Apple Transfers Patents Through Shell Company To Sue All Phone Makers 422
New submitter dell623 writes "A patent lawsuit (PDF) by patent licensing firm Digitude Innovations curiously targeted all mobile manufacturers except Apple. A TechCrunch story has revealed that the patents used were transferred from Apple via a shell company to DI, and appear to cover features found in virtually all smartphones. The lawsuit even extends to companies that don't make Android phones, like Nokia and RIM, and to Android OEMs that Apple have not directly sued yet, like Sony. The business model of DI clearly implies that Apple would benefit financially from the lawsuit as a company that contributed patents to DI's portfolio."
Why now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Funny)
This is the Jobs "Doomsday Device". ....And I will just say hello,
To the folks that you know,
Tell them you won't be long,
They'll be happy to know that as I saw you go
You were singing this song.
We'll we'll meet again,
Don't know where, dont know when.
But I know well meet again, some sunny day.
Roll Credits.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
So far from the tree has Apple fallen,
Burning their karma patent-trollin';
So committed to this course of action,
And to alienating every smartphone faction,
They've even set up a patent troll proxy --
Can't fix their broken rep with a ton of epoxy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand Motorola just got an injunction against Apple for basic GPRS tech in Germany. Apple will sooner or later learn that getting into a patent war with cellphone manufacturers that have been making the things for decades is not a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Is this more of a Dead Hand system [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Why now? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think they've been watching Microsoft rolling in the dough from all the android sales and they want in on the fun too. Why not? It's the way things are. Apple can continue to sell iPhones and make money and everyone else can make android phones and Apple can make money. It's nice to see them copying Microsoft's innovation for a change.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where have you been?
Microsoft is the new IBM.
Apple is the new Microsoft.
Google is the new Apple.
(Oracle and Facebook are the new SCO)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has always been about proprietary and high-priced consumer items. I don't know where you're getting this, "Google is the new Apple," schtick from.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has always been about proprietary and high-priced consumer items. I don't know where you're getting this, "Google is the new Apple," schtick from.
Apple used to include schematics for the computers they sold. So no, they didn't always used to be about proprietary, and they weren't always complete dicks.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they've been watching Microsoft rolling in the dough from all the android sales and they want in on the fun too.
No, they want to kill Android. There was an interview with Steve Jobs where the interviewer asked how he lost the OS war. Jobs said, "We didn't see it as a war, we just wanted to make things people liked." Then he stopped and said, "maybe that's why we lost."
Apple doesn't understand that Microsoft won because they were very responsive to what customers wanted. They bent over backwards to give what (the biggest segment of) customers wanted. They were on top of it all throughout the 80s and 90s. Of course, they didn't have a problem playing sharp business games (ie, all their unethical stuff), either.
Apple still doesn't get it. They don't get that enterprise wants backwards compatibility, for example. Who would ever build an enterprise app to run on OSX, when it may be obseleted and ejected from OSX (like Carbon was in Lion, and a bunch of others)?
Apple did see the unethical stuff Microsoft did, and they thought that is why Microsoft must have won. So they decided to follow the unethical stuff.
They would do better if they were more responsive to customers (like, ok, remove Carbon if you must, but provide a downloadable compatibility layer, or open source it! Some people need this stuff).
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Informative)
Carbon was from the OS 9 days - it needed to die, and it was deprecated really early in OS X's life. Apple said "it's still in here, but work away from it because eventually it will be removed".
They gave everyone *years* to move away from Carbon. It's not like they just whisked it out of the OS overnight with the release of Lion.
Same thing with the switch from 68k to PPC and then again to x86. They bent over backwards to keep the backwards compatibility to smooth the transition in each case but said to developers "eventually this stuff is going away".
People got pissy because they had software that relied on Carbon, or was PPC only etc and whined that the support was going away after the very long period they had to update it. This is what happens when you rely on transitional elements and *already marked deprecated* libraries that were there to make moving to the more modern libraries and architectures more fluid.
They've certainly had some foolish moves (like removing backwards compatibility in Final Cut X, while simultaneously withdrawing Final Cut Studio from sale) and various other things, but it's not like they're just yanking things left and right and saying "surprise! too bad!"
Also, how are we quantifying "do better" in the phrase "Apple would do better if... [insert opinion]". They aren't short of cash, their products are selling as fast as they can make them (with some notable exceptions), their customer satisfaction results consistently poll very high, they're growing marketshare in the PC arena (bucking the general trend of PC makers), they're growing in the mobile space (despite very healthy competition from multiple Android vendors). How else can they "do better"?
The only thing they seem to be missing is the slashdot geek vote, but I'm not sure that's terribly troubling to them.
Re:Why now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now back in the real world, people don't want to rewrite their code every few years to fit the latest framework. We want our code to keep working. This isn't an unreasonable demand.
