Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition?
Let’s say I invent and patent carbon fibre and start making bicycles out of it. My bicycles are vastly superior to lightweight steel, aluminium, and scandium framed models on the market.
Are my products terrible? Obviously not!
Now my competitors rush out to make carbon fibre bicycles of their own. I sue. Am I saying that my products are terrible and can’t compete? No, I’m saying my products are excellent and can easily compete against my competitors’ actual products.
But obviously I’m going to be less successful competing against my own product and my own inventions, which is what happens when my competitors simply copy my ideas.
This specific case is one where Apple alleges it is competing against its own innovations. It’s fair to argue that the competition didn’t copy them. But if we accept the court’s ruling that the competing products are infringing on Apple’s patents, then Apple is not making “terrible” products that can’t compete against its competition, Apple is making excellent products that are obviously going to be less successful competing against itself.
Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor, apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants. Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a bicycle that is even remotely competitive, they get sued.
Do you really think that apple invented search-as-you-type? Did they invent the concept of using a date picker to set a meeting? Do they really deserve a patent on thin rectangular things? No, that is all bullshit and it is shameful that the courts are willing to be bullied (or bought) into playing along with this farce.
Those are fine arguments against Apple’s business strategies, but not arguments that Apple’s products are terrible and/or inferior. Especially not arguments that Apple’s products are inferior to whatever-it-was that its competitors were doing before Apple introduced the iPhone.
Nobody said its products are inferior. The argument _is_ against its business strategies, which is quite absurd, to say the least.
I think the reason why ars advocated a boycott was as a 'protest' to show Apple that it must not partake in such activities.
And please please don't give me the argument that Apple is a corporation that exists only for its profits etcetc. There are ways to maximize your profit without being so paranoid
I was replying to someone who said: "Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition.”
I accept that you don’t say that their products are terrible. I certainly like their products while disliking the innovation-killing patent-circus. The eventual end-game is an oligopoly, and I think this is a net loss for humankind.
I took the less literal meaning of the statement, as more of a "do you have so little faith in your product's ability to compete in the open market" though perhaps I'm being too generous.
I took it the same way, although as you can see from my response, my assertion is that Apple do have faith they can compete in the open market against their competitor’s original designs and products.
The open question concerns any company "competing in the open market" against companies that simply clone successful products without limitation or restriction. Essentially, the question asks Apple how much faith it has that its products can compete against its products.
You're trying to apply common-sense to law. That doesn't work. The court has to assume the patent is valid until it's proven otherwise. The patent was legitimately granted though it can and will be challenged. This is important because it explains why these patents are continuously being tested in the court. Apple is being offensively sued by various parties themselves. They need to have strong patents that have been validated by court rulings to defend themselves. Companies are less likely to sue Apple if they have a strong war chest of patents. The reason certain companies are able to get 'picked on' is the lack of a strong war chest to defend themselves. Samsung is a very rich company yet they are getting it from both Apple and previously Microsoft who simply offered licensing. Apple could easily find themselves in the same situation if they don't play by the absurd rules.
none of these companies are leveraging truly novel patents in their lawsuits. few of these companies are even generating novel patents. they're all accumulating (likely bogus) patents to wield as a club against their competitors. the theory was mutual assured destruction would keep all parties in line but Intellectual Ventures pioneered tactical patent strikes that forced all players into an ever escalating cycle of violence. now they're all just scrambling trying to stay ahead. put simply, it's sue or be sued
it sucks, but until there's meaningful patent reform, it's how things are going to be
That is by far the most despicable cliché I know. You choose which games to play and how to play them. The whole point of having principles is that sometimes you do things that aren’t optimal game strategies.
For example, you choose not to murder your business competitors. You choose not to sell products that kill your customers. Do we let tobacco executives off the hook because they’re just “playing the game?” How about the cocaine cartel?
A gentle way to put it is, “This is a false dichotomy. Hate them both."
This is more along the lines of you inventing and patenting carbon fiber, then winning an injunction against someone who built a frame made of spider silk and titanium on the grounds that you are the sole inventor of "lightweight, rigid bicycle frames".
When you go to court with patents like the 4 Apple is leaning on, the perception of playing dirty because you're losing "fairly" is logical, and probably reasonably apt.
Consider for a minute how much tech is in the iPhone that was not invented by Apple. They were standing on the shoulders of decades of telecommunications and computer science research, perfected an existing invention (there were touchscreen devices before) and patented the hell out of it. Should all other cellphone manufacturers suddenly be locked out of the industry? Shouldn't patents benefit society, instead of enabling one company to hold an entire industry hostage with dubious claims?
I think that some people need to stop their blind love of Apple products and take a step back and look at how unethically Apple is behaving in some of these cases. Just because you think your gadgets are sexy and cool doesn't mean Apple can do whatever it wants. Competition exists for a reason, I know that most people here are smart enough to recognize that.
It's obviously a ridiculous patent, so Apple can not possibly claim their competitors are piggy backing on their expensive research in this case.
Also, let's ride with the carbon fibre example. Is it really desirable that the world will have to wait for 50+ years until carbon fibre bicycles can be made accessible to the mainstream? Let's not forget that it is the public, proxied by the government, who grants patents, so obviously they should only grant patents if it benefits the public. This is not the case with patent trolling, because it only stiffles innovation (basically you need an army of lawyers to do anything interesting) and drives up prices.
I don't think gp's point maximizing Apple's gain but simply shaming Apple into better behavior. Sure, it's better for you if your competition isn't allowed to use any of your innovations. But why not show you are so good you don't need all the advantages you are legally entitled to?
"Skilled developers" need to understand the system as it exists today or they will fail. Raganwald wasn't defending software patents; he was explaining the fallacious thinking in the parent's comment.
Software patents are a horrible joke, but to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you!!!" won't result in a positive outcome for your company. As much as it makes my stomach turn, I'm forced to consider the ramifications of patent and IP (especially now that it's first to file instead of first to innovate) nearly every day.
"They are becoming what Microsoft was in the 90's and it absolutely sickens me." Once you become the dominant player your mentality shifts from cocky upstart with nothing to loose to fat cat incumbent that thinks of nothing but protecting your turf.
You might notice all of your friends who were liberal and poor in their 20's start voting conservative in their 40's once they have material wealth to protect - "less taxes! less government!"
Also, all the liberal social causes you believed in when you were in your 20's are now the status quo, and the new crazy social causes are inconceivable to you now.
So boycott Apple and do what. Jump over to Android ?
Would that be the same Android platform that has the main OEMs (Samsung, HTC, Google) under FTC/EU investigation for anti competitive behaviour due to FRAND abuses. Abuses which undermine the entire foundation of key IT/CE standards.
The fact is that nobody's hands are clean. It's a bloody mess that is only going to get worse.
Well dont buy from Samsung or HTC then, youre acting like Apple, Samsung, and HTC are the only options.
Theres many other companies like Asus or you can even go with Windows Phone which is pretty awesome these days, the main con about WP (it has no apps) that everybody says is pretty much invalid now since it had about 100,000+ apps.
While I share a similar sentiment of disliking Apple's litigious nature as of late, can you really blame the company for attempting to protect its intellectual property?
Yes. It has the choice not to (ab)use the law in this fashion and yet it does. Assuming free will - which is the only sane assumption to keep this conversation focused and tractable - then yes. I can blame them for their own actions.
Apple: Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition?
I think it may be time for high profile developers to boycott Apple till they stop acting like this.