The Cost of Betrayal: Apple’s Destruction of Android

| Hidden Dimensions

“The more you sweat in peacetime, the less you bleed during war.” — Chinese proverb

Apple is at war against Google’s Android. In any war, you make preparations, marshall your assets, analyze the enemy weaknesses, and recall the mistakes of the past. That’s exactly what Apple is doing. Android may not survive its wounds.

Large, wealthy companies have the ability to explore legal scenarios in detail that would exhaust the efforts of lesser companies. That is to say, a comprehensive understanding of one’s patent position and the intricacies of the implications require a hard working and well funded staff. That’s one reason why big companies get bigger.

For a long time now, Apple’s competitors have perceived Apple as a company that knew how to make nice consumer products, but had been historically unable to defend itself in court. That led to ripoffs, all around the world, by companies who could benefit from copying Apple. Google may have had that cavalier attitude when it decided, with Eric Schmidt sitting on Apple’s board, to get into the phone business, something of a betrayal perceived by Steve Jobs. Putting a stop to that not only means patenting your innovations but having a complete understanding of the provenance of various agreements. That requires preparations for all out war.

war & chess

A good example of Apple’s attack on Android is a proper and comprehensive legal understanding of all the licences the iPhone has compared to the licences the competition has. What’s emerging from these legal battles is that Apple obtained licenses for the underlying communication technologies or else they bought component parts from suppliers who already had licences which exempted Apple from and action by the original patent holder. Then, Apple overlaid an innovative, multi-touch user interface on top of that. Experience from the BSD licensing terms probably helped.

In the current case against Samsung in Australia, Apple has sought and won an injunction against Samsung for violating an important touchscreen heuristic. It’s not out of bounds for Apple to do that, as Florian Mueller wrote today that::

Another brand new court decision that will help Apple at today’s California hearing was handed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reaffirmed in Bosch v. Pylon that the U.S. Constitution envisioned patents to be exclusionary rights and that patent infringement should in many cases result in injunctions… I saw that Apple’s counsel filed a ‘statement of decision’ to draw the California-based court’s attention to this development.”

Conversely, Samsung seems to be trying to undermine Apple’s basic rights to key IP related to wireless communication technology — their only recourse because they don’t have the portfolio of innovative UI patents Apple does. Samsung has tried to cleverly leverage off certain patents that Apple already has FRAND rights to, or they’ve tried to make it look like Apple hasn’t licensed key IP at all when, in fact, Apple previously went through a third party, dotted its “i’s” and crossed its “t’s”.

Samsung in the Crosshairs

A current example of that is how Apple is countering Samsung’s countersuit regarding certain wireless 3G patents. It appears that Apple’s use of Qualcomm and Infineon 3G chips has been lawful because Qualcomm and Infineon already had licensed the technology from Samsung. For Samsung to now go after Apple isn’t going to work — assuming Apple’s attorneys are astute enough to draw all this to the attention of the courts. They are, and they have.

An attorney who follows these matters along with TMO, summed it up as follows:

If Samsung licensed its 3G Intellectual Property (IP) to Qualcomm without restriction on Qualcomm’s right to sale chip containing that 3G IP to downstream users, such as Apple, then Samsung’s patent infringement claims based on its 3G technology will almost certainly be barred by the Exhaustion Doctrines…

So, if Qualcomm has the right pursuant to its license with Samsung to sell chips containing Samsung’s 3G IP and if the only reasonable use and the primary purpose of Qualcomm’s chips is to provide 3G connectivity in computing devices, Apple exhaustion defense will destroy Samsung’s 3G patent claims.

In the alternative, Apple is also alleging that Samsung infringement claims are invalid, because Samsung has not offered FRAND terms to Apple for its 3G IP.”

This is getting rather technical, but the point I’m trying to make is that Apple’s attorneys are doing a very good job of both defending Apple’s high level UI patents while also destroying the arguments of those who are trying to counter by saying Apple hasn’t properly licensed the low level wireless patents.

Apple, as it has grown, has made some serious preparations for war.

  • Developed a great portfolio of patents to protect its innovation with iOS.
  • Developed a first class legal staff that’s well funded.
  • Come to understand the intricate details of communication patents and the strategic weaknesses of the opposing legal teams.
  • Come to understand the different patent laws in different countries.
  • Come to understand just how Android infringes on the iOS UI in a manner that Google hadn’t completely thought out or prepared for.
  • Struck considerable fear in those who thought that Android would be an easy path to successful competition with Apple.

What looks like juvenile, pugilistic legal shenanigans by Apple is, in fact, a well orchestrated war to destroy Android and 1) drive Samsung and HTC into the arms of Microsoft — where they are protected, but will pay profit killing fees, 2) or else waste time to spend huge sums building their own mobile OS, and 3) completely undermine and discredit Google’s purchase of Motorola. In the end, Google may have blown US$12.5B and be stuck with a hardware company that has no viable mobile OS.

The wrath of Steve Jobs can be felt even beyond the grave.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

Ross Edwards

This is a really solid article, John.  Great argument.

George Hangs

Even though I am a dedicated Apple user, I have some perspective.

Apple’s OS X and iOS are built on the core of Unix and thus “stand on the shoulders of giants.”

Apple’s self-serving war against Android may be in the interest of Apple, you know, that company which in bed with AT&T, Verizon, and now Sprint, charges consumers around eleven hundred dollars a year for a phone?

Of course Apple would like to kill competitors, especially competitors offering technically more adept products at a lower cost.

If Apple manages to do it, you’ll suffer two ways:

1. Costs will rise ever faster;
2. With no competition, arrival of better gear will slow to a crawl. 

Many recent patents are just phoney.  (Ha!  Pun intended).  Apple was just awarded a patent for a device that can switch between an e-ink low voltage display and a backlit high intensity color display.  Never mind that no such display exists or has yet been even imagined as e-ink displays can’t be backlit.  And never mind that Apple certainly won’t invent such a display as Apple buys its displays from companies like Samsung that actually invent things rather than reassemble components invented by others.

Nonetheless, Apple’s “patent” on the dual display technology would rear its ugly, ugly head if any other company should choose to actually invent it.  Guess what?  Why bother.

mrmwebmax

+

When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone in 2007, he said that Apple had over 200 patents on it, and that they planned to defend them. I say good for Apple. Inertial scrolling, pinch to zoom, and so much more are the inventions of Apple’s R&D labs. That R&D costs money, and it is in Apple’s interest—and indeed their obligation, to shareholders first and foremost—to defend its intellectual property.

If Microsoft could create its own unique mobile operating system, why couldn’t Google?

hangtown

If Microsoft could create its own unique mobile operating system, why couldn?t Google?

That says it all, really. Google decided not to innovate, but to copy. Microsoft is at least innovating. The MAIN reason, IMO, the fanaticism for Android is so high is that a lot of geeks think it is mobile linux, versus merely being based on linux, but really tweaked for Google’s own purposes. It’s not the moral equivalent of linux. They don’t get that.

Gareth Harris

Well said John. Reminds me of the unix license wars 30-40 years ago, that were muddied up by at&t having unclear directions and goals. This lack of direction resurfaced 20 years ago with the at&t vs bsdi tangle. Which is the main reason for the death of bsdi and the wide adoption of linux today. Even odder I am typing this on a macbook air with intel cpu and bsd unix.

It seems that google did not follow all the patent trails to their conclusions, including not only the hardware with the qualcomm and samsung products, but also the java tangle now connecting to oracle.

You may be right, John. Android may be hung out to dry.

jfbiii

I don’t think “has yet been even imagined” means what you seem to think it means, George.

George Hangs

re mrmgraphics

See, that’s the thing about the “phoney” patents which companies are now registering.

Apple didn’t invent multi-touch.  Apple’s attempt to register “Multi-touch” as a trademark was denied.