Apple could have made a compatibility layer. They could have open sourced Carbon so others could have, if they didn't want to do the work. No, instead they said, "Screw every single one of you. We don't care if you have the resources to do this or not, you're stuck."
This is why at home you can have a pretty Mac as a toy, but when you go to work, nearly everyone uses Windows. COM and MFC is trash, but at least it still works.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
"every few years" is being disingenuous. Here in the "real world" we like to debate using accurate language.
Carbon was the state of the art, so to speak, in OS 8.6 (and released before then). It was finally killed off in Lion (and strongly limited during the push into 64 bit with Snow Leopard).
To say that, if your app relied on the Carbon API, that Apple was "forcing you to rewrite your code every few years" is to just be laughably dishonest. It was in use on the Mac (in the current latest OS version) since 1997 to 2011 - that's hardly a rewrite "every few years" - that's longer than the entire lifetime of OS X itself (not including its time as a NeXT product).
Cocoa was introduced with OS X and worked alongside Carbon for many years until finally taking over as the sole player in mid 2011 (and slightly earlier in Snow Leopard for 64 bit apps, it was still there just in 32 bit only).
If you can't manage to alter your code to transition to Cocoa in the TEN YEARS that OS X has been around (and the same amount of time you've known that Carbon was deprecated) and you're whining that Apple is making it hard for you then you need to get a different fucking job. Perhaps something with a little less "time pressure" like Bonsai tree gardener or continental plate drift measurer or something. I know ten years is barely enough time to make changes to your code.
I am of course, assuming that your code existed on the Mac in OS 9. If it started its life on OS X and you still used Carbon then... well, I return to my point about getting a different job. Clearly reading the documentation is too challenging.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Come on, you're arguing that ten years is too short of a time span?
So far Apple has not deprecated Cocoa, so going by their past history with Carbon I'd say you have approximately a decade to make some changes to your code if they say it's deprecated tomorrow.
You say there's no reason to have to rewrite your code, except that it's been ordained by Apple. So, your argument is that once you've done it once that it should be forever supported?
I'll let Microsoft know it's cool to bring back ActiveX, or that ALL
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right, I understand that backwards compatibility matters, and that you're arguing that Apple *doesn't* care about that, despite the clar evidence to the contrary - ten years of support for a deprecated API, extensive support for Classic (OS 9 apps) long into the life of OS X, strong support and tools to facilitate the changes in architecture (68k > PPC, PPC > x86), running with Universal binaries for a long time. You're trying to argue a position that simply isn't supported by the evidence.
I'm arguing their support for backwards compatibility isn't sufficient for me. If you like rewriting your code all the time, or having to buy new software because your vendor had to rewrite their code, then do what you like. I'm switching to a platform where I don't have to do that. Apple has demonstrated that they are perfectly ok getting rid of an API after five years (not a decade, like you claim). Furthermore, they have made no provisions for those people who wish to continue using that API. If you want
Re: (Score:3)
No. You got things messed up.
There was the engineering company Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche G.m.b.H, which designed cars for other companies, but didn't have their own production facilities. It designed for instance the Typ 12 for Zündapp, which created the base for the later Volkswagen, but never left the prototype state. An improved prototype (Typ 32) was developped for NSU, and based on those, the Porsche Typ 60 was developped, and a new company was founded by the Deutsche Arbeiterfront, to build the Ty
Re:You are nuts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in the 1980s it was well known MS put out crappy software. I didn't have a PC then but I knew this from reading mags. People only used MS software because they thought it was 'good enough', certainly not because MS gave them what they wanted.
See, this is what you don't get. You and Apple both don't get it. Yes, Microsoft put out crappy software. Yes, other software was better. Yes, the Macintosh was a better computer. So was the Amiga. BUT.......
If your software doesn't have the one feature I need, it is useless to me. I will go with the buggy, ugly software that does what I want every single time. This is the core principle of enterprise software. Find out what the customer wants, and do it. If you don't understand this, you will never make it in enterprise. Microsoft got it. Apple didn't. You don't get it either. Maybe if you weren't so busy insulting people, you would.
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple just wanted to get a share in profits made on Android, why try to block sales of competing devices?
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Laches (Score:3)
The longer you wait to file suit for patents the more committed your victims get to the underlying methods.
Which is why the courts recognize a defense called laches. (Google it.) I admit it's weaker for patents and copyrights than it is for trademarks, but if someone accused of infringement can convince a judge that the patent holder waited for the defendant to become more committed before pulling the proverbial rug, the defendant is off the hook for back damages.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shifting now to the patent troll sockpuppet CEO POV.
