“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
HTC fail
Apple didn’t file in pro-litigant Texas? Have they learned nothing?
I’m getting old, but I seem to remember an early comment … Jobs, perhaps … saying the significant iPhone technologies were patented as tightly as the lawyers could manage. And just a bit more. Did he really say that? Or is it the Mad Cow kicking in? (or, perhaps, a bit of both?)
As an AAPL shareholder, I can only say ‘Thank you!’ for protecting MY property.
Boom! indeed!
This is what the $40 billion is for. Litigation is expensive, especially when you intend to win!
Tim has officially ‘suited up’
@X
Yeah! So now they better play like the Canadian Olympic hockey teams!
Let the games begin.
…about freaking time!!! but it’s gonna be fun to watch (reaching for popcorn…)
Apple ain’t taking this shit. Google wants to kill the iPhone. Did they acutally think apple wouldn’t come out swinging?
Let the games begin!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Yeah, when somebody with $40 billion in the bank unleashes the hounds on you, I’d think a “cold chill” would be an understatement (especially when they have a legal leg to stand on).
Down goes HTC, down goes HTC!. (Said in Howard Cosells voice, as in “Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier”.
I hope this time, the Jedi defeat the Sith in the Clone Wars.
DLMeyer writes, “Apple didn’t file in pro-litigant Texas? Have they learned nothing?”
The “Rocket Docket” is structured to advantage individuals against “greedy heartless” corporations, however ridiculous their claims. It wouldn’t know how to decide between one g-h corporation and another.
Nexus One, will have a new use soon. A paper weight…
I don’t understand…
What about Google? Google helped design the Nexus One, wrote the software and UI and sells it as their own.
Apple should sue Google as well.
If Android is found to violate any patents, Apple shares will soar.
Try finding a jury that will believe that Eric Schmidt truly excused himself and did not overhear ANY useful information when Jobs presented information to the board.
Apple did not enter the search engine market, Google entered the smartphone market.
What an appropriate term…
BOOM… can’t wait for the fireworks
Book ’em, Danno!
I have a strong feeling that google and android are next. For the moment though it looks like HTC is in the hot seat…
[url=http://www.Gobugz.com]http://www.Gobugz.com – Chicago Web Development[/url]
It’s a good thing that Apple are moving to protect their patents.
The only problem is that the courts are very slow to come to a decision, and when they do, there’s are appeals which delays the final outcome even more.
Just look at the lawsuit with Psystar (sp?). That took over a year to resolve.
In the meantime the tech just moves on. Companies modify their new products to beat the patents using the money they made in the first versions.
Apple have to do this but I doubt anything will happen soon, if ever.
You know that a lot of the IP of the iPhone is in the iPad! THIS IS A WARNING TO THOSE NetBook MAKERS, YOU ARE NEXT IF YOU TRY TO COPY THE iPad’s IP!
So, as the NetBook sales die off this year and that is where the PC box maker have their growth, HOW FAR WILL THEIR STOCKS DROP THIS YEAR AND NEXT!
I want DETAILS!! Which 20 patents is Apple claiming that HTC infringed upon. This going to be better than the O.J. trial.
@DLMeyer
“Apple didn’t file in pro-litigant Texas? Have they learned nothing
@DLM. You don’t have to go to Texas is you have a solid case!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
They should change their name to XTC
Cause they musta been high…..
“This going to be better than the O.J. trial.”
But let’s pray for an educated jury. If the OS fits!
Oh my god, can you imagine if Apple wins this lawsuit?
The smartphone industry might be forced come up with some original ideas instead of ripping off the iPhone continuously.
And if they come up with original ideas, they’re in danger of creating products that can actually compete with it.
Or am I being too optimistic?
Microsoft will be the next defendant.
@DogGone
The PsyStar lawsuit was a different matter. It was about whether or not a PC manufacturer had the right to install Mac OS X in a PC. It was about license agreements, not patent infringement. In fact, PsyStar did not violate any patent or IP. It was a license terms agreement violation. PsyStar didn’t really steal any IP. They did not modify Mac OS X nor they claimed it for themselves. Having lost, PsyStar could have continue selling Windows/Linux boxes. They didn’t because they were stupid enough to fight an already lost war: Terms were clear, they were violating it, lawsuits cost money and they lost it.
In the case of the iPhone and HTC, it’s a much deeper problem. A patent and/or IP lawsuit means: “Those guys stole my stuff and made it theirs”. Plus, HTC is not a mom and pop’s shop (with all due respect to the excellent mom and pop’s shops I’ve known and work with), but a company in the spotlight. They won’t have the stupid “Oh, but they are small, and Apple is a big bully thing” on their side.