A brief visit to Wikipedia might add perspective:
History of Multi-Touch

I had an early Palm Pilot.  Then improved versions.  Then before moving on, a Palm Treo.  There’s no way to look at those devices and not see the iPhone as obvious . . .

IBM offered the first touchscreen “smartphone” in 1994.

IBM Simon from 1994

Nemo

And the Fed. Circuit’s Bosch v. Pylon will not only help Apple in today hearing, where it is seeking an injunction here against Samsung’s Galaxy products; it will also be of tremendous assistance to Oracle, if it prevails against Google in its Java infringement suit, for Oracle will doubtlessly cite Bosch to Judge Alsup as authority for granting a broad injunction against Android that prohibits the distribution, creation, and/or use of all version of Android that contain infringing Java IP and further prohibits the distribution, whether by sale or otherwise, of devices that contain such version of Android everywhere in the United States and its territories, with the only issue being the structure of how and when that injunction will take effect against Google’s distribution of infringing Android and against the infringing Android products of OEMs, carriers, and retailers.

And to think Google could have easily avoided all of this.  It has been reported that Google could have once licensed Java for a mere $100 million dollars, and that Google had the money and engineering talent to do Android right, that is, build it from scratch without infringing on anyone’s IP.  However, doing it right would have taken Google two or three years longer to get to market. 

It won’t even take anything close to a worse case legal scenario with the Android and legion of infringement suits against Android OEMs for Google’s haste to completely waste Android, just a few of right legal victories for Apple, Oracle, and/or Microsoft on the right claims in the right patents.

Jamie

‘And to think Google could have easily avoided all of this.  It has been reported that Google could have once licensed Java for a mere $100 million dollars, and that Google had the money and engineering talent to do Android right, that is, build it from scratch without infringing on anyone?s IP.  However, doing it right would have taken Google two or three years longer to get to market.’

This is similar to my own line of thinking, the folks at the Goog seem to believe patents (and the hard work of others) are hyperbolic at best. Were they hoping no one would notice that their stuff had been pilfered? What is discernible to the market may be open to debate, but when a company invests so much in developing a product, they are going to notice. Google’s defense up to now has been absurd and juvenile in the extreme. It’s sad because they do have some great stuff they could leverage in this area, they could have been a real contender (and I’m speaking to innovation here, not market share, we are all already fully aware of those numbers).

If Oracle is allowed precedent, there will be a whole lotta useless smart phones out there. . . .

geoduck

Nemo:
So lets say for the moment that Google loses the Oracle suit. It’s found to have knowingly infringed on that and possibly other cases as well.

Is there any precedent for manufacturers to sue Google for knowingly giving them (I almost wrote selling) a product they knew was in violation? Could they use that as a defence in the infringement lawsuits against Android, OEMs?or at least as a way to recoup their losses from these suits.

I see a possible situation where the legal posturing and filings could make the current Cell Phone litigations look trivial in comparison.

Nemo

Dear Hangs:  It is nice to hear from the Google/Android OEM representative, though I’ve nothing against that, as you have as much right to speak as anyone else.  However, you can dispense with the self-serving and completely unconvincing: “Even though I am a dedicated Apple user, I have some perspective.”

Regarding the merits of your arguments.  A patent holder can invent, exclusively license, or purchase patented IP.  All of those are perfectly legitimate ways to acquire patent rights in IP.  With multi-touch, Apple has done some of both, purchasing and inventing multi-touc IP.  But whether by purchase, licensing, or invention, Apple has the right to have the patents in its IP, multi-touch and otherwise, enforced against any and all infringing persons.

And yes, Apple stand on the shoulders of giants, but it has licensed the right to do so, not simply infringed on those giants’ IP.  Apple is also a giant of innovation, and one that won’t let others stand on it shoulders by infringing on its IP.

Now, if Apple’s patents don’t have merit, then honest and competent courts here, in Australia, in the EU, and elsewhere can ferret that out and deny Apple relief for infringement.  But I doubt that will be the case, because most if not all of Apple’s patents and their associated claims are likely to be found valid and enforceable.

Also, if Apple just got a patent for a dual e-ink and backlit display, it is a requirement of U.S. patent law that Apple’s patent for that display describe a working invention that fully practices the patent, which a person skilled in the art can build.  So either the USPTO improvidently granted Apple the patent, or your comments about there being no such display ever imagined is utter nonsense.  I am putting my money on the latter.

As for being in bed with carriers:  Android permits carriers to modify Android devices to load them with crapware and makes other accommodations to carriers on Android, which are things that Apple does not do.  So while Apple may be in bed with carriers, Apple at least has the decency to guard against its customers getting screwed, which is something that you can say for Android.

dlstarr7

I had an early Palm Pilot.? Then improved versions.? Then before moving on, a Palm Treo.? There?s no way to look at those devices and not see the iPhone as obvious . . .

Then why did no one develop it sooner?

Nemo

Jamie:  If Oracle prevails on all or any of its major patent claims, I suspect that Judge Alsup will not issue an injunction that immediate shuts Android down.  Rather, I think that his order would take effect against various constituencies over two to three years.  However, during that time, Alsup will order Google to pay damages for past infringement and royalties until the order finally ends the sale and distribution of devices that contain infringing versions of Android. 

Such an injunction that is structured to take effect over time has many advantages:  It gives Google and Oracle time to settle the case in light of the deadline in the injunction; it avoids immediately shutting down Android in ways that may harm innocent third parties, such as consumers; it gives Android OEMs time to adjust by moving to other mobile OSs; it give mobile device OEMs time to supply other competing devices to the market so that right to compete isn’t hindered; and without any court having to issue a hasty stay, it gives the U.S. courts appeal, either the 9th Circuit or the Fed. Circuit, time to weigh-in, and if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court.

But first, though things are going well for Oracle, Oracle must win the case.

geoduck:  Android OEMs, depending on the licensing and other contractual agreements among Google and its Android OEMs and the representations that Google made to its OEMs, the OEMs may have actions for either express or implied indemnification, fraud, breach of contract, damages for supply a defective component, contribution for any infringement damages, which is all that I can think of right now. 

But so much depends on facts that we don’t have.  For example, Google agreement may expressly require that its OEMs waive indemnification, though such a waiver may not be enforceable, depending on the circumstances.  Similarly, Google could have contractual excluded certain grounds for breach and/or other claims.  We simply don’t know.  But if Judge Alsup or some other judge shuts down Android, we are damn sure going to find out.

BurmaYank

“I had an early Palm Pilot.? Then improved versions.? Then before moving on, a Palm Treo.? There?s no way to look at those devices and not see the iPhone as obvious . .” .

Me too - I had the original Palm not too long after it first came out in 1997, and I upgraded to several Palm Pilots, then to the Kyocera Palm smartphone and then to the Treo 650 and then the Treo 700p - but I had a Newton (made by APPLE, by the way) in 1995 (three years after it first came out) before I had my first Palm. 

But I disagree.  To me, the iPhone UI resembles less the PalmPilots’ & Treos’ (which really don’t differ from each other all that significantly in UI, IMO), than it resembles the Newtons’.  So, whether or not the Apple iPhone did borrow more from the Apple Newton than from the Palms, and whether or not the original Palms borrowed from the Apple Newton, or from much lesser prior Casio or Sharp or Commodore or Psion Organizer “PDAs”, it is obvious to me, looking at that the iPhone (& its Droid clones devices, & also the WebOSdevices), that the iPhone UI is really NOT similar in many significant ways to (non-WebOS) Palm/Treo devices or any of the iPhone’s predecessors, except for the Apple Newton. (the greatest grand-daddy of them all), and that all Palm Pilots & Treos much more resemble in UI the Blackberry & Nokia smartphones than they resemble iPhones.