I can't get retroactive damages, but I'm not blocked by estoppel in pursuing my claim if I just bought a patent and it wasn't heretofore acted upon because it wasn't me that failed to act. That I worked for the previous owner for twenty years and now work for this transparent spinoff is irrelevant because it's a different legal entity whose ownership and control is cloaked in privacy regulation. I can pursue injunctions in various jurisdictions. The shadows of ownership work for me here. I can keep the matter before the courts and so in doubt for several years - which is the point. With good motion practice just getting to discovery can take over a year, and three years to trial. With luck I can distract real workers in counterparties with depositions and preparing with such, make being in such an adversarial environment personally less pleasant. A distributed array of lawsuits can shut down executives and engineers completely - and that's the point. And while it's in doubt I can encourage the counterparties to settle for the larger damages implicit in their developed dependence without let - and that whole time it's legitimate flackalyst press bait.
I might not be able to win in the courts, but that's OK. Really, a decisive decision in court is like 3% of how these things end up. Some settle after a couple years to fund the puppets like me, and some don't.
If I score a couple good licensing deals I can merit a good bonus and buy a few square miles of Idaho to build a lodge on and retire in - and then sue the same victims again.
I might run out of capital and become a bankrupt shell immune from countersuits, but that's OK because then I can hop back to the corporation I came from as a conquering hero who fought the good fight and took one for the team, and buy the lodge out of my bonus. It's all about keeping the FUD in play for as long as possible to prevent progress. By keeping multiple puppets with multiple claims in play I can use the courts to halt progress, and those that settle pay me to keep this up. One way or another I'm spending my idle years fishing Golden Trout from a Barcalounger in my living room, because a stream runs through it.
Winning the suit is not the goal here. Here the lawyers are just cogs in the machine. The goal is preventing progress I don't control.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Interesting)
They probably got the idea from Google [linuxfordevices.com].
The difference of course being that Google gave patents to HTC to help mount a counter-offense against the already pending lawsuit from Apple. Whereas Apple gave the patents to a patent troll to start entirely new lawsuits against Apple competitors.
Otherwise, yeah, exactly the same.
MS and Immersion (Score:5, Interesting)
It didn't involve giving patents, but when Immersion sued Sony and MS over controller rumble, MS settled with Immersion, giving them money to fund their lawsuit against Sony on the condition that Immersion pay MS from the profits from that lawsuit and took part ownership. It was to remain confidential.
Later MS sued Immersion for not paying MS their money from the lawsuit. No honor among thieves I guess.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/27/microsoft_settles_with_immersion_again/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
HTC is a company that makes phones, it needed the patents to defend its business.
DI is a company that trolls patents, it needed the patents to have a business.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents are now commodities which can be bought and sold and just like weapons, they can be used to attack an enemy. Welcome to corporate warfare.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
To all Apple app developers under fire from Lodsys - this is what the company that you develop for* thinks of patent trolls.
* - Yep, you develop for them, notice how your hard work resulted in their successful ad campaign "There's an app for that"
Re:Why now? (Score:4, Interesting)
* - Yep, you develop for them, notice how your hard work resulted in their successful ad campaign "There's an app for that"
Oh please, give me a break. Most developers I know do it to make money (and have fun at the same time in many cases). It's like the old "I gave this country thirty years of service, and what did it give to me." line. How about a paycheck every two weeks, free or heavily subsidized health care and a pension for the rest of your life!
well done apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well done apple (Score:4, Funny)
Re:well done apple (Score:5, Insightful)
So Digitude Innovation is the new SCO, which makes Apple the new Microsoft.
Re:well done apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well done apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:well done apple (Score:4, Insightful)
this is a smart way to avoid negative publicity. 'apple sues xyz' makes apple sound like an evil company. 'digitude innovation sues xyz' is a way protecting the brand
Yes it's also smart from a defensive standpoint. If Apple were to sue, then it's simple to counter sue, eventually they'll cross license the patents in question. However, if Apple is only seeking to be anti-competitive instead of competitive, they'll use the shell company. This way, since Digitude makes NOTHING the folks they sue can't exactly use their own patent portfolio against Digitude.
The interesting thing is, now that the cat's out of the bag, expect suits to be filed against Apple in hopes they'll call off their trolls. However, unless the same shell corp tactic is used they'll end up looking like the bad guys in the press.
Moral of the story? Set up your corporation today. File the taxes, pay the dues, you don't have to do anything else with it. Later, you can sell them to the big guys who are looking to do some shady shit, OR to the new guys who want to seem like they've been in good standing for much longer than they have. Invest Now! These fake paper people are actually appreciating in value!
Re:well done apple (Score:4, Interesting)
It might be a bit more sinister than that. Typically, when Large Company A sues Large Company B over a patent claim, Large Company B pulls something out of their patent portfolio that Large Company A might infringe upon. Ultimately after many strongly worded press releases, the result is a cross-licencing agreement and both parties go on their merry way. A patent toll shell company has no products and therefore none of those pesky counter claims that stand in the way of a pay day.
