Oh, Apple isn't alone--this is used in a lot of markets. However, Apple is unique in that they flat out refuse to license those patents--at any price. They're not interested in competing; they want to prevent their competitors from being able to offer an alternative at all. That is what makes them a special kind of patent troll.
Their competitors are now doing it too (Samsung and their FRAND patents come to mind)--but this is only in response to Apple's aggression. They were perfectly content to let the market decide. When the market made it clear that people preferred the choice and lower-cost options that Android provided, Apple decided that rather than provide customers what they clearly wanted, they would remove the options completely. Unfortunately, the patent situation will become worse, not better. Recently passed "reform" changes it from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. Prior art no longer matters unless it can be proven that a party willfully filed a patent when they knew prior art existed. Congress missed the opportunity to rework software patents entirely, which is very unfortunate. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV It's not just Apple using the patent system to hinder competition. Lot of other companies are doing this too. I agree that this sucks, too. But I place a lot of the blame for this on the fact that patents are being granted for things they shouldn't be given for. Solve that problem and you'll see a lot of this crap dying out. On 4/5/2012 9:49 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: > While I'm no fan of Apple, Apple products, or typical smug air of > superiority and advocacy most Apple customers seem to have, I really find > their abuse of the patent system far more disturbing. They submit requests > for, and receive (thanks to the braindead USPTO) patents for "innovations" > with clear evidence of prior art or are obvious advancements, then use those > patents to stifle the now-surging competition. They flat out refuse to > license patents that shouldn't have been issued in the first place. They > don't want to compete on the market--because they're now losing the market > share battle. Apple, the company--like most organizations, but especially > so--is an evil institution that has done much to damage customer choice and > real innovation, rather than foster it as so many of their supporters would > have you believe. Those are the people that are lemmings. For the record, > Google is evil too, but for different reasons. > > I applaud Apple for one thing--giving the smartphone market a kick in the > ass. The iPhone didn't really do anything new, but it was clearly a superior > implementation at the time of release. Apple leveraged the then-available > technology to make a device that was thinner, faster, and flashier than what > was available at the time. > > I have an iPhone for work. It's okay for what it does, and the screen--while > positively dull compared to AMOLED alternatives--offers exceptional > resolution and clarity. Where it is clearly inferior, however, is the > interface--it frankly hasn't materially changed since its initial release in > 2007, and therefore just feels very dated. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. > Martin > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV > > I only champion Apple when the criticism raised is just unfair. They have > always had competition in the market place and you cannot blame them, or > people who buy their stuff, (whom you are willing to refer to as idiots > simply because they make their own decisions) for the competitions > apparently lack of success. Geez. > > On 4/4/2012 8:01 PM, Thane Sherrington wrote: >> At 05:17 PM 04/04/2012, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: >> >>> Who cares if it's a walled garden or not if it does what people want >>> to do. If people choose to buy stuff from iTunes, it can only be >>> because it servers their desires to do so. It's their money. Saying >>> they are idiots for doing so is just some weird form of sour grapes. >>> It makes zero sense. >> What makes zero sense to me how you champion Apple at every turn. I >> hope you have a ton of stock and/or were in Steve's will. >> >> T >> >> > >