George Hangs

I wish I were technical enough to delve into Apple’s patent claims.  But I’m not.

My attitude toward Apple’s patent lawsuits is colored by the earlier SCO travesty (funded by Microsoft, et al) against Linux.  Fortunately, SCO dragged IBM in as a Linux defendant, and IBM has both the financial and patent resources to defend.  Those lawsuits seem to be perpetual.

Is Apple’s war against Android a “good thing?” 

I guess if you’re an Apple stockholder, it might be.

Certainly, if you’re Microsoft attempting your usual squash of competition (think Netscape, Lotus 1-2-3, substitute Bing vs Google), any damage that can be done to Google is just fine.

But if you’re a consumer, or a user of iOS products, the competition Android has brought to the market has been good for you, your gadgets, and the services Apple provides. 

Google is a fat juicy target, and one that has disrupted much of the established computing order.  Much of what Google has done (at least before it climbed into bed with Verizon re “net neutrality”) was in our interest, as consumers and users of the internet. 

I can’t imagine why even the most dedicated Apple fans would “celebrate” the death of Android.  Should it die, one presumes Microsoft and Apple will be left standing.  That went really well.

George Hangs

BurmaYank.

My Treo had an array of interactive color icons and downloadable apps.

That is the essence of every SmartPhone on today’s market.

The rest is icing . . .

Nemo

Dear Hangs:  The virtues of competition are invoked only for legitimate competition.  However, it is not now, nor has it every been since the advent of IP law, legitimate competition to compete by infringing on another’s IP.  So, where and to the extent that either Google’s Android and/or its Android OEMs are competing by infringing on others’ IP, their respective instances of competition are illegitimate and, therefore, do not exhibit any virtue or serve any just purpose. 

In fact, by violating the IP rights of others, Google and/or its Android OEMs would threaten innovation, competing by means of innovation, and the march of progress in science and the useful arts, because they seek to deprive the true inventor/author of his monetary incentive to innovate by depriving him of exclusive rights in his invention or work of art.  So, if judged liable for infringement, Google and/or its Android OEMs have done nothing but at least damage, if not attempt to utterly destroy, the fount of innovation, the exclusive rights granted to authors and inventors so that they might profit from their inventions.

Nemo

Dear Hangs:  Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft only seek to have the appropriate tribunal remove that icing, be paid for the past Android devices that had that icing, and prevent any further Android device from having the icing.  Once the icing has been removed, we will see whether consumers think that it is icing or cake.

BurmaYank

“My Treo had an array of interactive color icons and downloadable apps.  That is the essence of every SmartPhone on today?s market.”

The first Treo came out AFTER (2008) the first iPhone (2007), so how could the iPhone be derivative of Treos?

Furthermore, if you truly think that mere ”...interactive color icons and downloadable apps…” (are) ”...the essence of every SmartPhone on today?s market.”, I feel sad for you that you seem to be missing out on so much more that is available to you in the iPhone UI (as well as in Android & WebOS UIs), which all the other smartphone UIs (like Treos’, Blackberrys’ & Nokias’) are incapable of (being merely barely-interactive color icons and primitive apps.)

jfbiii

the competition Android has brought to the market has been good for you, your gadgets, and the services Apple provides.

I disagree, strongly. What would be good for iOS users, our gadgets, and Apple services would be the existence of truly competing innovations rather than mere competing derivatives.

Nigel Tufnel

In a related matter, Apple is working to make Google search less ubiquitous by going around it (where it can) with Siri. Siri first tries Yelp and Wolfram Alpha, and only falls back on Google when those come up with nothing. As more services are added to Siri, the percentage of time people end up on the Google page will decrease, and increasingly iPhone owners (and perhaps iPad, Mac, and Apple TV owners) will be using Siri to search instead of heading to the browser and Google search.

Ross Edwards

There?s no way to look at those devices and not see the iPhone as obvious . . .

You know, every wannabe guitar player in the world watches a virtuoso’s solo and says, “I could have done that.”

Quite a bit fewer of them actually go and do it.

mhikl

John, there will be dancing in the streets!
Quote: What looks like juvenile, pugilistic legal shenanigans by Apple is, in fact, a well orchestrated war to destroy Android . . .  completely undermine and discredit Google?s purchase of Motorola. In the end, Google may have blown US$12.5B and be stuck with a hardware company that has no viable mobile OS.

Public lynching of this sort will draw the Apple crowd and I have the cooler full with Big Rock, and my feet up in anticipation.

While the trolls can make up false arguments about phoney patents and desperately grab for the envy kool-aid, the courts will decide all this. It?s good to see Apple flexing the muscle and putting the copycats to rest.

It?s also great to see a warrior with the spine to spell it out, sans apology and meek tone. John has made my week with the reports he has dished up this week, all of which makes up for the Particle Debris hiatus this past week.

And I see the troll dancers are into arguments again. A shame that intelligent people thnk they can argue with agenda. The trick is to ignore member the responders and trolls alike and then enjoy the rush without distraction.

mrmwebmax

+

I wish I were technical enough to delve into Apple?s patent claims.? But I?m not.

Yet, somehow, you feel qualified to comment on each and every patent claim made by Apple against Android? Face it: If you admit to not being technical enough to delve into Apple’s patent claims (your own words, not mine), yet feel qualified to refute them at the same time, your underlying problem isn’t Apple, per se: It’s patents, and intellectual property (IP) in general.

OH…and BTW, as for Apple being denied the trademark on “Multi-Touch”: That’s completely irrelevant to patent claims. That means the Patent and Trademark office found the phrase “multi-touch” too generic to be granted a trademark. That doesn’t mean Apple’s technology doesn’t deserve a patent.

I believe, as do most here, in healthy business competition. That means coming up with an alternative approach (again, Microsoft was able to do so), not merely ripping off the ideas, IP, and R&D dollars of others.

Does Apple invent everything they do? No. But they license what others have done, build upon it, and “connect the dots” like no other company on the planet.

mhikl

I see that the Palm / Newton is an issue (ignore member has blanked out trolls and responders so I may be reiterating what others have said).

Touch means fingers. The other two activated a pixel with a stylus. Such tablets are things of the past. Palm was designed by a former Apple employee and the Newton was ahead of its time and ahead of Palm.

Some really silly arguments are always up for offer. Charles Babbage’s computing machine design from the 1800s may actually be built and run on steam so does that mean that all computers following, were copied from M Babbage?

We, of the Apple universe, celebrate innovators and great thinking from all areas of ALL technical fields. That is how fair and honest work and these virtues are as important as mother?s milk, both of which my little guy nurses upon daily.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I read John’s article and all of these comments and then my hands start acting out the conversation between Apple people and Android people.

Right-hand: Thief!
Left-hand: Douche!

That’s all. I’d tell you, sarcastically, that this talk of all-out war and killing is a wonderful tribute to St. Stephen, except that it actually is.

Sucks that it’s not going to OK anymore to like some of what Apple makes and does, and pick and choose what works for you. I understand the left hand’s POV.

jsbow-long

George Hangs said:
“There is no way to look at those devices and not see the iPhone as obvious…”

Ross Edwards said:
“... every guitar player in the world watches a virtuoso’s solo and says, ...”

I have a patent and know the effort to achieve it, including the ‘seen as obvious’ pit fall and struggle avoiding that. The difference is the answer to this question: “Was the subject of the requested patent obvious before the implementation or only after the implementation was achieved?”

Of course, it was obvious AFTER the implementation. Was color and sound in movies obvious to silent movie makers? Sure, it was natural to think that it would happen, but obvious???

So, what innovation would you be willing to give away for nothing? It seems that you would want to take back all the patents on everything that would be the natural evolution of what was available prior to it’s evolutionary product for the past 100 years?

How about the computer? Charles Babbage did that in the late 1800’s. So, all computers are not patentable???