Re:well done apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Tim Cook has learned much from Steve Ballmer, on how to make money from cell phone makers and OEMs. iOS isn't going to run on any of them, so they make no direct enemies. Microsoft 'taxed' a few of their OEMs, but OEMs are used to being picked off by patent trolls.
Bad move, Apple. You lose friends a handful at a time. Then there are no more handfuls.
This sounds familiar. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we have to argue Automatic Radio v. Hazeltine Research and Zenith v. Hazeltine Research all over again?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not about winning arguments; it's about gaining and exercising power. The yap flapping is just there to give it apparent legitimacy.
Think Different (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations Apple. (Score:2, Insightful)
With business practices like these I can only wonder how long it will take for the us government to bring on charges of monopolistic practices and force a breakup of Apple's business portfolio. One can only hope.
Re:Congratulations Apple. (Score:5, Informative)
With business practices like these I can only wonder how long it will take for the us government to bring on charges of monopolistic practices and force a breakup of Apple's business portfolio. One can only hope.
IPhone is pretty far away from being a monopoly... of the more than 1 billion cell phones sold in 2010, Apple sold less than 50 million.
At some point... (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point this stops being about mere offensive lawsuits and goes into being plain evil.
Re:At some point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Adjective:
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Re:At some point... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's dickish or deceptive it is evil. The fact that it's allowed by the system doesn't magically make it non-evil.
Re:At some point... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be interesting to poll Harvard Business grads and ask them about deception and "dickish" deeds which are legal and ask if a business should leverage those deceptions for their own gains.
LoB
Re:At some point... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:At some point... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is entirely allowed by our patent system and isn't evil at all.
This is a total non-sequitur. It's not like the Congress is Almighty God and gets to say what is right and wrong. It's legal to buy congressmen, as long as you have the resources to mount a complex campaign of money laundering. That doesn't mean it's not evil.
Neither is faking a pass and then running the ball right down the middle.
OK, if you need the difference spelled out for you, I'll do it. (1) In football, the two teams meet voluntarily. In lawsuits, the defendant is not a willing party to the affair. (2) In football, the by standanders benefit from the fake play *even when it is attempted against their own team*. A deceptive play is a test of defensive skill and a thrill when it is thwarted. In a lawsuit, the customers of the defendant have to pay higher prices.
But wouldn't YOU like to get paid for all the sales your competitors get?
Another non-sequitur. I'd like to have all the money in the bank vault. That doesn't excuse me dynamiting my way in.
Let me explain why what Apple is doing isn't necessarily as LEGALLY kosher as you think it is. It comes down to two words: anti-trust law. It's legal to be granted patents that give you an effective monopoly on a type of product. It's not legal to conspire with another company to restrain trade. The intersection of patent laws and anti-trust laws is a gray area, but the conspiracy angle adds a new wrinkle that's more than just PR.
So: is there any substantive difference between Apple using its patents to establish a monopoly itself, and having a third party do it for them? YES!
If Apple tried this itself, Motorola, Google, and others would retaliate with their own defensive patent lawsuits, forcing a settlement. By assigning their patents to DI under and agreement that exempts themselves, Apple has secured a de facto right it doesn't have under patent law: to be immune from countersuits. DI's legal attack can't be turned aside by counter-suit because DI doesn't make anything.
Let's get back to morality again and apply the categorical imperative here. What if *everyone* did this? What if everyone assigned their legal rights to third parties who do nothing but threaten lawsuits and have nothing to lose by being as aggressive and over-reaching as possible?
I find that argument difficult to swallow (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations exist to make money. Therefore, they'll make money however they can. This is entirely allowed by our patent system and isn't evil at all.
You could argue that people don't have any duties towards other people or the society and each should just try to gain as much money as legally possible. You could even argue that if everyone tries to do that, things end up better for all of us. I would disagree but I could at least understand both the ethical and economic principles behind those claims.
Corporations, however, aren't something that "just exist". They're tool that we, as the society, came up with and gave certain exclusive rights to. To be more exact, corporations are tools through which we grant certain people (CEO, Shareholders, etc.) certain rights that they wouldn't otherwise have (e.g., when the company earns money, it can direct it to shareholders but when it can't pay back its debts, we don't hold shareholders personally responsible).
You can say "You don't whitelist rights! Government/Society/etc. don't GIVE rights" but in the case of corporations, society really has created some rights that don't have any ethical reason to exist. They've been created because we believe that if we create them and give them to people who use them responsibly, society becomes a better place and everyone wins. That being the case, we have all the right to say "You either accept BOTH the rights and duties (=some social responsibility) of this corporation-thingy or we don't give you either of them" and thus expect some social responsibility from corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
"It isn't evil. Corporations exist to make money. Therefore, they'll make money however they can. This is entirely allowed by our patent system and isn't evil at all. Neither is faking a pass and then running the ball right down the middle."
