And the competition did--and was largely winning. Now, instead of competing fairly and letting the market--and customers--decide based on the actual merits of the available offerings, Apple has chosen to try remove those options from the market entirely by leveraging their patent portfolio. I am of the strong opinion that Apple's patents are mostly invalid under current copyright law either due to prior art or the obviousness of them.
Apple's refusal to license or cross-license is counter to the way these are normally handled. Normally, one company will sue, the other party countersues, they wait for the first ruling which is usually not a complete win for either party, then they sign a licensing or cross-licensing agreement with or without a corresponding payment arrangement based on their new respective post-judgment positions. Apple has chosen to buck that normal way of doing business with the sole intention of eliminating any competition. That's absolutely their right, but it's detrimental to the market and detrimental to consumers, and that's why they are--with good reason--hated by many who follow their behavior. It's obvious you feel that they have simply chosen not to tap that source of revenue, when I think most would agree that their true intentions are far more malicious. Again, it's their right. You stated that Apple is being criticized unfairly, but it's perfectly reasonable to dislike an organization who chooses to do business in that way--technically legal or not. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV 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 >>>> >>>> >> > >