This would surely terminate innovation! Which is what you say you want. And I agree. I want innovation. True innovation is taking what might be obvious to you but not to very many others and making it really happen. It is not in changing the color or shape of icons on a screen and the existing multi-touch interface and the look and feel of a system and putting it in a copy-cat box and calling that innovative.

I’d like to see Android do the interface better. I’d like the next better interface. But copying and tweaking isn’t better. It’s stealing.

2 cent philosophy warning:
Much of innovation is evolution. The trick is to find the phoenix in the ashes of the past.

gnasher729

My assumption had been that Apple’s beef was with Samsung, whose tablet was a blatant copy of the iPad, and who builds phones that very much resemble the iPhone. Patents are obviously used once you are in court anyway, but I thought this was all about designs being copied.

We’ll see. I saw photos of Sony and Toshiba tablets, which looked quite different from the iPad and the Samsung tablet. If Martarello is right, then these would be sued soon as wll. If my assumption is right, then they won’t be sued.

mrmwebmax

+

That?s all. I?d tell you, sarcastically, that this talk of all-out war and killing is a wonderful tribute to St. Stephen, except that it actually is.

Sucks that it?s not going to OK anymore to like some of what Apple makes and does, and pick and choose what works for you. I understand the left hand?s POV.

“St. Stephen”? The man has been dead for all of eight days, and you can’t resist taking a pot-shot at both the man and those of us who admired what he did? Such class, Bosco. Such class, you miserable Fandroid.

So why will we, who enjoy Apple products, find it not OK anymore to like some of what Apple makes and does? Because we lost Steve Jobs? So how does your convoluted troll logic deal with the 1 million iPhone 4S pre-orders? Any snide answers for that? Maybe see if Siri on your Android handset can help. Oh, sorry…that’s an iPhone 4S exclusive. (Here, I’ll save you the trouble: SIRI IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF EVIL APPLE MONOPOLIZING SOMETHING I WANT ON MY NON-APPLE ADVICE! EVIL APPLE! EVEIL APPLE! OPEN IS EVERYTHING! THAT’S WHY GOOGLE HAS BING AND YAHOO! ON IT’S…umnn, never mind….)

Blah bla blah bla blah….

rabber

@Hangs

Your reasoning on the benefits of Android to the consumer is the primary reason that the US economy is circling the drain and we will soon have a third world economy. We have allowed other countries to copy our technology, i.e. China. Then our consumers buy the low cost goods and the US companies that poured money into R&D to develop the technology get screwed. In the end, they choose to either stop innovating or push the innovation offshore.

I have no problem with Google inventing or licensing technology and competing on an even playing field. However, I do not think they have a right to ?develop? a product much quicker or reducing their development costs by copying the prior art of others.

While I am a fan of Apple products and the company, I would be just as troubled if Google had copied Microsoft, Palm or some guy in a garage.

mhikl

There seems to be some newbies round so I?ll say it again.
If you respond to trolls you are only encouraging them to continue their repetitive agenda driven rants. Ignore them and they get bored and eventually go away.
Craig has already asked people not to quote from the trolls as it makes it difficult for those who have ignore member enabled to then avoid their senseless spiel.

Oops, forgot to add my comment.
On the other hand, ain?t it wonderful how crazy Apple drives these boring haters. Steve is smiling down as the Apple universe unfolds as it should. I?ve been chucking over all this since getting home from work. Does it torment them through their lost dreams?
I like it.

Nemo

No, gashner:  In addition to its design patents, Apple has a number of its utility patents at issue against Samsung and other Android OEMs.  In the Australian case, at least two of Apple’s utility patents were the among the bases for Judge’s decision to issue what would be called a preliminary injunction here.

And Apple has number of multi-touch and other patents, some of which are newly granted, that it has not yet deployed against the Android OEMs.  So the Android OEMs face a miserable prospect:  Being sued for infringement on Apple current strong patents in-suit, and even if they were to prevail on those patents, Apple has plenty of very broad patents, utility patents, waiting to be deployed in courts and other tribunals.  Finally, in the extremely unlike event that the Android OEMs beat Apple on all of its patents in-suit and those that Apple has yet to deploy; beat Oracle’s Java infringement suit, and can bear the weight of the Microsoft royalties that they’ve had to pay, they now face Siri, a brand new Apple UI that may revolutionize UIs and make multi-touch, if not obsolete, at least secondary.

It is not good to be Google, and it is worse to be an Android OEM.  And Android developers, such as Bosco, are just waiting to see whether Apple and/or Oracle prevail to tear them apart, and even if the Android OEMs and Google prevail on the patents issues, they must now deal with Apple to get on Siri or risk being left in the past.

Bosco may have to curb his sassy tongue, for Apple may be reluctant to deal with him and his sassy and disrespectful comments, insulting Apple and disparaging its competence, heritage, and honor, such as his fresh St. Stephens comment.

BurmaYank

Is Apple?s war against Android a ‘good thing?’?I guess if you?re an Apple stockholder, it might be.  ...if you?re Microsoft attempting your usual squash of competition… any damage that can be done to Google is just fine…
But if you?re a consumer, or a user of iOS products, the competition Android has brought to the market has been good for you, your gadgets, and the services Apple provides.?
I can?t imagine why even the most dedicated Apple fans would ‘celebrate’ the death of Android.? Should it die, one presumes Microsoft and Apple will be left standing.? That went really well.”

I too can?t imagine why even the most dedicated Apple fans would ‘celebrate’ the death of Android, not only because the competition Android has brought to the market may have been good for Apple’s gadgets and the services Apple provides, but also just because it would bring a deep and un-necessary tragedy to so many millions of world users whose worlds have been greatly expanded & enhanced by their cheap-enough Droid smartphones.

But Google stole Android from Apple, Oracle & Microsoft, and all the world also needs its laws outlawing theft always to be enforced.  If Google had stolen, like Robin Hood, only from the rich, and given the booty to the poor, condemning that theft might be harder to justify because of the complicating extenuations of the inherent injustices of poverty (“The law, in its magnificent equality, makes it illegal, for rich and poor alike, to beg in the streets, to sleep under bridges, and to steal bread.” - Anatole France).  But Google, instead, steals from the ‘poor’ (i.e. - the developers of IP) by trying to establish its precedent of ignoring the law protecting IP rights if only one is big enough and can get enough supporters of one’s stolen property-based enterprise to demand that the law should not be enforced against one’s (Google’s) piracies (as Brad and so many others constantly insist) because too many would suffer. 

No.  Not enforcing the law would hurt us in society more.  If enforcing that law causes Android to die, that cost to society would be less than if Google’s piracy was allowed to stand.  But no rational mind should celebrate that disastrously costly death.  Every rational Apple fanboi/gurl and everyone else should wish that Google would finally seek an honest legal work-around to allow Android to legally function well and to legally make a good enough profit to allow Android to continue serving the needs of the world at least as widely as it does now.  Only “Microsoft and Apple ... left standing”?would NOT be things going ”...really well.”

greatgazoo192

What I see here in the discussion threads uphold the basics of human nature.  Those who benefit from potential wrong doing will tend to rationalize away the claims of wrong doing as somehow “justifiable” for the better good (go re-read George Orwell’s “1984” and “Animal Farm”).  Those who feel empathy for those taken advantage of will tend to come down on the side of the the ones claiming they were wronged.
The laws and courts were established to minimize these human tendencies to the extent possible.  Courts are meant to weigh “just the facts” (as Joe Friday is fond of saying) through the scales of the law (justice is supposed to be blind, just weighing the facts).  Violators of the law should be punished, period! People/entities found to be not guilty of violating laws are to be allowed to continue on in their ways, period!  If the Android camp is found guilty of violating Apple’s patent(s), they should be punished and required to make reparations commensurate to their legally determined misdeeds.  If they are found innocent of violating Apple(s) patents and other violations of the law, then they should be allowed proceed on their merry way.
And if the Android camp is found guilty because Apple has better lawyers representing their interests than Google/Samsung/HTC/etc. has, then the fault is not Apple’s or the legal system’s, it’s Google/Samsung/HTC/etc.‘s.  After all, combined Google/Samsung/HTC/etc. should be able to afford lawyers that are at least as good as Apple’s.