Being legal doesn't mean it's not evil. If the government made it legal for corporations to hire hit-men to kill their competitors' employees, it's still evil if anybody that does it.
The patent system as currently structured allows for a legalized form of extortion. Wh
iPhone is on the way out (Score:5, Interesting)
... or at least that's how I read it.
When they spend this kind of money and go through this sort of effort to essentially go Nuclear then it is quite clear that iOS/iPhone/iPad is on the way out -- or at least is so severely threatened and Apple has no clue as to what to do for a competitive recourse.
Seem to me that this money could have ben much better spent on R&D in increasing their product line and innovating -- but maybe the innovation at Apple died with the Steveness.
Or (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you on crack? Apple is growing revenues at 60% year over year. If that's "on the way out", I'll take some of that kind of failure. Have you been by an Apple Store lately? They're packed, so packed that it's hard to find a sales rep to take your money. The iPhone 4S is the fastest selling electronic device ever. They're selling 100K of them every day. That's $650,000,000 in revenue per day. At this rate, Apple will have more than 5x Google's annual revenues and almost 3x Microsoft's revenues. In fact, wi
Re: (Score:3)
Are you on crack? Apple is growing revenues at 60% year over year. If that's "on the way out", I'll take some of that kind of failure. Have you been by an Apple Store lately? They're packed, so packed that it's hard to find a sales rep to take your money. The iPhone 4S is the fastest selling electronic device ever. They're selling 100K of them every day. That's $650,000,000 in revenue per day. At this rate, Apple will have more than 5x Google's annual revenues and almost 3x Microsoft's revenues. In fact, within 6 months Apple will have more revenue (they already have far more profit) than Samsung, GE, and VW (that includes Porsche & Audi).
I'm sure they'll manage to keep growing at that rate too... [xkcd.com]
Re:But we are not looking at just one data point (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple could easily continue 60% growth rates year after year just from the growth the phone ALONE
Lovely; This is exactly the logic which used to predict that the dot coms would soon be larger than the entire world economy. With your prediction Apple's revenue will be larger than the entire world GDP today in less than a decade and a half. I'm assuming that by then the aliens will have made themselves known and put in some extremely large inter-galactic orders?
Re:But we are not looking at just one data point (Score:4, Funny)
Apple could easily continue 60% growth rates year after year just from the growth the phone ALONE can give them
In 20 years Apple will have owned all the financial institutions and in 100 years the Earth crust will be covered by 1 meter of iPhones ALONE - never mind other iOS device like the iPad/touch.
Re: (Score:3)
So?
Years and years of data showed processors would keep doubling in performance every 18 months - years and years of data showed the same for harddrives.
x86 was all the rage, current trends points at ARM with Intel and AMD being out of the game if they don't keep up.
Apple should be scared shitless, yes they have a force and a brand that ensures some sales, but more and more people switch to Android; the choices there are just much wider and Apple isn't so much of a fashion statement any more.
Re:iPhone is on the way out (Score:4, Informative)
Re:iPhone is on the way out (Score:5, Informative)
B) You must be an economist, since you think that there is no limit to growth.
C) If we apply the same projections to Android's explosive growth - then in 1 year everyone on this planet will have at least one Android device.
Re:iPhone is on the way out (Score:4, Insightful)
The bottom line is then:
"WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS SHIT THEN?"
1. Because they can
2. Because they will earn more money this way
Re: (Score:3)
No, I am suggesting that by disabling competition they can sell more of their own products at higher prices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NO, the hugely successful iOS products will shortly convert the whole industry into copy cat knock offs; some of which will surpass it in various ways (depending on what certain customers want, not what 1 product Apple offers.)
Apple can own the various physical techniques which the others have worked around alternatives already (or pay apple or sony... unless there is a 3rd form of touch screen tech out there own by another already.)
I'm 150% behind Apple on this-- PLEASE use software patents to foobar the i
Wrong, counter-move to Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an act of desperation. It's an act of Machismo, to match every other company (mainly Google, as a countermove to the Motorola purchase and subsequent attacks).
The whole thing is insanity really, there are no white hats here - Google, Apple, the whole lot of them suing each other in ridiculous ways over silly things with absurd demands.
I think there is a purpose for patents, I don't want to see them all go. But plainly something is utterly wrong with the system as it stands, where consumers all sit in the eye of the patent hurricane and hope it doesn't affect some fragment of our lives...
When patents attack... (Score:5, Informative)
Patents should be like trademarks (Score:2)
Upon being granted a patent, you must immediately sue any infringer that you are aware of or risk losing said patent.
Additionally, you should be unable to give preferential licensing to any company.
