Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Apple

Tim Cook Prefers Settling To Suing and Has a Huge Quarter 246

An anonymous reader writes "Apple's current legal battles with Samsung encapsulate a large number of patents, innumerable suits and counter-suits, and have resulted in legal motions in 11 jurisdictions across the globe. As you may remember, Steve Jobs in his biography was quite vocal about his intent to go thermonuclear on Android, vowing to spend every last dime in Apple's coffers to destroy Google's mobile OS. But Tim Cook is a bit more level headed about things, expressing during Apple's earnings conference call yesterday that he has has always hated litigation and would much rather settle than to battle in court. The caveat, of course, is that Cook doesn't want Apple to 'become the developer for the world.'" It may not be what Jobs would do, but as zacharye notes, it doesn't seem to be hurting earnings. "Despite early-morning jitters on Wall Street, Apple on Tuesday reported yet another blow-out quarter. The Cupertino, California-based company managed the second most profitable quarter in its history, posting a net profit of $11.6 billion on $39.2 billion in sales. Apple sold 35.1 million iPhones into channels last quarter, along with 11.8 million iPads, 7.7 million iPods and 4 million Mac computers. While the firm continues to dominate the technology industry — Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world — several analysts think Apple is just getting started."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tim Cook Prefers Settling To Suing and Has a Huge Quarter

Comments Filter:
  • A ray of sanity (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Grayhand ( 2610049 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @02:45PM (#39798213)
    It'd be nice to see Apple let up on the Vendetta approach Jobs took to so many problems. I'd love to see them ease up on the Adobe hatred as well. Flash may have it's issues but a good share of the web uses it so it's a pain my iDevices refuse to acknowledge it. For all his pluses Jobs had an irrational confrontational approach to companies he saw as competition or even companies that resisted doing things his way.
  • by mclaincausey ( 777353 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @02:52PM (#39798299) Homepage
    A sage move. I mean, look at how sales have fallen off since the "marketing genius" died...
  • Re:A ray of sanity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cjhuitt ( 466651 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @02:52PM (#39798303)

    I don't want them to let Flash on iDevices. I've refused to install Flash on my development machine at work since before there was an iPhone (well, before the world at large knew about it, anyway), and IMO the web has improved with the reduction of Flash use where it was entirely unnecessary.

    The only downside to all this is the ads that used to use Flash (and thus were automatically blocked for me, no effort necessary) are now using other techniques that don't rely on browser plugins.

  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @02:59PM (#39798407) Homepage

    > but finding the algorithm to know when its a real finger and not accidentally touching is patent able.

    disputable

    > no one is stopping samsung and others from doing the same thing to find their own algorithm

    Chances are, they already have. It's just the Apple now "owns" the approach regardless of how it was derived. It doesn't matter if I read it in the patent, or if I was able to "re-invent" it myself.

    The patent was likely never consulted because of the whole "treble damages" problem. So it is likely that the patent is competely worthless and unecessary.

    Your perverse idea of how patents should work allows the first person to file to steal the intellectual work from the rest of the market.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @03:13PM (#39798593)

    Quite a few things new ways of looking at the world come directly from Apple, or employees they have hired and bought their inventions when no one else was looking at them -- not willing to foster these ideas into something tangible.

    And most of the stuff Apple has been complaining about have been things that could have been found by others, but weren't. Or complaining that someone takes a surface level idea and tries to ride the coattails of something much more popular to the point if they didn't sue, it would encourage others to create identical devices without having to put the hours in.

    I mean, with touch tablets...we all talk about how there really is only one form factor and that others are simply doing what they would have eventually done anyways, reducing the device to solely what was there. And if this is the case, why did every single tablet that came out before look pretty fucking shitty and now all want to try to look like the iPad. Wasn't like it was the first...yet, they took the time to do it right.

    As for other patents...I've had two patents in my name over the years (currently my university is fighting to take my name off because I refuse to 'monetize' them). And everyone in my field has come out and publicly shouted that what I did was OBVIOUS to everyone in the field. And it kinda was. Using time tested techniques and putting it together in a unique way that no one else had. Others had worked for 40 years in the field and got angry that these were patentable...the only reason I even agreed to patent it was that I didn't want to get sued by someone else in the future (and sadly, my employer technically has a suit against me now). And yet, they couldn't put two simple concepts together and make it work because everyone was fighting over the fact that they believed in one or the other concept and never thought to work together (both of which long since past the patent...and it WAS a little more than just adding the two together, but once you did and saw the results, you realized you could achieve far more going down this path than anything else).

    So yeah, when Apple combines existing inventions and actually makes them work when others that have had a lot more time and budget (at least 5 years ago)...they have done something that no one else could have done. And more to the point, they had the expertise to figure out what was important, and what isn't important. You really don't know a subject until you can make it useful to someone that isn't an expert in the field.

  • by Kevin Stevens ( 227724 ) <kevstev&gmail,com> on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @04:00PM (#39799219)

    They are still selling products developed in the Jobs era. The product pipeline is the big concern. The next iphone will be the first phone developed without any oversight from Jobs. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

    Personally, I think some cracks are already showing. The iPad 3 was mostly a tech update. Siri, the main feature of the last iPhone, has usability issues that make it a lightly used curiosity. Siri is the kind of feature that Jobs was legendary for forcing his engineers to get working flawlessly. If you read about him, he was a completely hands-on micromanaging perfectionist when it came to product design. He would critique every minute detail, until he got it just the way he wanted, with little regard to cost. He was also a great pitch man. Somehow he got you excited about a bookstore on your phone.

    I think Apple's success is wonderful, but I fear that without Jobs, the company is going to flounder, just like it did in the 90s. I really hope that doesn't happen, Apple makes great products. But I won't be buying their stock until I see a few successful product releases in the post-Jobs era.

  • by morgauxo ( 974071 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @04:48PM (#39799811)
    First, an algorithm is simply a series of steps that accomplish a goal. That series of steps would have accomplished the same goal before it was ever patented. Nothing new was brought into the world just because somebody thought of the algorithm and then patented it. Also, in most cases lately somebody already DID think of it, they just didn't do it in a mobile device, or on the internet or blah blah blah

    Second, for any goal, including your example there are probably only a finite number of possible algorithms to achieve the goal. This certainly can prevent others from doing the same. Even if there are many ways of doing something there is usually only one best way and occasional a few best ways.

    As a consumer, when company X has the patent on the best algorithm to do A, company Y has the one for doing B and company Z for C then whose device do I buy? Either they are all overpriced due to money spent fighting in court, paying settlements and licensing fees or they all suck because each is only good at either A, B or C when what I want it for is D, the combination of A, B and C.

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...