Jamie

Thank you for the insight, Nemo. smile

In my imagined scenario, should that indeed prove to be the sequence of events, Android handsets would be useless in the interim while they ‘work it out’. wink

As was noted in Mr. Gamet’s Samsung piece from earlier, the carriers have already started to diversify, I think they can tell which way the wind is blowing. Google glossing over Android in their recent financials doesn’t exactly bode well either. Best case scenario for Google: Android continues but they pay dearly for it. Whenever this has been the case in the past, Google has dropped its own products like hot potatoes, but Android is so ubiquitous at this stage, that may not be an option for them. . . . wink

greatgazoo192

Many recent patents are just phoney.? (Ha!? Pun intended).? Apple was just awarded a patent for a device that can switch between an e-ink low voltage display and a backlit high intensity color display.? Never mind that no such display exists or has yet been even imagined as e-ink displays can?t be backlit.

I agree with you there are a lot of patent “trolls” out there, but in general it is not beneficial for a company like Apple to just “whip up thousands of phoney patents”.  I have worked as an engineer in the semiconductor industry for a considerable period of time and have on numerous occasions disproved a lot of “that can’t be done” nay sayers.  Just sitting here I can see at least two ways digital ink and either backlit LCD, OLED or LED displays could be merged.  Initially the cost to manufacture would be expensive, but not prohibitively so (especially when you look at the average cost of a new semiconductor fab now running $5 - $10 billion dollars).  The main reason why no-one has started selling devices with a hybrid display yet (notice how I didn’t say no one has made one yet) is not “it can’t be done”, “it’s too difficult to do” or even “the startup cost is too high”.  The reason why devices aren’t being sold with such a hybrid display is most likely because it has been determined that (at present) the cost of manufacture would be greater than the revenue generated.  Every company worth it’s stockholder’s trust has technology sitting its’ IP vault waiting for the day it will be commercially viable.  And yes, if they (any company, not just Apple) develops groundbreaking technology and are waiting for a viable market to develop for it, that company should reap the benefits of their development efforts when enough people say “wow I have to get me one of those”.  Want an iPad/iPhone with a hybrid display?  Round up enough people willing to seriously pony up the bucks to buy one and let Apple know you’re ready.  It may take Apple a little while to make the technology “production worthy”, but I’d bet it would be available within a couple of years.

geoduck

Let me be clear. If the court cases go against Google I won’t shed a tear. What Google didn’t steal is violating the rules of true OpenSource software.
OTOH I see the benefit of having multiple players in the market. I was very saddened when HP screwed up their tablet so badly. That WAS a solid contender that was not derived from others. Palm had developed it’s own OS, HP owned the OS. It was a tragedy they blew it. RIM was another one that had something good, a real contender, but they screwed it up. They got complacent and fell behind the technology curve so far they’re likely on the long dark slide to oblivion. I’ll mourn for them as well.
But Android, not so much.

RumorsRus

Apple learned it’s lesson early on when Microsoft started using the mouse and ICON interfaces that Apple acquired and perfected. With these tools Microsoft was able to capture the PC software market. Now, Apple has protected it’s self with the release of the iPhone and is able to go after those who wish to steal their IP

mhikl

I was very saddened when HP screwed up their tablet so badly. That WAS a solid contender that was not derived from others. . . . etc

So true, Geoduck. It is interesting that the companies you mention can deal with success for a period but then either become complacent or run out of ideas. Such underscores the persistence of Apple, under Steve, that is.

I suspect the problem might boil down to ego. When is it time for a CEO to move on or step aside or use his/er position and therefore, power, to empower others. I haven?t the knowledge or interest to delve into the character of the leaders from the companies you mentioned, but I wonder if they just lacked the character to encourage the talent within their companies. Some might see such as weakening their stature as seen by others.

It seems from what I have read, Steve had such character in spades. I believe he grilled Ive on his basement lab of crazy ideas and then moved him upstairs closer to his office and the rest is history. One wonders how an Ive like character would have faired at the tech companies you mention.

Terrin

It is easier to bring to market a similar product cheaper when you benefit from another’s research and marketing. Taking another’s product apart is pretty simple in comparison to designing it from the ground up. This is even more so when you have inside access to the other companies plans because you are supplying the other company parts.

As far as your carrier arguments go, I do not see Android Smartphones bringing the cost of carrier plans down. The plans cost the same. Apple also has done a nice job of bringing the cost of its hardware down to where its competitors can’t match the price. Further, Apple has advocated for things such as universal sims which would allow people to change carriers easy. The carriers have resisted.

Of course Apple would like to kill competitors, especially competitors offering technically more adept products at a lower cost.

Terrin

That is BS. Historically, Apple has invented a lot of technologies. Firewire comes to mind. It gave Intel the instructions for Thunderbolt. Moreover it had an active hand in designing the Power PC processors used in previous generation Macs, and now its A series processors.

Apple has patents on its magnetic cords, as well as other all in one cords it has designed in the past. Apple invented the convection cooling method used in older model iMacs. This list is almost endless.

You are confusing manufacturing with inventing. It is also possible to use others technologies when it makes sense to do so along with your own inventions. You also might want to ask Sharp about how much Samsung invents, as it has had a few patent shot outs with Samsung.

And never mind that Apple certainly won?t invent such a display as Apple buys its displays from companies like Samsung that actually invent things rather than reassemble components invented by others.

Terrin

So did I. They reminded me of Newton Apple invented years prior. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Apple_Newton.jpg

I had an early Palm Pilot.? Then improved versions.? Then before moving on, a Palm Treo.? There?s no way to look at those devices and not see the iPhone as obvious . . .

Lee Dronick

Interestingly I am currently reading an excellent book on invention The Most Powerful Idea in the World.

While it is mostly about the Industrial Revolution, steam engines and stuff, it also gets into how back in the 1600s the English patent laws came into being. Originally for 14 years to allow two cycles of apprentices to pass through the inventor’s shop so that then they could go on and improve on the idea.

gnasher729

No, gashner:? In addition to its design patents, Apple has a number of its utility patents at issue against Samsung and other Android OEMs.? In the Australian case, at least two of Apple?s utility patents were the among the bases for Judge?s decision to issue what would be called a preliminary injunction here.

I’m thinking that the _reason_ why Apple sues Samsung is the copying of the iPad and iPhone design; that is what Apple cares about. Once Apple decides that they want Samsung to stop copying the design, they obviously do anything to stop Samsung and throw patent claims at them that have nothing to do with the design itself. The question is whether Apple would sue other manufacturers, who might infringe on patents that Apple owns but doesn’t care about too much, as long as they don’t step on Apple’s toes in the design area.

Nemo

Dear gnasher:  While Apple’s design patents are valuable and important IP, because, to paraphrase Steve Jobs, design isn’t simply about looks but about how a device works, the most valuable of Apple’s IP and what gives its products their competitive edge are its utility patents.  The utility patents are about function and cover things like multi-touch, the proprietary elements of Apple’s A5 chip, the iPhone 4S’s new antenna, and other functional inventions. 

Design patents cover ornamental design, things such as look and feel.  Thus, design serves to identify Apples products.  But with Apple design is also important because design serves and enables function.  So Apple’s design patents are important, but if Apple has to chose, it would be a no brainer to chose its utility patents.