Congratulations Apple! (Score:2)
The decision to pay lawyers instead of engineers is never an easy one, but Apple, you made the calculations and made your decision and with it you've taken the crown from the former Symbol-of-all-that-is-wrong-in-America, Microsoft. Congratulations! I look forward to the future that you will allow to happen...
OMA (Score:4, Interesting)
Fucking apple. Why can't they just join Open Mobile Alliance [openmobilealliance.org] like everyone else and share the patents. In return they would get access to the whole pool of patents from the other companies [openmobilealliance.org].
Re:OMA (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the OMA is a confederation of the losers? Because its a cartel devised to give network operators a veto on applications and platform innovation? Google isn't a member, either.
Re:OMA (Score:4, Interesting)
Google also isn't a hardware manufacturer. They've released 2 handsets under their own name which were both built by other companies (HTC and Samsung), both which are apparently "losers" according to you being members of the Open Mobile Alliance, which given the size of their market share makes your comment seem a bit silly. The OMA is a confederation made up of mainly hardware manufacturers and carriers.
On the other hand Google is a software company and there is an alliance for the software side of the mobile world where Google is one of the founding members. The Open Handset Alliance. You may have heard of their product, Android.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the OMA is a confederation of the losers? Because its a cartel devised to give network operators a veto on applications and platform innovation? Google isn't a member, either.
YES google are since they bought Motorola Mobility Check the Membership list [openmobilealliance.org]
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Fucking apple. Why can't they just join Open Mobile Alliance like everyone else and share the patents. In return they would get access to the whole pool of patents from the other companies.
Ah, I see that Microsoft is a (sponsor!) member of the OMA. That must mean they can't sue other members like Samsung, HTC and Huawei.
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand, from the outside looking in, hating the patent wars. I can even sort of understand preferring that people don't like Apple, although it requires an emotional commitment I can't summon in myself. What I don't get is the attitude that Apple is somehow "fucked" or "out of ideas" when it's pretty obvious they're doing just fine.
If you seriously hold that belief, you're allowing irrationality to prevent you from clearly understanding reality, and in the end, you only hurt yourself. If you ju
Shame those guys!!! (Score:3)
It always goes in company name, here "DI" and whatever entities there are.
The missing link is people, it's all individuals having those great ideas.
Something like that: http://whoarethe1percent.com/ [whoarethe1percent.com] (kinda crude but useful).
This whole patent/copyright happening is so sick - who are the one-dimensional folks dreaming it up and going for it?
that;s one of them:
http://www.yatedo.com/p/Ed+Gomez/normal/faa10cb30a48fd79dc8ed3f41ff78228 [yatedo.com]
With a picture, how cute!
Co. seems to be a major patent troll - hope they burn in hell!
http://www.burnsvillelocal.com/category/technology/ [burnsvillelocal.com]
Live by the sword, die by the sword... (Score:5, Insightful)
How many of the companies being sued HAVEN'T used patents as an offense rather than a defense? These days, legal departments are profit centres, and are more important than engineering departments; engineers' jobs are being outsourced and offshored while lawyers are rubbing their dirty little hands and laughing all the way to the bank.
I suspect most of the 'victims' of Apple's attempted sleight-of-hand are simply reaping what they've sown. The whole litigious nature of doing business today has gotten out of hand, but I can't say I feel terribly sorry for any of the players involved.
A society that believes lawsuits are the path to riches, and rewards people for spilling hot coffee on themselves or not watching where they're walking, can't help but devolve into this kind of crap. In the end it's a zero-sum game, and a tremendous drain on our resources. I'm surprised it's taking us so long to figure that out.
Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword... (Score:4, Informative)
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple via DI just picked a fight with pretty much every player in the mobile phone market?
This reeks of desperation. Something tells me the recent rulings against them around the world from Germany to the US to Australia are a major blow to their ego and they're lashing out like the cool kid who is suddenly being abandoned by all his friends...
It will be interesting to see if Apple can survive a fight with Microsoft (who are obligated to help due to agreements with Nokia and WP7), Google (Own Motorola), Sony, Samsung, RIM, LG, and Amazon...
This should be illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be illegal. Not just the transfer of patents solely for the purpose of litigating with them, but patents in this field - and maybe patents in general.
This post rambles a bit, but please bare with me as I explain that Intellectual Property is a large component of the destruction of modern society and civilization.
Originally, copyright was a big deal. I understand that. A couple hundred years ago, there weren't a large number of printing presses "in the field". Since then, technology has progressed to the point that not only can we print documents immediately upon desiring a hard copy of them, but there are entire publishing houses based on the idea of "print on demand" for books, periodicals, and other similar products. Humans have even developed a three-dimensional printer, allowing the production of any single plastic object that we can make a CAD document of. "Copying things" was not a personal concern when these laws were instituted, it was to prevent CompanyA from stealing CompanyB's work and printing a couple hundred copies, so that CompanyA would make money by stealing CompanyB's market. At that point in the technology curve, big companies were the only means of production for these products.
