So exactly what choice has been lost? I've seen so many different
Android tablets over the past year that they can't be counted. Where
exactly is the hurt to consumers? Even their business partners compete
against them. Every product apple makes has direct competition from
another maker. And not just one, either, several.
It just en vogue to hate the guy on top. MS was way worse than
this...not licensing a patent that probably didn't protect much anyway
is way less damaging than forcing every PC sold to have a copy of
Windows installed.
On 4/5/2012 12:39 PM, Greg Sevart wrote:
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