However, Apple will sue to protect both its design and utility patents, because they are both valuable, essential to Apple’s identity, its competitive advantage in the market, and both serve to create an insanely great user’s experience.

garyc

“When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone in 2007, he said that Apple had over 200 patents on it, and that they planned to defend them. I say good for Apple. Inertial scrolling, pinch to zoom, and so much more are the inventions of Apple?s R&D labs. That R&D costs money, and it is in Apple?s interest?and indeed their obligation, to shareholders first and foremost?to defend its intellectual property.”

Why did Apple think it was OK then to steal the work and R&D of lodsys ????

mhikl

Why did Apple think it was OK then to steal the work and R&D of lodsys ????

Hello there, troll dross. Why don?t you elaborate or are you too fairy brained to know how to do that. Tis like a weak wrist over which some have no control.

And why is TMO attracting such dregs. Or is it just one lame friendless soul who has no hobby outside of pitching his agendum on the superior site of the thoughtful Apple literate. Imaginary friends are usually left behind by age 5.

garyc

“Hello there, troll dross. Why don?t you elaborate or are you too fairy brained to know how to do that. Tis like a weak wrist over which some have no control.

And why is TMO attracting such dregs. Or is it just one lame friendless soul who has no hobby outside of pitching his agendum on the superior site of the thoughtful Apple literate. Imaginary friends are usually left behind by age 5.”

Christ you sound like your raging

Firstly I own an iPhone, Secondly I would say with certainty that im much better qualified than you.

So tell me if Apple held those patents and others used them, would you take the same stance

No, Sir you wouldn’t, and I know why you wouldn’t…...

Apple patents = good, others = patent trolls ????

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Hello there, troll dross. Why don?t you elaborate or are you too fairy brained to know how to do that. Tis like a weak wrist over which some have no control.

Wow, mhikl going to the gay-bashing smack. Classy. I’d be surprised if the TMO editors tolerate him much longer.

John Martellaro

The discussion is getting out of line.  Let’s get back to our tradition of being gentlemen here.

farmboy

Gary: Apple licensed the Lodsys patents. Apple claims they have the right to sublicense, Lodsys claims otherwise. My guess is Apple is correct. You can look up their letter of response to Lodsys in May, 2011 for details.

mrmwebmax

+

So true, Geoduck. It is interesting that the companies you mention can deal with success for a period but then either become complacent or run out of ideas.

I think complacency is the big issue, especially regarding RIM. They had a business model that worked for years, and were the darlings of IT departments. Then a major market shift happened: With the iPhone, the “consumerization” of IT began, people began bringing their own smartphones (iPhones) into the workplace, and RIMs entire business model was suddenly obsolete. Yet they kept following that same business model.

I worked for CompuServe in the early 1990s and saw the same thing happen there. At the time, we had two major products: the CompuServe network, and CompuServe Information Manager (CIM) software—end-user client software—for DOS, Windows, and Mac. CIM sold for, I think, $20 a pop, and using the CompuServe network was largely a pay-as-you-go affair. Then along comes AOL, with a less-expensive network and free end-user client software. Remember those AOL disks? They were included in everything from magazines to breakfast cereals. OK, not breakfast cereals, but they were everywhere, and made it easy for people to join AOL.

We kept trying to stick with our original business model, while first ignoring AOL, and keeping our heads firmly in the sand regarding this thing called the “Internet.” In the end, AOL ended up buying CompuServe, and now thanks to the web, no one uses either. The online world changed. CompuServe didn’t, and paid the price.

What makes Apple so successful is that they not only change with the times (think iPod, iTunes), but they are also quite often the agent of change themselves (iPhone, iPad). Even the original iMac—the computer that began their comeback—was largely a response to the Internet (hence the name). Apple’s competitors need to learn how to change with the times as well, else they won’t be competitors for long.

mhikl

What makes Apple so successful is that they not only change with the times (think iPod, iTunes), but they are also quite often the agent of change themselves (iPhone, iPad).

Exactly, mrmgraphics.
I?ve been going over old Steve events and what appeared at times to my untrained senses, as strange code, today shows how concentrated the man?s mind was. He knew what the profound changes to our world, via the computer, in all its semblances would actually bring. No one else at the time seemed to speak his lingo and, sadly, the case remains the same today outside of Apple. While others were concerned and aware of individual changes to the historical order, he viewed the paradigm spread out before him in blazing colour. And such knowledge lies behind the success of his drives and actions.

I still see ego as the great stumbler. It takes an Olympian, a percipient mind to see into the heart of the inevitable before its time. Most men are fearful of criticism and turn from greatness because of it. But when you are right and have the power to charge into your dreams, like Steve Jobs did, then I suspect you relish the challenge.

garyc

” a lot of geeks think it is mobile linux, versus merely being based on linux”

Can you please explain that statement ??

mhikl

Gary: Apple licensed the Lodsys patents. Apple claims they have the right to sublicense, Lodsys claims otherwise. My guess is Apple is correct. You can look up their letter of response to Lodsys in May, 2011 for details.

Howdy, farmboy, you show the good common sense of a true born farm lad. This is all that need be supplied by the original poster.

I believe all this Lodsys business was discussed before, possibly by John or at least noted by Jeff. Truth always shows its face in the details, eh?

Beez

I’m not particularly invested in either side of this argument - but knowing how the world works, Apple may soon face the wrath of people who will not accept their defense of IP as it binds to their profit motive.  Can you say “Occupy Cupertino”?

Lee Dronick

I?m not particularly invested in either side of this argument - but knowing how the world works, Apple may soon face the wrath of people who will not accept their defense of IP as it binds to their profit motive.? Can you say ?Occupy Cupertino??

1 Infinite Loop is private property.

Beez

1 Infinite Loop is private property.

Yes, and that matters exactly HOW to the Occupy protesters?  I didn’t say it was the correct approach - but I do see a parallel.

Beez

(after all, Zuccotti Park is privately owned, too)

Lee Dronick

Yes, and that matters exactly HOW to the Occupy protesters?? I didn?t say it was the correct approach - but I do see a parallel.

They can be arrested for trespassing, same for being in Zuccotti Park. Here in San Diego they are occupying the Civic Center which is public property.

I don’t see the parallel.

mrmwebmax

+

I?m not particularly invested in either side of this argument - but knowing how the world works, Apple may soon face the wrath of people who will not accept their defense of IP as it binds to their profit motive.  Can you say ?Occupy Cupertino??

The only people who seem upset with Apple’s defense of IP are members of the die-hard Open-Source/Android/Linux crowd. The vast majority of people, however, most likely are unaware that such issues even exist. They’re too busy pre-ordering iPhone 4Ss, or waiting in line for them, or paying homage to Steve jobs.

Or all of the above.

Beez

I don?t see the parallel.

Maybe because I wasn’t drawing one with San Diego…?

Beez

The only people who seem upset with Apple?s defense of IP ...

Adding the modifier “ON THIS BLOG”, I might be inclined to agree with you.

Lee Dronick

The only people who seem upset with Apple?s defense of IP are members of the die-hard Open-Source/Android/Linux crowd.

Spot on.

Beez

Meh.  Personally, I’m not enamoured with the business practices of either Google or Apple.  Google is more evil than they care to admit, and Apple is more like Microsoft than THEY care to admit.  (Microsoft just reminds me of the kid that has to spend every other Christmas at the OTHER parent’s house.)

I was going to compare them to Republicans and Democrats, but that might be crossing the line.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

The only people who seem upset with Apple?s defense of IP are members of the die-hard Open-Source/Android/Linux crowd.

Straw man. I count myself as someone who wants to see competition so that, for example, I don’t have to use a mobile OS that puts the vendor’s Newsstand application on my device in a prominent way that I can’t remove, or that the discovered work-around crashes my home screen.