Let's think about the here and now, where nearly every home has a printing device. Where paper and ink are available to anyone who has access to a vehicle, and even to those who do not, if they live close enough to a Walmart, a Kmart, a drug store, a grocery store, or in some places even a convenience store. At this point in the technology curve, it becomes obvious that "protecting intellectual property" really means "creating an alternate revenue stream in the guise of monopoly".
It has been said over and over, but I'm going to repeat it one more time to be sure my point is clear:
Patenting software is like patenting a recipe, or an algebraic equation. You cannot patent the number 7, you shouldn't be able to patent "a method for obtaining the number 7 as output from a specific sequence of calculations". Recipes are protected under copyright law, because there is an artistic expression in listing ingredients and instructions for mixing them together... Wait, what?
So-called "design patents" are even worse - they attempt to make it illegal to do what any layman could do with no more tools than their eyes. "Rounded rectangle" should not be patentable, any more than "cube" should be patentable. Apple suing Samsung for making a smartphone that happens to be white was one of the most retarded, idiotic, moronic things that I have ever read, until I came across this article [techcrunch.com], describing how Apple sued a teenager for making "conversion kits" to turn iPhones white before Apple was ready to release the white iPhones... The appropriate thing to do in that case would have been to tell Apple they should have gotten their product to market sooner, and stopped using an artificial shortage to inflate sales figures. That is to say, Apple built the hype for a specific product, but hadn't made it to market with that product yet. Someone else made a product that allowed a cosmetic change to Apple's existing product in response to the apparent demand, and they sued the crap out of him.
I am sick and tired of seeing people arguing about implementations of ideas. I am sick and tired of seeing people trying to claim a monopolistic chokehold on the technology industry, simply because they were able to get to the patent office first. I am sick and tired of being afraid to publish my own software, due to the fact that someone out there will claim I'm infringing on some obscure, obvious "to one skilled in the arts" method of doing something that they have a patent on... like clicking a button, or scrolling a text field.
These intellectual property laws are stifling innovation, doing the exact opposite of the original purpose of the system; patents were desig
I need a little advice. (Score:5, Funny)
I need a little advice.
I am looking to purchase a smartphone, but with all these lawsuits it has become exceedingly difficult to determine exactly which phone will allow me to join the highest possible amount of future class-action suits. I am hoping the sum of settlement payments will exceed the actual cost of the phone and result in a net profit.
Any suggestions?
Re: (Score:3)
iCup and accessory iString might be right for you.
(they come in white, too, if that matters. and it does, for some folks.)
RTFA Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
I read the whole list of comments and did not see a single person mention the fairly important part of the article that seems left out by he summary and headline:
The alternative is that Apple has given some of its patents to Digitude because the patent troll came after it first. The dozen patents Apple has handed over may have been part of a settlement with the firm, along with the license agreement (which would presumably give Apple the rights to its patents, and additional Digitude patents). This seems more likely.
How is it with over a hundred comments no one seems to have RTFA and seen the analysis by Kincaid that says this is most probably a case where Apple was sued by the patent troll and transferred patents as part of a settlement for the lawsuit? Mind you Apple probably could have and should have fought back and demanded a cash only settlement in order to prevent the patent trolling form propagating, but then I can understand not doing so. Microsoft has certainly transferred its patents with trolls several times so paying hard cash to protect competitors seems like a losing strategy in our very, very broken market.
Mutually Assured Destruction? (Score:3)
Looks like Apple wants in on the patent extortion rort.
Apple's competitors can pull the same tricks too- I'd fully expect a few "innovation startups" to spring up soon, preloaded with patent portfolios, and start hitting Apple back.
My hope is that in the resulting mess a few senior people in the bigger organisations take notice and figure out that they could make huge savings by spending some of that money on political lobbying instead, get patent laws cleaned up, and pull the fangs from these lawsuits. These organisations have made great efforts to get the cheapest manufacturing, labour, and development costs. It seems strange that they haven't gone for similar savings in the legal area as well.
But I know that I'm hoping for too much.
SCO clone (Score:3)
Changes in laws are needed. It is truely a disgusting set-up with fucking lawyers.
Okay, take a step back. (Score:3)
Let's take a step back, stop foaming at the mouth and try to look at this dispassionately. Please note before reading that IANAL.
It's already been documented that Jobs was Not Happy with the direction Android was heading in, and wanted nothing less than to kill the platform altogether, to hell with any collateral damage this might do the industry as a whole. I think it's vanishingly unlikely that Jobs surrounded himself with people who would take a live and let-live attitude, so the fact that he's passed on is likely neither here nor there.
