The "patent wars" is not a game played just by Apple. We had already
established that.
On 4/5/2012 4:34 PM, Greg Sevart wrote:
Okay, so just because they haven't been successful--yet--we can't criticize
their strategy? And again, your defense is that Apple's practices are beyond
reproach just because some other company did bad things in the past?
Clearly "I only champion Apple when the criticism raised is just unfair"
really means "I always champion Apple because all criticism that does not
come from me is unfair." Plain and simple, indeed.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q.
Martin
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 3:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV
So you've just admitted that they have not killed competition nor driven
anyone from competing! You just hate it because they want to, while they
are being sued as much as they are suing. And MS actually drove many
companies out of business....and the ones they couldn't, they bought. I
think what MS did is much more meaningful than what apple is trying to do --
they have cleared the landscape clean which is why PC innovation is dead ---
and lets not ignore the fact that what apple is fighting to protect are
product categories that they actually made viable...none of them were new,
as apple was certainly not the first to introduce these types of products,
but after they showed how to make those products work, the demand was born
and that is when the competition actually got under way. Its all just sour
grapes because they have done it better than their competition and now want
to hold their pie as long as possible. Plain and simple.
On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:02 PM, "Greg Sevart"<[email protected]> wrote:
You're basing it on what's available today. So far, Apple has had
mixed results with their strategy--but make no mistake, their full on
intent is to prevent anyone else from competing. The latest (again,
absurd) multi-touch patent victory this week may very well do much to
achieve their goal.
They've filed for injunctions against and sued Samsung and Motorola in
just about every meaningful jurisdiction worldwide.
So your defense is "you can't criticize Apple because Microsoft was bad
too"
- awesome. While Microsoft may have had a monopoly and may have used
it to prevent choice in the marketplace, I do very much believe that
the interoperability that resulted did much to further computing at
the point in time in which it occurred. In any case, the "they did it
too" defense is ridiculous.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q.
Martin
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] Another Point of View of Apple TV
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