I mean, come on son. That is egregious douche-baggery of the first order. Can’t remove it from the home screen… Seriously???

mrmwebmax

+

Straw man. I count myself as someone who wants to see competition so that, for example, I don?t have to use a mobile OS that puts the vendor?s Newsstand application on my device in a prominent way that I can?t remove, or that the discovered work-around crashes my home screen.

I mean, come on son. That is egregious douche-baggery of the first order. Can?t remove it from the home screen? Seriously???

For the record, I have nothing against open-source software. I build websites. All of them are hosted on Linux, and all are built on the Drupal open-source CMS. At the same time, I’ve got nothing against using commercial software on my websites, either, such as the commercial Front Page Slide Show. I prefer the best tool for a given job, be it open, commercial, whatever.

I’m also in favor of competition. I’m not, however, in favor of anyone using the intellectual property of others without permission and/or proper compensation. Again, as I stated in my first post in this thread, Microsoft was able to create a mobile operating system all of its own. Google should have done the same.

As for the Newsstand app? I’ve not upgraded to iOS 5 yet, so I can’t comment. I do know, however, that I’ve always been able to arrange my app icons in any way (the App Store is on my second screen, for instance, not my home screen), so this comes as a surprise. I’ll withhold further comment until after upgrading, so I can see for myself.

geoduck

As for the Newsstand app? I?ve not upgraded to iOS 5 yet, so I can?t comment. I do know, however, that I?ve always been able to arrange my app icons in any way (the App Store is on my second screen, for instance, not my home screen), so this comes as a surprise.

Newsstand is a folder. You can put it on any screen. You however, cannot put it in a folder.

mhikl

The only people who seem upset with Apple?s defense of IP are members of the die-hard Open-Source/Android/Linux crowd.

Dang, you have a good eye, mrmgraphics. Spotting a hyena at its first sputter.

Suspect king troll be talking to himself agin. Such a lonely dude.

And every time I read words similar to the following, I know the troll is up to shenanigans.

Even though I am a dedicated Apple user, I have some perspective. Blah, blah, blah.

I think the regular Apple fairing members have perspective in spades, thank you very much. Prejudging before even getting to know your surroundings is not the way of the sage, even a self-styled one.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Newsstand is a folder. You can put it on any screen. You however, cannot put it in a folder.

And you can’t delete it either. Many, many iOS users are annoyed by that. Now, someone tell me why Apple would purposely annoy its users?

mhikl

And these nuts, or the king nut in all its aliases, are doing everything within its power to mess up this site. But we, the dedicated, shan?t let that happen and shall pull out the long knives of truth, the blunt object of objection, the ear plugs to digression and a sound kettle of mirth to do the dirty deeds their due.

Now, back to world peace.

John Martellaro

Brad: I haven’t tried Newsstand yet, but if it can’t be removed from the home page, this is insanity—and I agree with, at least, the spirit of your comment.

Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

geoduck

Thanks John, that’s interesting. I’ll have to try it.
However it would be nice if I could delete some of these default Apps. I’ve put them in an “unused” folder but I’d like to dispose of them.

MarkyMarc

Most intelligent tech thread I have read in ages…..

BurmaYank

geoduck:? You CAN put Newsstand in a folder.  If you?re quick.? http://gigaom.com/apple/ios-tip-put-newsstand-in-a-folder/

Thanks mucho. I’ve now got Newsstand in my “News” folder.

I also successfully put my old “Video Editors” folder into a new “Video” folder (also containing two Apps previously contained in my old “Video Players” folder), but then every time I tried to open that embedded “Video Editors” folder, my iPhone crashed (without losing any data upon rebooting).  I was able to easily remove that embedded “Video Editors” folder from the new “Video” folder, and everything was perfectly restored then.

Except that now I still have Newsstand stashed away in my “News” folder.  YES!
(Does Newsstand work in there? - I don’t know, because at this point, I don’t care about that App.)

Thanks, again, John!

wab95

John et al:

Given all that’s been said above, there really is nothing left to say except, “Well said, sir!”.

And perhaps this. As has been said before, by yourself, others and yours truly, Apple is a different company than that of the 1980s and early 90s. It was not just Steve Jobs who found his ‘qi’ (‘chi’) whilst banished to the wilderness and came back to Apple like a man on fire, Apple itself pre-ROSJ went through its own near-death experience, and emerged with a renewed sense of purpose and will to live. This set the stage for a synergy between man and company not seen in living memory.

Steve Jobs and Apple bonded like a band of brothers having survived Normandy, with the result that the product, the new Apple, Inc, is bristling with the means and the motivation to defend its IP in the courts with the same alacrity and skill with which it creates an unrivalled user experience with its consumer products. We know how the latter has played for the competition, we only have to read the quarterly reports.

The point being, and Nemo is probably better fit professionally to judge, that Apple have raised the bar, and upped the game, on IP protection. They appear, to my layman’s eye, to have taken the industry to school on how to execute the martial art of innovation, licensing, purchasing and collaboration in order to create a lawful, defensible and practically unimpeachable raft of products and services.

I see this as no less a disruptively novel approach to strategic ecosystem protection and advancement than I do the novelty of their products and services.

This has taken the competition by surprise. Will they and their support base be angered by it. Yes, just as Apple supporters and users were angered by MS’s successful legal defence of their copying of the Mac OS. It was painful medicine, but MS were prepared, Apple were not, and Apple paid dearly for it. Importantly, what didn’t kill Apple made them stronger.

This time, it is Apple that are prepared like no other, will brook no breach to their realm, and will take no prisoners. What does not kill the competition will make them stronger, wiser and more fit for a competition that will do what healthy competition does best, benefit the consumer.

garyc

“The only people who seem upset with Apple?s defense of IP are members of the die-hard Open-Source/Android/Linux crowd. The vast majority of people, however, most likely are unaware that such issues even exist. They?re too busy pre-ordering iPhone 4Ss, or waiting in line for them, or paying homage to Steve jobs.”

It will be interesting to see if the courts uphold Samsung and Motorola’s case that Apple stole their IP…...........

Like how can apple patent the ipad, I dont think they can, go to a store and look at TV’s they are all rectanglar, stand on a base, have a bezel etc etc, have a remote control ,have on screen menus etc, tablets are the same…..

Can’t wait till china steam rolls all over this stupid patent system, they wont care as the US market is shrinking so much it will be irrelevant soon.

Without jobs, apple will eventually wither on the vine, and as for me well my 3gs is my last apple product.

John Martellaro

wab95: In turn, I say to you:  Well said, sir.
-JM

mrmwebmax

+

Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But it rocks absolutely, too. smile

garyc

Wow! what luck I have this week! I was just at the NEW Manhattan Apple store in NYC (The Glass cube one) and ran into Steve Jobs! he was not supposed to be there and was sitting in a corner examinng customers….......not even the employees knew…............they seemed to think he was there to watch them so they looked a little scared. But he wasnt there for that…..he was just doing a walk by. The customers were going about there business…..but I spotted him…........Imade sure it was him before I approached him to say hello. I also didnt want to embarrass him so I walked calmly to him.

The conversation went well! we started talking about Computers….........and of course eventually I got to the Amiga. He definitely knows alot about the Amiga! He soon realised that I did too…...way more than him…..........................I couldnt help it and mentioned Microsoft may be interested in My CD32.I told him I wasnt sure why….........He tried to make it unoticable, but I could tell he was a little bit bothered….......................I showed him pictures online including my Amiga 600….....wich he recognised and knows well…........but never saw a black model like mine and as cool looking….........he Offered to buy it!

I didnt know what to say…..so I acted like I didnt hear him….............he asked me how much I want for it…......and I said I didnt know…....it has a few problems….........and he said he will offer me $350….right on the Spot.

