A company has no obligation to ensure competition. That's the
competition's job. Also, the decision to license a patent can be for
income reasons, nothing at all wrong with that. But if you don't need
that source of income, then why license?
On 4/5/2012 10:51 AM, Greg Sevart wrote:
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