As long as Apple has a case, they can win. Not like the bozo IP lawsuit from SCO/Caldera to IBM/Novell/Linux where they had nothing at all.
Now, despite of all this, I agree: This is going to be long and painful (and expensive!). Let’s remember that despite de Windows “gaffe”, Apple already won a case agains an Apple II cloner called -I believe- Apricot. So, there’s a precedent about Apple fighting and winning.
This is brilliant. Instead if filing against “friend” Google, file against HTC. This will make all other manufacturers think twice, especially if Android features (like Multitouch) are part of the suit.
“Finally” is the most appropriate word.
“Apple should sue Google as well.”
The great part about this approach is they don’t have to sue Google directly.
They can sue HTC for shipping/selling products that violate Apple’s patents. That will send a clear message to Motorola, Samsung, etc. — you better be careful if you’re going to base your product line on someone else’s OS.
(Good lawyers, good strategy.)
@AL
Apple has HARDWARE patents. They are out to sue the HARDWARE manufacturer.
Google is SOFTWARE company.
Clear?
I have been waiting for this for so long,.., I am glad that Apple is finally going after the copy cats!
It is about the damn time!
@ qka, you’re talking out of your ass.
Can I “ass” you a question… Does anyone have a breath mint, or some binaca……
It’s a good strategy that Apple decided to wait before going after the thieves.
Let them steal and make their devices, license and market and commit massive amounts of money. Now that Apple finally goes on the offinsive, and most likely wins, not only will the bandits lose in the courts, but they’ll be forced to start at square one and try to design something original.
Meanwhile Apple continues development, creating new, more advanced products, getting more patents and moving lightyears ahead.
@Slater… Apple is NOT Microsoft. MS never created anything, instead copying, stealing and acquiring their products. Apple invents, takes chances and drives the industry.
The moment HTC stepped out of the shadow of Microsoft, BOOM!, they get burned.
This began two years ago with HD2 and Dragon, which were running WinMo 6.5 at the time. Peter Chou was pressured to put Android on the HD2, making it a lethal <strike>illegal</strike> combination, invoking the wrath of Apple legal.
Andy Rubin and Mario Queiroz will be subpoenaed. Or is that p0wned?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Sweet, O-SO-SWEET!
How many are calling their legal teams this morning?
MS – better delay your phone OS for a bit while the lawyers review it…… Oh, and about those touch features on the iPad copies…… Hmmmm….
Nokia – Look sharp here guys……
Google, Good thing you are diversifying into the Energy (etc.) markets, and that you are so rich, and that you dominate the search engine market, and……. But your “Partners” are fair game……..
Some fortunate lawyers are going to end up with some part of $40 Billion…….
HEY! That ‘unprepared sugared water salesbozo’ was hired by ‘the man that can do no wrong’, Steve Jobs.
Have some respect here.
@qka
I understand about hardware patents. However, I would like to add a couple of points.
1) HTC is the OEM of the Nexus One. Nokia is suing Apple NOT Foxconn who actually made the iPhone. Google is in the same situation as HTC makes the Nexus One which Google sells as its own. The Nexus One is a Google Branded phone which was made for Google to be sold by Google.
2) Also, Apple has several UI patents as well which any violation that arises comes from Android and WinMo infringing on the UI patents.
/cue shotgun pump
“S’up boys?”
@Spark
I want DETAILS!! Which 20 patents is Apple claiming that HTC infringed upon.
This is a newswire story!
You want details? Wait for the media hounds to get up off their fat-asses to make the news.
@slater,
How about you build something… i copy it… sell it as my own…
anyway, copying DOESN’T innovate, but does compete
@slater
patents.. the only way to <strike>stop</strike>preserve innovation and competition
Youse sees the glass half-empty, doncha?
…”patents.. the only way to stop innovation and competition.”
Right… Because the best way to innovate and compete is to take someone else’s idea and use it in your product, rather than come up with a better idea on your own.
Suing manufacturers instead of Google is just brilliant. Google is a strategic partner. A lawsuit would seriously undermine that partnership. If manufacturers are found guilty, they won’t be able to sell Android phones. If they can’t offer phones with Android, Google won’t be able to get the OS out there on the devices. Google loses without being sued. Besides, by selling HTC (one of the biggest handset makers), Apple makes sure that it really doesn’t matter whether the OS is Android, WinMob, Symbian or anything else; as long as the patents are violated, they just can’t sell those devices.
Multiple OS birds with the same stone!