Now, it's unthinkable that Apple might have failed to notice Microsoft's ability to extort royalty payments out of Android handset vendors. So it looks like they're trying to do the same thing. This makes a lot of sense for two reasons:
1. Anyone looking to base a new product on Android will now think twice - is "free" such a bargain if you've got to license so many patents from so many places? Might be cheaper to build your own or license a commercial product and get some sort of patent indemnification at the same time.
2. Anyone who's already got a bunch of Android products on the market will be paying Apple.
But there's a problem. The cellphone industry is absolutely swimming in patents - some of which must be licensed on reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, some of which have no such restriction, some of which are in enough of a grey area that the holder could easily eat up a lot of lawyer time. Apple can certainly expect counter-claims if they sue every Android handset maker on the planet - and regardless of the outcome, each will mean years thrashing out a solution. Years of injunctions to prevent sale of the latest product, appeals against those injunctions, the works.
Solution? Well, if a company that doesn't make anything does the suing - a patent troll, if you like - there's much less scope for retaliatory counter-claims. Set up such a company, transfer the appropriate patents to it and let that company do the suing. An elegant solution engineered explicitly to game the legal system. But I'm not sure how the legal system will react to such a gaming - I can see it attracting antitrust action.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Maybe Steve was trying to kill patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe Steve was trying to kill patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
These temporary monopolies give Apple a huge head-start on their competitors: the typical consumer isn't going to buy multiple tablets or smartphones, and if they are then they'll be more inclined to purchase ones that they know will be interoperable. When the time comes to replace equipment, they'll be more likely to go with a brand that they're familiar with. Even if this sparks patent reform (which it almost certainly won't), Apple solidifies its grasp on lucrative markets.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if this sparks patent reform (which it almost certainly won't)
Don't be so sure, this has the mainstream media taking notice of patent problems. There was even an editorial in the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] that was complaining about patent problems. Their solution is different than the one I would choose, but at least they are thinking about these problems now.
Re:Maybe Steve was trying to kill patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
OMG. Yep, our god Steve could never do anything wrong. He must have been trying to do something altruistic. Yep, never mind the fact that Apple outright sued several other companies over phone patents already. This time they must have been doing something good. I'm not sure why he would try to do this good deed secretly so as not to draw positive attention to the company, while at the same time doing the not-so-good deeds very publicly and drawing negative attention, but I'm sure he has his reasons. All hail Steve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe Steve was trying to kill patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course that bull since they only targeted their direct competitors. Money is NOT the only outcome of patent suits, blocking products is another outcome and is something Apple is directly aiming for.
The logical reason? Simple, GREED. ALOT of damage can be done before those patents are nullified, assuming they even will be. You make it sound as if lawsuits doesn't benefits the company suing when in fact it does immensely. Otherwise, patent trolls and massive lawsuits wouldn't be so common place.
As for shutting everyone down, they don't have too. They only need to delay products and damage the companies enough for Apple to run away with more profit. Block basic features from competitors, block/delay products, and weaken the companies; even a partial success is still a success to a company.
Re:i said it after .... (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure what your point is. This strategy of using a patent troll to harass competitors was planned and started under Jobs. Jobs must have signed off on the idea.
Thermonuclear War (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention that Jobs was very vocal [bloomberg.com] about his intentions to sue Android into the ground before he died. Hell, the day he announced the iPhone in 2007 he announced that Apple had applied for over 200 patents on the phone and was ready to enforce them. He tried to do the same thing with the Macintosh look-and-feel lawsuits back in the day but failed. It's clear that he went through great effort make sure Apple had a stronger legal position this time around.
This is absolutely his idea. Anyone trying to pin it the transition to Cook is delusional.
Re:Apple the patent troll (Score:5, Insightful)
The outrage is right here - or are you missing the large number of comments calling out Apple for the crooked, non-innovating, patent-abusing company they have turned out to be?
I am reminded of the parable with the snake and the turtle - the turtle doesn't want to carry the snake across the river because he is afraid the snake will bite him, but the snake convinces him to do so anyway, with the comment "Why would I bite you in the middle of the river? I would drown!"
The turtle agrees to carry the snake across the river, and the snake bites him halfway across.
"Why would you do that?!?" the turtle cries as he sinks.
The snake replies, "I'm a snake, what did you expect?"
The big problem with massive corporations is that they are designed to acquire profit. When we expect them to act in a fashion that is anything other than self-serving and greedy, we are expecting the snake not to bite.
Re: (Score:3)
If /. doesn't render right in your browser, it's your browser that is the problem. /. as far as I can tell seems to be valid HTML.
Re: (Score:3)
What's most interesting about this is that, if I understand TFA right, there are companies out there which make patent trolling on behalf of their clients, to shield the latter from retaliatory suits, their official business plan. That's unbelievably fucked up.
I'm not really anti-patent, but at this point I'm starting to think that scrapping patent system altogether would be less harmful in the long term than letting it continue the way it is.