“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO, in the press release. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”
MacDailyNews Note: HTC makes Google’s rebadged “Nexus One.”
Apple reinvented the mobile phone in 2007 with its revolutionary iPhone, and did it again in 2008 with its pioneering App Store, which now offers more than 150,000 mobile applications in over 90 countries. Over 40 million iPhones have been sold worldwide.
Source: Apple Inc.
MacDailyNews Take: Boom! Here we go (finally)! We’ve been waiting for this day for what seems like forever.
A sickening chill just swept through the executive offices of many an iPhone wannabe. This time there’s no poorly-written contract signed by an unprepared sugared water salesbozo.
• We’ve been pushing the state-of-the-art in every facet of design… We’ve been innovating like crazy for the last few years on this and we’ve filed for over 200 patents for all of the inventions in iPhone. And we intend to protect them. – Apple CEO Steve Jobs when unveiling iPhone, January 9, 2007
• We like competition as long as they don’t rip off our IP, in which case we will go after them. We will not stand for having our IP ripped-off and we will use any weapons at our disposal [to stop it]. – Apple COO Tim Cook, January 21, 2009
See also: The specific Apple patents over which Apple is suing HTC
@MCCFR
“Apple will fail to defend its own infractions on somebody else’s IP”
Could you just mention one or two?….
didnt think so…
@ Predrag @ 11:59,
With the best will in the world, it isn’t your, mine or anyone else’s right or responsibility to criticise any company’s business model simply because it may occasionally conflict with a company to whom we have an emotional bond.
Companies that deal in IP have as valid a right to exist as any other entity so long as they are acting legally: buying a patent and keeping it on a shelf may be a strange way to make a living, but no more than buying a company and benching its products (e.g. Adobe with Aldus Freehand or Quark with mTropolis).
And many of these “rocket docket” companies also try to extract license fees in the first instance before resorting to the courts if the target doesn’t play ball.
A generic troll sez: “Apple is running scared. The HTC Nexus is the first piece of hardware that actually competes.”
Once again this verifies the existence of Google trolls. They’re just as dumbass as the MS trolls. Nothing new here. Yawn. Trolls never get the knack of intelligent conversation. And as ever, they turn to stone in the light of fact.
MCCFR,
I agree with you that there is nothing legally wrong with those companies. My argument (and the reason for the defending MDN take and all others here) is that it is so obviously morally inferior. Emotional bond or not, even if you were an uninformed observer, you could clearly see the moral (if not legal) difference between patent trolls and innovators. Both will protect their intellectual property; however, only one of them has invested blood-sweat-tears and talent to create that IP, while the other paid relatively little money to someone else, in a calculated effort to some day cash in big.
In other words, on the one side, there are hard working, innovative creators; on the other, there are calculating gamblers. Which one has stronger moral integrity?
@ Ubermac (3:07pm)
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/04/apple-found-guilty-of-willful-patent-infringement.ars
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/10649/
There you go.
I always thought that, in a legal dispute, one should never ask a question if you weren’t certain of the answer.
What a good job Apple isn’t reliant on you for legal representation.
Predrag
This is about the law, not moral integrity.
If the law were about moral integrity, the legal system would grind to a halt.
Are they engaged in a legal business? Yes!
Is anything about their business illegal? No!
Did the original innovator enter into an equitable contract of their own volition? Yes!
Did the IP portfolio company make an investment, which carries an innate risk? Yes!
Does the IP portfolio company have a right to protect its’ investments? Yes!
Did the alleged transgressor check for potential patent disputes when they were developing their product? Who knows?
Is the claim valid? Ask a jury.
That’s it. No moral relativism. Just a series of factual legal issues. That’s my point – there’s no point in becoming emotionally vested in this crap and there’s no point in pretending that your preferred side has a monopoly on moral purity, because a) it won’t and b) it’s not the issue in question.
From a legal perspect
The party begins. I’m sure we can bring some other companies into the mix
@MCCFR:
When I was in law school I remember reading a case in Prosser on Torts where the defendants had bought a freezer on contract and after a couple years had defaulted on the contract and were being sued by Sears. The judge found that the freezer could be bought for cash for $500, that the defendants had signed a contract with a purchase price of $900, and had already paid $800 in payments. According to the letter of the law, by contract they still owed about $600, for which Sears was suing. The judge awarded the defendants the freezer and a $300 refund. even the law recognizes unfairness. You have a way to go before you can call yourself a legal expert.