He gave me a Check! I dont know if it is real yet since its Sunday…........but will cash it tommorrow!

He asked me to just drop it off at the Apple store.and he will ask management to ship it to him.

What a strange week! is this a C-O-N-spiracy?

sleepygeek

Just look at Android as it was first released 6 months after the iPhone launch. Absolutely nothing like iPhone. That Google copied iPhone is inescapable. Again, look at Samsung smartphones and their success before and after they copied iPhone (and iPad) in detail.

The evidence suggests that Apple want an open internet, and an open web with no proprietary standards, on which they, or anyone else, can build products for sale. They need space for their own designs to compete against other designs in the market. They only started the patent litigation when there was blatant copying. They had previously got it wrong with Apple II (check Wikipedia re Apple II clones), and with Mac (watch Pirates of Silicon Valley).

The specific patents Apple is using are irrelevant to strategy, and given the crazy world of patents, it’s not surprising that they often look absurd (prime example of an absurd patent, the Amazon one-click shopping patent). You use the patents that work in court, not the ones you’re proud of. So it’s pointless to cite specific patents to make a broad case on either side.

It’s been clear for nearly ten years that Apple regards the UI as an intrinsic part of their product offering. Not being able to remove Newsstand is a trivial instance of this. Apple is saying that Newsstand is an essential element of their user proposition, and it is not to be discarded. You can move it to the tenth screen of icons; you just can’t remove it completely. If you aren’t happy with this level of control by the device supplier, then don’t buy Apple products. The benefit of defining the user experience is (a) supporting it and (b) moving it forward, taking the installed base of users forward. Not Android nor Windows nor Linux can do that. (more than 50% of Windows users are still using the ten year old XP).

Weirdest of all is the fact that Apple’s proprietary products should not have any effect on so-called “more open” offerings, like (apparently) MS Windows, or Google Android. How on earth could Apple sell anything if “open” is so much better and cheaper? And the fact that Apple products are apparently so much more expensive should help the “open” products to put Apple out of business. Apple is blamed for making some kind of reality distortion field over the whole planet, tricking innocent humans into buying Apple products, when the world would be so much better with Android.

Sorry, for my money it’s the “Android good, Apple bad” crowd who are deluded when they think Apple is somehow cheating.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

It?s been clear for nearly ten years that Apple regards the UI as an intrinsic part of their product offering. Not being able to remove Newsstand is a trivial instance of this. Apple is saying that Newsstand is an essential element of their user proposition, and it is not to be discarded. You can move it to the tenth screen of icons; you just can?t remove it completely. If you aren?t happy with this level of control by the device supplier, then don?t buy Apple products.

Here’s the problem. Anything that ends up in that folder is subject to Apple taking 30%. I’m not saying it’s an “anti-trust” problem, because I’m not that guy. But it is a “user-trust” problem in the same tradition as many other features of the platform that force purchase through Apple. Given Apple’s censorial track record, it also means that users likely will not be able to get the perfectly legal but somehow controversial content they desire at some point. Would the Manhattan Declaration be allowed to publish through Newsstand? Nemo might be interested in that question. Would a startup beach/sports photographer be able to publish unretouched photos of beach babes hanging ten? What if, in the first case, gay activists circulate a petition that draws 100,000 signatures? Or in the second case, someone gets a bug up her butt about a nipple contour evident through a bikini top?

Apple is not a niche player in mobile. It covers 25% of the smart phone market and holding. Most don’t expect it to lose majority status in tablets for another year. It has most definitely not earned our basic trust to be the gatekeeper of what gets published in very traditional forms applied to phones and tablets. If it has earned your trust, it’s a bad reflection on your commitment to open exchange of ideas. Or you haven’t been paying any attention.

mrmwebmax

+

Here?s the problem. Anything that ends up in that folder is subject to Apple taking 30%. I?m not saying it?s an ?anti-trust? problem, because I?m not that guy. But it is a ?user-trust? problem in the same tradition as many other features of the platform that force purchase through Apple. Given Apple?s censorial track record, it also means that users likely will not be able to get the perfectly legal but somehow controversial content they desire at some point.

Anyone wishing to both publish controversial content AND avoid giving Apple 30% of the cut is free to build as many independent websites as they desire. However, if they want to publish through Apple’s Newsstand mechanism, they are subject to play by Apple’s rules. This is called business/capitalism/etc. And anyone who doesn’t like the way Apple does business is free to use any Android or Microsoft device of their choosing. Me? I’m happy with Apple’s walled-garden approach. And if I want to leave that garden, I fire up Safari. It’s that simple.

MacFrogger

Quite a thread going here John - are 84 comments (now 85) a new record? 

I don’t see Android being crushed/defeated in a patent war.  I mean c’mon, does anyone here really think Alsup (or any other judge) would issue an order that would incur the wrath of so many consumers and, let’s face it, also do significant collateral damage to to the non-Apple economy?

Nope. But I do think he will “punish” Google with a massive fine and treble damages in the Oracle case as the infringement sure appears to be deliberate/intentional. But guess what?  Google can afford to pay it. When the dust settles after that, Google will likely be paying a per-phone-sold royalty to Mr Ellison, just as Android OEMs are now paying royalties to Mr Ballmer.

Leaving aside this and all other Google’s infringement issues for just a moment, it certainly appears that Apple’s IP has become a de facto smart phone standard, at least for 65-75% of the market (iOS + Android).  Does this reality make it likely that Apple’s enabling smartphone IP might be classified as IP subject to FRAND licensing terms?  Who decides what becomes subject to FRAND and what is not?  Nemo?

Even if this were to happen, of course $$ will still flow to Apple. And if Google were to start paying Apple and Oracle royalties on Android (as it should), and Droid OEMs begin to pay Apple and MS for hardware/design patents, why all of a sudden the business proposition of giving away “free software” in exchange for ad revenue begins to look like a losing one. Over time, this all works to the advantage of MS.

Closing with some pure speculation here: have any of you ever wondered why Apple just doesn’t sue Google? I think despite Eric Schmidt’s “betrayal” of Apple, he and Steve were such close confidantes (not all that long ago they were allies against MS) that they reached a gentleman’s agreement that Apple would not sue Google and in return Google would…I don’t know, continue to support the iOS platform with apps?!  BUT: Let’s not forget that Steve and Larry Ellison were also great friends, and well…it would not surprise me in the slightest if Steve urged Larry to aggressively go after Google all the while maintaining his end of the bargain as well as “plausible deniability.”

greatgazoo192

I don?t see Android being crushed/defeated in a patent war.? I mean c?mon, does anyone here really think Alsup (or any other judge) would issue an order that would incur the wrath of so many consumers and, let?s face it, also do significant collateral damage to to the non-Apple economy?

As I stated earlier, the legal system (when it works the way it is supposed to) does not take into account the extent of the repercussions from decisions.  It’s supposed to be about the law.
As reference, go look up the lawsuit Polaroid filed against Kodak back in the late 70’s/80’s.  Two powerhouse companies (the 80’s equivalent of Apple & Google).  A very large fraction of US households had at least one instant camera based on Polaroid’s patented system.  Kodak was making and selling instant cameras and found to be infringing on Polaroid’s patents.  Kodak was ordered to “cease & desist”, pay Polaroid a chunk of money in damages and also ordered to go and try to buy back all the offending hardware that had been sold to customers (they actually had to take out adds in the papers offering to buy back the cameras at pretty much list price).  The legal battle took 9 years to settle, but in the end Kodak was slammed very hard.  The result of the lawsuit almost killed Kodak.
The irony is that within 10 years digital photography started it’s march to displace film cameras.  Polaroid went bankrupt and Kodak had to re-invent itself as a digital photography company to survive.
Could the same thing happen to the Android camp if they are found guilty?  Maybe or maybe not, but the possibility is there.

Log-in to comment