When somebody sues Apple, there is normally a set of knee-jerk (well, jerk actually) responses from a certain subset of the readership whining about patents being a bad thing and a hindrance to innovation, the Federal government and (from MDN itself) some nonsense about “can’t compete, litigate”.
And yet, here we are with a – hopefully – winnable patent dispute where Apple is the plaintiff and we see nothing from the MDN fanboi cheerleader editorial team nor anything from the libertarian/teabagger crowd.
Personally, I hope Apple hands HTC’s ass to them (so long as all the patents are valid) – but then I think that the “Apple uber alles” crowd also needs to grow up and accept that sometime Apple will fail to defend its own infractions on somebody else’s IP.
Oh, c’mon people. All of the tech industry is copying off of somebody’s something or other. And you can’t say Apple never does (they’ve fought, lost, and settled plenty of lawsuits in the past, some for significant cash outlays). I’m fine with Apple’s action, and hope they are successful, but to act like they’re holier than all is just ridiculous and disingenuous. And after all, its hardly even about justice – the lines shift and the rules change all the time.
@qka
Google physically sells the Nexus One. They are the sole seller, not HTC.
With regard to the $40 billion: It certainly could be used as a temporary cushion should the costs of litigation become high. However, don’t count on the $40 billion being actually ‘spent’ on litigation. The outcome of successful lawsuits against ripoff fake-competitors is multi-fold:
1) The winner gets the profits incurred by the ripoff.
2) Damage fees to the winner of the suit.
3) Diversion of the market back over to the source technology of the winner, resulting in legal profits.
4) What money was used for legal fees, such as money borrowed from the $40 billion, is restored.
Now, if Apple went all frivolous and lost a bunch of lawsuits, that would be a great way to kill off their reserves. That scenario is highly unlikely at this time.
Nokia sued Apple (and not Foxconn) because:
1. Foxconn doesn’t sell devices under their own brand to the consumers; Apple does, under Apple brand; and more importantly,
2. Nokia has no strategic partnership with Apple, and would very much like for Apple to fail in the mobile business (unlike Apple-Google relationship, which is for the most part mutually beneficial).
The lawsuit against the handset manufacturers is strategically brilliant. Even with Microsoft, there is still this low-level partnership (MS Office, the whole MacBU, Exchange APIs, etc), which Apple would risk to undermine, if they had a law suit against MS for patent infringement in WinMob. There are no partnerships with HTC (or Nokia, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson…), only direct competition. Simple, elegant, clean and effective in every way (neutralising the ascending threat of Android, and preempting any possible threat from WinMob 7).
Another reason to celebrate today, aside from Texas Independence Day.
…”I think that the “Apple uber alles” crowd also needs to grow up and accept that sometime Apple will fail to defend its own infractions on somebody else’s IP.”
The point here is fairly simple. In vast majority of “Rocket Docket” patent infringement lawsuits against Apple, we have a no-name company with a thick patent portfolio, whose sole business model is patent litigation, suing Apple for infringing on a patent that has never been implemented by the original registrant, nor the subsequent owner. In other words, technology that, for all intents and purposes, never existed anywhere outside of the USPTO archives. In vast majority of cases, Apple essentially invented the same technology on their own, unaware that someone else came up with the same idea before and patented it. This isn’t unusual in the rapidly evolving technology business (for two people/engineering teams to come up with the same or very similar ideas).
On the other hand, we have here companies that suddenly started building these multi-touch phones that awfully resemble iPhone in every meaningful way. They haven’t come up with this technology on their own, independently of Apple; they carefully examined the iPhone (possibly even reverse-engineering some of the software/hardware) and re-created the functionality, making cosmetic changes.
There is a fundamental difference, and that is why “MDN fanboi cheerleader editorial team” and the “libertarian/teabagger crowd” reacts the way it reacts.
@Slater = Moron
@ m159
Did you guys go off and make yourself a country?
My son lives down there; I need to know.
In other words, the “MDN fanboi cheerleader editorial team” and the “libertarian/teabagger crowd” is very consistent in calling for Apple to defend itself vigorously against patent violators, as well as against frivolous patent-infringement lawsuits.
@RicMac
“Did you guys go off and make yourself a country?”
Back in 1836. An iffy moment, for sure; four days later the Alamo fell. Texas was an independent nation for ten years before joining the U.S.A.
RicMac:
You may want to make sure your passport is valid before you go…
Regarding the patents = bad subject:
The primary complaint these days is that what was formerly considered a copyright issue has become a more vague umbrella patent issue with regard to computer code.
Submarine patent issues have been somewhat addressed in the USA, preventing remarkably vague patents (a problem caused by the Patent Office protocol) from destroying later, more specific patents. (Wikipedia has a better description). But the practice still continues every day.