Uhmmm… no google troll here. Proud Mac user that doesn’t like Apple’s business practices. I assume you use Bing to search the web? hoser.
MCFCR:
This isn’t about the law; it is about moral integrity. That is precisely why everyone is rooting for Apple here.
The law will take its course and the jury will have its say. Most of us here are cheering for Apple, whether defendant, or plaintiff, because it is obvious that morally, Apple is right.
And as someone had already pointed out, every once in a while, Apple loses a suit brought on by someone else with a patent. In some cases (as quoted here, Creative), it may well be a bona fide, legitimate claim. In many cases, however, it’s a patent troll company. As legally entitled as they are (to defend their beefy patent portfolios), they are parasites and detrimental to innovation. Patent system is only useful if patents it protects are actually used. These patent trolling companies own the patents to technologies they never intend to actually implement. As such, they are not contributing to the society.
So, yes, in my mind (and others here seem to agree), this is absolutely a moral, not legal issue.
To the person who signed the post as @all:
…”no google troll here. Proud Mac user that doesn’t like Apple’s business practices.”
So, how would YOU do it if you were Apple?
Also, for a bit more respect, you may wish to sign your post with a name, rather than hiding behind “@all” (whatever it means).
Zeke,
Read what I wrote.
I mentioned the concept of an equitable (or “fair”) contract. I understand the concept of fairness, it’s what makes it possible to defeat usury and for George Michael to walk away from a contract.
But “fairness” still isn’t the same thing as “morality”. You can make a judgement on the “fair value” of a fridge – which (according to you) wasn’t done by morality, but by simple research – without entering into a debate on morality.
In any case, are you making a case that the exploitation of an intellectual property portfolio is immoral? Or are you making the case that only companies like Apple, Microsoft or HP should be “morally” allowed to exploit such portfolios because they make things and IP portfolio companies don’t.
Why is the topic not “Can’t compete – litigate” as it was when Nokia sued Apple?? So now that Apple sues it’s a more “valid” reason? Talk about hypocrism…
Predrag,
And as someone had already pointed out, every once in a while, Apple loses a suit brought on by someone else with a patent.
Yes, that was me.
Most of us here are cheering for Apple, whether defendant, or plaintiff, because it is obvious that morally, Apple is right.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying: we know that Apple is the plaintiff in this case and one would hope that its patents will withstand examination in terms of prior art or obviousness, but are you saying that no matter what side of an argument Apple is on, it is always right simply because it is Apple.
If you’re going to invest that concept of infallibility on a company, we’d better see an end to all of these polls on whether Al Gore should be a non-exec because Apple cannot make mistakes. Oh, what the heck – let’s just cancel the shareholder’s AGM and have done with.
@G4Dualie
Time limited patents (and copyrights).. the only way to preserve innovation and competition.
Just clarifying.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Another aspect of trolls, for interested newbies, is that they absolutely refuse to come out of their dark holes. Notice how the generic @whatever troll refuses to identify itself in any way. That’s too scary apparently. The old summary comment: Anonymity enables cowardice. And of course Google trolls are just as cowardly as any others.
Notice my provocation technique. Trolls love this and always respond. The response is typically nonsensical, which makes we troll hunters laugh and laugh. It’s called ‘hitting the target’ in the computer warz. And yes, it is a futile and silly way to waste time, much like playing ‘Wack A Mole’.
Also notice how my statement “always respond” manipulated the troll into doing exactly the opposite. Laugh and laugh! Watch what happens next. Like I said, a silly way to waste time.
This website is a sickening example of Apple fanboyism. Why would anyone clamor for this litigation? Why would you applaud it? Apple’s extraordinarily broad patents are stifling creativity and innovation.
I had got a desire to make my organization, however I didn’t have enough amount of money to do that. Thank heaven my colleague proposed to utilize the loan. Therefore I received the small business loan and realized my desire.
People deserve wealthy life time and business loans or term loan can make it much better. Just because people’s freedom depends on money state.