I disagree. It isn't a position of money, it's a genuine desire to remove choice that customers clearly want. I'm sure you've seen the references to "thermonuclear war."
The patent system is stupid, software patents especially so, but I don't view licensing them for a reasonable fee as anywhere in the same ballpark as refusing to license them entirely so as to prevent your competition from entering the marketplace (or driving them out). -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV I'm sure they figure they have no need to derive income from licensing patents with all that money in the bank...that is a situation dictated simply by how rich they are. MS, on the other hand, likes to derive income from licensing patents, which creates a situation where they profit off the sale of Android phones. Frankly, I'm not sure which is more distasteful. On 4/5/2012 10:14 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> > >
