or WP7 — and Google is still coming out ahead despite the law’s attempts to stop this sort of thing.
* Does iAd still exist? In any case, I mention it because when it was announced, the parallel was drawn in the tech press between Google getting into phones and Apple getting into advertising. Of course that comparison is ludicrous in terms of both scale and method. Apple isn’t trying to roll out a Web-wide advertising business, nor did they copy Google’s style in doing so.
Google has patented Google Doodles and how they appear on the page.
I don’t necessarily want to disagree with all of your points or your overall analysis, since I’ve no doubt Apple and Google have very different approaches and motivations.
However, I’d disagree with your claim that Google hasn’t patented anything. Google has been clear on the importance of IP from the outset and the fact the PageRank algorithm* was patented back in 1998 is arguably what allowed them to build such a dominance in search.
http://www.google.com/patents/US6285999
Also, when Google introduced the phrase “Don’t be evil” I suspect they weren’t thinking about patents. Although I’m sure their intentions when introducing it were honourable, you credit them with too much prescience!
* PageRank is a Google trademark.
Very interesting comment, and clearly one that had a lot of thought put into it. And I agree with just about everything in it, up until this point:
Strip that paragraph of all the emotionally-loaded phrasing & implied value judgements, and you basically have a textbook description of how any responsibly-run business would act when entering a new market.
If if a supermarket chain creates their own version of a preexisting “brand” product, do you consider that to be a cheat? It’s generally not seen that way – and whatever else one can say about Android, it’s clearly more than just a store brand knock-off of iOS.
WP7, maybe. But webOS? Speaking as someone who owns a Pre 2, an iPod touch, and a few and Android device, webOS is a HELL of a lot more iOS-like than any implementation of Android I’ve ever encountered. Not that I think that’s a bad thing – the developers of webOS obviously looked at iOS for inspiration, AND (more importantly) looked for ways they could improve on it. That is, I’d argue, exactly the same way that most innovation occurs – by taking something that already exists & improving on it. That’s also same approach that Apple themselves used when entering the smartphone market.
If anything, one of my pet peeves about Android is that the primary goal of many design decisions seems to have been “do it differently than iOS” (instead of “do it in whatever way works best”). So I do find it odd to see Android constantly painted at some kind of exact 1:1 clone of iOS.
Or more likely Palm OS. Really the only thing I can think of that webOS and iOS have in common is the static icon grid application launcher.
That’s a separate topic, but I do think it’s a little more complex than that. Rather, it’s probably a case of iOS taking inspiration from PalmOS, and webOS in turn taking inspiration from iOS.
Off the top of my head, webOS possesses two of the exact same features that Apple has sued Android handset makers over: webOS has had both “pinch to zoom” and “bounceback” since day one, IIRC. And in terms of basic look-and-feel, webOS and iOS are more similar to each other than either is to Android – this article is a bit old, but it has a nice side-by-side screenshot (under “Native Input Controls”):
http://uxdesign.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/11/forms-on-mobile-dev…
Which was my original point – or, rather, counter-point to the GP’s claim that webOS doesn’t/didn’t possess the features that were the subject of the Apple-Samsung lawsuit (and others). Note that I’m not attempting to criticize webOS and/or claim that it’s a ripoff of iOS (either explicitly or implicitly).
Simply put, my point is that there’s obviously more to the Apple lawsuits than the mere existence of those features in certain Android implementations – as evidenced by the fact that those features existing in other mobile platforms, which have not been the subject of legal action by Apple.
Just wondering, had this patent system existed about 30 or 40 years ago then there would not be any apple or microsoft today.
Janyl,
This patent system did exist back then, but the lawyers hadn’t gotten involved in computers yet. So, corporations were more focused on building things rather than litigating.
“…there would not be any apple or microsoft today.”
If you didn’t watch this recently posted video, you should view it now. He brings up this exact point.
http://vimeo.com/47322970
Jump to 6:55 – 7:20
“Back in the 80s there were no software patents, and it was xerox who pioneered the graphical user interface. Now what if they patented popup menus, scrollbars, the desktop with icons that look like folders and sheets of paper? Would a young and inexperienced apple have survived the legal assault of a much larger and more mature company like xerox?”
The entire presentation hits the nail on the head.
Apple didn’t copy from Xerox, they were shown the goods, which they liked, and then Xerox and Apple cooperated on the Macintosh GUI. A number of Xerox people worked at Apple, a number even joining Apple.
I agree if Xerox had patented all their GUI stuff and refused to license them it would have made things more difficult for GUI builders, but as it went Apple didn’t copy/steal from Xerox: they worked together.
PS
I recently opened up a Mac Classic II, which was broken, and noticed a number of chips labeled Samsung (and Apple). How things can change.
But the good news is that the Classic works again.
Xerox did sue them a few years later. So it wasn’t all peachy.
Showbiz mariages never are.
I know, I’m just trying to point out that we most likely don’t know the whole story
.
Also, finally the new avatar! Nice.
Edited 2012-09-20 08:12 UTC
SHUT UP ABOUT THE AVATAR! It’s driving me nuts! Couldn’t get The Avatar to appear and today suddenly he’s everywhere. I almost think all the Apple updates fixed it.
With regards to Xerox, as far as I know the GUI people (and others) knew they had cool stuff, they were at PARC Xerox, but head office didn’t see any value in it. Even at PARC not everybody agreed they should let Apple see their creation, let alone have Apple a go at it.
My guess is once Apple showed you can make a customer computer with a customer GUI (well, not sure it had a customer price though) and you can make some money from it some higher up people at Xerox woke up.
