Apple's aggressive patent strategy is really turning me off; as it should for other people as well. I hope this is understand not only by the Tech community, but also average consumers.
I don't know their claims, but given the past, this is getting out of hand. Last month, I would have said that I would consider buying an Ipod because it is a great product; but because of the past events, I would not consider buying an Apple product whatsoever.
Man up, Apple. You are going to have competitors in the mobile and tablet industry. Stop trying to cop out with all this patent crap.
I find myself wishing for a Hooters waitress to come running down the aisle of the next Apple PR event and hurl a sledgehammer through the presentation.
At least Apple is a company that sells something and is trying to protect their products. They are playing the game under the current law, which is clearly flawed. Rather than complain everytime Apple/Microsoft, etc go after others, can we try to get problem solved?
The game is so flawed that there's an entire industry built around it, and it's getting worse.
Except for ammunition to the endless legions of kneejerk anti-Apple fandroids, what is the point of this article? It is essentially content-free, the limited claim being that Apple, who are infringed upon in many areas, is suing people who rip off its case designs as well as Samsung who ripped of the design of the iPad wholesale.
The patent system exists, Apple are using it correctly. Companies like Samsung should quit whining and stop copying.
It seems thar Apple does not care about the negative PR lawsuites like this generate for them. Apple owes a lot of their success to being cool and innovative. Lawsuites like this make apple neither.
This sort of behaviour isn't visible to consumers, so it doesn't hurt them in the short term.
But it does piss off developers. If they keep up pissing off developers with patent & app store shenanigans they'll lose their most passionate developers and end up with just those who are in it for the money.
And we know how that ends up. ~10 years ago passionate developers jumped from Windows to OS X, even though at the time there was virtually no money in OS X application development. And the availability of some very nice applications was a large driver of the OS X market share increase from 2% to 15%.
Am I the only person that actually thinks that charger cable (assuming its the same size) is a bit suspiciuos? It's like Samsung is either being lazy at this point, or is trying to goad Apple on to attack them.
I have to side with Apple on the shape of the charger issue. Especially since there are plenty of shapes they could have used, some of them standardized, like mini/microUSB...
By the way, the clenching feature was two bumps at the ends of the charger that, I think are used for holding the charger in place.
A question of course is, "should this be patentable". I'm not arguing that right now, and haven't thought about it enough to have a position, but it is awkwardly similar, and when there are already a fair amount of already-existing standards they could have chosen, they went with an Apple-specific one. ... that's all I'm saying.
What's more, Apple didn't start this. A few times in the past, I've traced the history of these suits in HN threads. Everyone is suing everyone, but reporters love to highlight Apple because it's a brand that ignites page views.[1,2,3]
Part of the (broken) cross licensing process is testing and setting cross licensing pricing using these suits and settlements. Given the limited market and limited market info for patent values and the unpredictability of enforcement results, this litigation seems to participants as reasonable a method as any for determining the cross licensing value if you're not going to just put everything in a pool (which certainly is supposed to work better, except when Samsung or Nokia sues over the very patents they put into the pool).
Most forget that Apple spent 20 years of R&D on personal mobile devices, then moved into phones in a way that made it obvious the rest of the industry was stagnantly producing what the carriers wanted instead of what humans would really use.
As Apple's "Jesus phone" swallowed demographic segments whole, raking in the lion's share not of units shipped but of profits, the mobile industry went nuts at seeing the lucre they'd left on the table and started suing Apple from every side, both directly and through intermediaries. Of course, Apple, with its 20 years of actually innovative R&D in the space, countered.
When some of the industry start playing the "fast follow" game instead, Apple is forced by trade law to defend against that or they de facto give up their rights to the undefended points.
The charger and cable design show this wasn't a happy design coincidence; this was a calculated move to establish a "me too" product line. Part of that calculation was "What will be our expense from design and patent assertions by Apple when we fast follow these products so closely?"
Before Apple got into mobile, this was how the business was done, but it wasn't in the press because nobody was interested. The only thing different now is that we're talking about it.
(Footnote: the Prada phone design timing has been debunked[4] previously.)
Your product is in the shape of a rectangle, we invented rectangle. Pay us money for our invention or we will sue you in 50 different nations. there needs to be a penalty for the attacking company when frivolous patent suits are shown to be ridiculous.
The problem is that very few claims are genuinely ridiculous.
There can be differences of opinion on what's valid, and things which are untested in law, but for the most part there will be a germ of something at the heart of the claim which will make it potentially reasonable.