If the US Patent Office were sufficiently tech-savvy, theoretically the clash-of-the-patents scenarios would not happen. But consider my description here to be simplistic and vague in and of itself.
Ideally, when a patent has been ripped off, the ripper licenses the technology from the patent owner after compensating them for the lawsuit, profits and damages. Or, when a company wants to use a particular technology, they are able to license it from the source at a reasonable cost. But patent owners are under no obligation to share or license their technology. That is one reason the terms for patents are incredibly shorter than those for copyrights.
Which is cheaper? To sue them over several year drawn out period?…or just go out and buy HTC with pocketchange and steal their smartest talent…er…copiers?
If you look at the infringements, it isn’t a case of companies copying Apple. Some of these patent infringements are just plain stupid.
If you look at the patent application for “Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices”, it patents any gadget that has any sort of sensor that is used by said gadget.
“Object-Oriented Graphic System” covers almost any GUI, even the ones that were pre-iPhone. Anything device that has a gui button to open up an application is affected. This includes Blackberry’s that were out way before the iPhone.
“List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display” is ridiculous. In reading it, it means that no device should be able to scroll at all. Are you seriously going to try and tell me that Apple invented scrolling on mobile devices?
Some of these infringements to have legitimate arguments behind them. Most, however, do not protect Apples innovation, as they were already around beforehand.
I’m not a Texan, but admire their independancey! I do not know if this is true, but I understand they are the only State that can fly the State flag at the same height as the USA flag, and they have clause where they could become an indepent state by simple
majority vote. And I love their BBQ
Why always the sports analogies and military speak? Every new product is a “killer” and capitalism is a football game. Strange.
Quite simply, aren’t some of these companies embarrassed to keep ripping off Apple instead of innovating on their own? This is “good competition?” What’s good about it?
This suit is a year too late. Why did Apple wait? The best defense is always a non-stoppable offense.
@ Hotinplaya
“I understand they are the only State that can fly the State flag at the same height as the USA flag”
Sorry, urban legend. All state flags can fly at the same height as the US flag if on a separate pole. If on the same pole, the US flag is on top.
If Apple wins, it will put competitors behind a very difficult 8 ball. If Apple loses, it will open the flood gates to everyone copying anything they wish. It is good to get this clarified earlier rather than later when planning multi-year strategies.
In any advent, it will provide a chilling effect on the competition and some potential buyers in the near-term. I think the real target may be iPad copiers. They are going to have to really stop and think if they are planning simply to copy Apple’s design.
That’s why they call it a “war chest”
…”This suit is a year too late. Why did Apple wait?”
Because the suit would have little effect if there were only 20,000 devices sold with the infringing intellectual property. Now, with several million infringing devices, HTC will be severely damaged; they have heavily invested into this technology, and are only beginning to recoup the investment. Having to pay damages for each of the infringing devices (millions of them) could likely cripple them financially.
It will also be much of higher profile, which can much more effectively put Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson and others on notice.
As Steve Jobs said himself in regards to the iPad, “we’re standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Except we’re benefiting from their innovation. But we’re patenting the hell out of our innovations. Suckers!
I understand what Ben Franklin wanted in the U.S. Patent system. But I’m sure he’d be sick if he saw what it has become today.
@onlooker: “”Object-Oriented Graphic System” covers almost any GUI, even the ones that were pre-iPhone. Anything device that has a gui button to open up an application is affected. This includes Blackberry’s that were out way before the iPhone.”
Ever heard of the Mac GUI introduced in 1984? Before that everything was command line. So yes, you are absolutely correct. Any device that has a gui button to open up an application is affected. This includes Blackberry’s that were out way before the iPhone, as well as EVERY Windows computer!
Apple & The Clone Wars!
Apple is running scared. The HTC Nexus is the first piece of hardware that actually competes.
“I love the smell of napalm in the morning…
it smells like …. victory”
Zeek sez: “Ever heard of the Mac GUI introduced in 1984? Before that everything was command line.”
Much as I appreciate your sentiment, this is not the case. Wikipedia is your pal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto
There had been GUIs around for several years. Xerox sold the first ‘modern’ GUI on the Alto and Star computers. The Alto project was started in 1972. Xerox licensed what Apple could visually take away from their GUI in order to create the Lisa computer, not the Mac. That came the next year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa
And just to give a preemptive BASH at the trolls: No, Apple stole nothing from Xerox as verified in court. But they did hire away Xerox engineers and did innovate well beyond the basic Alto GUI into what became the vastly superior Mac OS v1.0.
Conclusion: Read history. Quote history.
@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.