Now Apple makes cool stuff and these old Macs are very nifty too, but they are rather limited, black & white, small screen and they used to be VERY expensive. It really does make you wonder why Apple didn’t go bust in the 80’s when you had the Amiga and Atari ST, both having a vast superior GUIs and hardware AND were much cheaper.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwel…
Long article, but hopefully some will read it and stop their BS about those Apple stole Xerox myth.
Or rather don’t change. Samsung manufactures lots of iPhone’s components including flash, RAM and processor.
From
http://tracks.ranea.org/post/31538696331/iconic
by Watts Martin. I couldn’t haver said this any better.
All the attempts to portray Google’s actions as defensive fail because it depends on portraying Apple’s actions as offensive when in fact they are defensive. This whole saga did not start because Apple chose to start a legal war, it started because some companies decided to try to make their products looks as much like Apple’s products as possible.
That is the most fecking of offtopic thing an Apple fanboy could have ever posted.
The issue at hand are Apple’s utility patents. Apple has only brought up design issues with Samsung and Moto XOOM. Everything else is utility patents. Things like bounceback, the thing that Apple claims to be unique to iOS(but really is not).
PS: Jobs thought that Nexus One was “a stolen product”. If you’re as deluded enough to think that as well, then there is no nope for you.
PPS: If you’re such an Apple fanboi, then you might want to read through the whole story at patentlyapple.(All of the legal analysis and history of the case between Motorola and Apple is there for your education)
Edited 2012-09-20 10:21 UTC
When I look at an apple product I always have to think of Braun, how come . . .
Think. The difference between Apple being inspired by Braun and the current situation is this. Braun’s designs are from decades ago and relate to Braun products and product categories which Apple did not make or compete with. If, for example, Apple was inspired by Braun’s designs to design it’s Mac Pros so they look like how a Braun T1000 radio used to look then Braun won’t give a toss, if however Apple at the time that Braun were making the T1000 radio had released a radio that looked just like a T1000 then I think Braun would have had objected.
I understand that some people think that copying stuff is Ok and that it is endemic and a good thing. It’s the people that actually think that Samsung didn’t try to copy Apple’s products or that Google did not reset the design on Android after the iPhone launch to make it look just like iOS, that I don’t understand.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you’re confusing Android with Samsung’s Touchwiz. Samsung did make TouchWiz look like the iPhone. There is no debate possible on that point, even though I think the entire case is one giant farce from both sides. Stock Android doesn’t really look or behave much like iOS, apart from using a multitouch interface. The UI is different, the convensions of apps (well, if you can call them that) are quite a bit different as far as how icons look, where they are placed, how you access additional features, etc. Have a look at Google’s new YouTube app for example, which seems like Google took their Android convensions and slapped them on an iOS app. It doesn’t fit with most iOS apps, but would drop nicely into a stock Android GUI.
Did Google revamp Android for multitouch after the iPhone came out? Undeniably yes, and Google’s own documents have shown this. However, it is most certainly different from iOS in look and feel and, you’ll also note, that Apple didn’t go after Google but went after Samsung who made a custom GUI that was much more iOS-like. I’m not going to get into whether either company should or should not have done certain things, as that topic has been done to death and will continue to be flogged as this legal crap drags on. Have a look at stock Android though, and get a feel for how non-iOS like it actually is.
P.S. I’m an iPhone user myself, though I don’t go in for the cult of Apple or the rdf that I see so often around their products.
To be fair, I think for most people the argument is more nuanced than this. Most people accept that iOS has had the benefit of building on others’ ideas. Most people accept that Android has had the benefit of building on others’ ideas.
The question is therefore one of degrees. The people you’re referring to probably simply can’t see that Android has taken more from iOS than iOS has taken from others. It certainly looks like a close judgement call to me, and the fact different people have different opinions suggests the balance isn’t necessarily clear cut.
These arguments aren’t really relevant to either this or the recent Apple/Samsung court cases though. These judgements are based on different criteria.
That article was idiotic when Gruber posted, it, and it is even more idiotic now, one day later.
Apple’s lawyers found zero evidence that anyone ever has ever bought a Samsung phone while thinking it was an iPhone. As such, the premise of the entire article is flawed and doesn’t transcend ridiculous Apple fan-fiction.
@Tony Swash
I’ll give you the iconic design thing Apple has going. A glimpse is enough to know it came from Cupertino.
Ironically enough, if Samsung was trying to woo me with iPhone like looks in the Galaxy S2, that certainly wasn’t the reason I bought this mildly ugly phone. What won me over was the mix of deliciously powerful hardware in that boxy, meh casing. (My first looks were aimed at the Galaxy Nexus, but I wasn’t ready at that time to let go of a micro-sd slot).
Sorry but nothing will happen.
It’s the same drama over and over. Apple shows obvious/overly broad softpatents -> Injuction granted! Motorola/Samsung shows obvious/overly broad softpatents? -> No injuction. Motorola shows FRAND patents -> You can’t have an injuction for those.
Rinse. Repeat.
Honestly I don’t know what causes this. Has the Apple reality distortion field reached such high levels that everyone thinks only Apple can do innovation and apple never copies? Unholy alliances? Better laywers? Government protectionism of a highly profitable company that can significantly impact GDP of the US?
I don’t have time to research it, because honestly I have a life.
Bingo!
Apple already fixed the infriguement: iMessage is so broken currently that it’s actually promoting alternative stronger (and interoperable) solutions.
So, no harm, no ban?
😉
Edited 2012-09-20 14:11 UTC
Wake me up when it is over!
😉
Is it just me or do these same patent debates keep coming up here?
At this rate you are going to have to change the name of the site to PatentNews.
There has to be more news then this and about OSs to boot?
How about some news on the Amiga front?
Or the resurgence of DOS? 😉
Patent schmatent, let’s just get on with open innovation…
Can we go back to articles on Windows 8 and its lack of a start menu and button?