Judges tend to throw the genuine dross out very early on.
The one that always springs to mind is the MacDonald's too hot coffee case. On the surface it sounds like complete nonsense but when you look at the detail the claim was perfectly reasonable and deserved to win (which it did).
[+] [-] systemizer|14 years ago|reply
I don't know their claims, but given the past, this is getting out of hand. Last month, I would have said that I would consider buying an Ipod because it is a great product; but because of the past events, I would not consider buying an Apple product whatsoever.
Man up, Apple. You are going to have competitors in the mobile and tablet industry. Stop trying to cop out with all this patent crap.
[+] [-] neuroelectronic|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] barkingllama|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandvm|14 years ago|reply
I find myself wishing for a Hooters waitress to come running down the aisle of the next Apple PR event and hurl a sledgehammer through the presentation.
[+] [-] js2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
The game is so flawed that there's an entire industry built around it, and it's getting worse.
[+] [-] epo|14 years ago|reply
The patent system exists, Apple are using it correctly. Companies like Samsung should quit whining and stop copying.
[+] [-] mrinterweb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|14 years ago|reply
But it does piss off developers. If they keep up pissing off developers with patent & app store shenanigans they'll lose their most passionate developers and end up with just those who are in it for the money.
And we know how that ends up. ~10 years ago passionate developers jumped from Windows to OS X, even though at the time there was virtually no money in OS X application development. And the availability of some very nice applications was a large driver of the OS X market share increase from 2% to 15%.
[+] [-] rimantas|14 years ago|reply
Also, developers who would be most pissed of by this most likely are Android developers already.
[+] [-] marshray|14 years ago|reply
They're already out of new ideas.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sukuriant|14 years ago|reply
I have to side with Apple on the shape of the charger issue. Especially since there are plenty of shapes they could have used, some of them standardized, like mini/microUSB...
By the way, the clenching feature was two bumps at the ends of the charger that, I think are used for holding the charger in place.
A question of course is, "should this be patentable". I'm not arguing that right now, and haven't thought about it enough to have a position, but it is awkwardly similar, and when there are already a fair amount of already-existing standards they could have chosen, they went with an Apple-specific one. ... that's all I'm saying.
[+] [-] Terretta|14 years ago|reply
What's more, Apple didn't start this. A few times in the past, I've traced the history of these suits in HN threads. Everyone is suing everyone, but reporters love to highlight Apple because it's a brand that ignites page views.[1,2,3]
Part of the (broken) cross licensing process is testing and setting cross licensing pricing using these suits and settlements. Given the limited market and limited market info for patent values and the unpredictability of enforcement results, this litigation seems to participants as reasonable a method as any for determining the cross licensing value if you're not going to just put everything in a pool (which certainly is supposed to work better, except when Samsung or Nokia sues over the very patents they put into the pool).
Most forget that Apple spent 20 years of R&D on personal mobile devices, then moved into phones in a way that made it obvious the rest of the industry was stagnantly producing what the carriers wanted instead of what humans would really use.
As Apple's "Jesus phone" swallowed demographic segments whole, raking in the lion's share not of units shipped but of profits, the mobile industry went nuts at seeing the lucre they'd left on the table and started suing Apple from every side, both directly and through intermediaries. Of course, Apple, with its 20 years of actually innovative R&D in the space, countered.
When some of the industry start playing the "fast follow" game instead, Apple is forced by trade law to defend against that or they de facto give up their rights to the undefended points.
The charger and cable design show this wasn't a happy design coincidence; this was a calculated move to establish a "me too" product line. Part of that calculation was "What will be our expense from design and patent assertions by Apple when we fast follow these products so closely?"
Before Apple got into mobile, this was how the business was done, but it wasn't in the press because nobody was interested. The only thing different now is that we're talking about it.
(Footnote: the Prada phone design timing has been debunked[4] previously.)
[+] [-] Mordor|14 years ago|reply
Apple's litigation just pushes everyone else to innovate, while killing off their own enthusiasm.
[+] [-] maeon3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|14 years ago|reply
There can be differences of opinion on what's valid, and things which are untested in law, but for the most part there will be a germ of something at the heart of the claim which will make it potentially reasonable.
Judges tend to throw the genuine dross out very early on.
The one that always springs to mind is the MacDonald's too hot coffee case. On the surface it sounds like complete nonsense but when you look at the detail the claim was perfectly reasonable and deserved to win (which it did).
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]