I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it."
Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't patent it someone else will. To put it colloquially: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
If you find your arguments relying on catchy phrases like this, you should reexamine them, because they're probably lacking.
I especially dislike this one in particular because it's used as an excuse to avoid having to justify harmful actions. "Everyone else was doing it too" is not a valid excuse for doing something wrong, especially when you are--as Apple is--a large enough "player" that your actions help shape how the "game" is played.
In any case, your presentation of Apple's actions is a lot more benign than reality. It's one thing to acquire questionable technology patents to help you defend yourself against litigation. That's unfortunate, but doesn't really actively harm anyone. It's also not what Apple is doing: Apple is using its patent portfolio offensively to try to shut out competing products.
Attempting to inject a little humor does not invalidate an argument. I'm not really attempting to defend Apple; I'm simply saying, "this is the state of affairs and Apple is not the only offender."
We can dislike that excuse all we want; but, why are we faulting for-profit companies for working within the legalities of the system to do what they're supposed to: grow their business and maximize their profits? It's a flawed system, to be sure; but, it's the system we have at the moment.
It's obvious Apple isn't the only offender, but they are a big and, lately, very active one.
I fault them for their actions because I think what they're doing negatively affects a large number of people. It being legal and them being able to make money because of what they're doing doesn't make it okay.
To be clear: I will say the same thing about any company using using frivolous patents to suppress competition. It is a flawed system, and the people in the best position to oppose the system are the people in charge of large tech companies. Apple is not doing the best thing possible within a flawed system, and they are not trying to change the state of affairs. They are using their patent portfolio aggressively to try to suppress competition, and I think that's a problem.
I do hate the game. The game needs to be reformed.
But some players appear too keen to play the game. Not pointing fingers at Apple here; most of them are as bad as each other.
I actually support the idea of software patents and hardware patents and "look and feel" patents; just not how they're implemented now. Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significant advantage, yet still allow smaller players to use the stuff in time.
See the lack of single-handed (software and hardware) keyboards; many of these were attacked by a patent troll. This has harmed accessibility, and has benefited no-one. A two year patent would have given a good faith actor an advantage when producing and marketing their device, and yet allowed other people to compete in time.
Well, 2 years was just off the cuff. The aim is to allow companies to innovate, and get benefits from that innovation and from disclosing that innovation.
I was ignoring all the paperwork stuff before the device goes to market, so this two years is from product launch. Maybe that's a little bit short.
Another idea is to only allow patent protections for active products. Thus, if you're making and selling a widget you can use patents; but if you made and tried to sell a widget, and failed, you cannot sit on the patent for years and extract money from anyone who comes after you who is selling a different widget that happens to infringe a patent you own.
I don't know - I recognise the need to protect the hard work that people do, and to give them incentives to innovate, and to reward them for releasing those innovations to the public, but the current system is now thoroughly broken.
I also recognise there's considerable bias in the reporting. Maybe there are some small inventors who use patents for what they're meant for.
I would say no: The short patent period will force them to improve on their inventions at a rapid pace to keep ahead of their competition. It might mean a two-year development cycle, but technology will progress rapidly.
That, as opposed to a company sitting on their patent for 20 years, filing a continuation, and letting the market stagnate while everyone else waits for the patents to expire so we can actually make some progress.
You're ignoring the fact that it dramatically raises the risk in the venture. When you only have a limited time to profit the risk that you won't profit skyrockets.
It'd likely affect funding at every level as investors realize quickly the dramatically increased risk. Who wants to invest in a company that will be out-competed in two years?
It would likely drive a lot of players out of those markets, bigger players who naturally move more slowly with their conservative product development cycles.
Not that any of that is explicitly bad, but it's certainly a big change.
That "could" is doing way too much work in that sentence. Yes, all the other patent holders "could" file ridiculous suits and bring the tech economy down, in the same way that the US "could" launch a nuclear first strike against china.
The thing is, for the most part they aren't, and haven't, over several decades of detente. Apple did. I think that distinction matters, no?
I think it'd be interesting to put that assertion to the test: has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google (as totally random examples pulled from thin air)? I'm honestly not sure of the answer; but, I'm skeptical that Apple is "worse" than other major tech companies in this regard.
"has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google"
There's no question that Apple has been more litigious than Google. Google stands pretty much alone these days as one of the tech giants who hasn't been an asshole when it comes to abusing the patent system.
Example: Hadoop is an open source implementation of Google's MapReduce and GFS papers, both technologies are patented by Google and were huge competitive advantages for them in their main business. Did Google go around suing people using Hadoop? No, they granted Apache a liberal blanket patent license to make sure anyone who used Hadoop would be secure in knowing they weren't going to be sued for it.
Up until fairly recently Microsoft was also pretty good with patents but lately they've become schizophrenic (some groups in the company have been doing good things to calm fears of patent suits stemming from Mono, some groups have been shaking down Android licensees for patent fees).
IBM has a long history of patent abuse. Oracle too (though not to the scale of IBM in their prime).
All other companies typically recognize that nobody ever invented anything on their own and the industry would be dead if products were banned because of infringements. So they settle either for royalties or a cross-licensing deal.
Not so with Apple. They want Android smartphones banned from the market.
Exactly, it's not so much the suits themselves as the goal they're pursuing. To extend the OP's metaphor, it's not enough to "hate the game" when one player is trying to change the rules. (To be clear, though, the game is indeed a terrible thing.)
"because if they don't patent it someone else will"
AFAIK it won't be worth the stamps if there is some prior art. I.e. once release nobody can patent it. The above statement is false. They patented it to hinder competition.
Note: I'm not against patents (for significant inventions) per se.
Comments
I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it."
Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't patent it someone else will. To put it colloquially: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
I especially dislike this one in particular because it's used as an excuse to avoid having to justify harmful actions. "Everyone else was doing it too" is not a valid excuse for doing something wrong, especially when you are--as Apple is--a large enough "player" that your actions help shape how the "game" is played.
In any case, your presentation of Apple's actions is a lot more benign than reality. It's one thing to acquire questionable technology patents to help you defend yourself against litigation. That's unfortunate, but doesn't really actively harm anyone. It's also not what Apple is doing: Apple is using its patent portfolio offensively to try to shut out competing products.
Attempting to inject a little humor does not invalidate an argument. I'm not really attempting to defend Apple; I'm simply saying, "this is the state of affairs and Apple is not the only offender."
We can dislike that excuse all we want; but, why are we faulting for-profit companies for working within the legalities of the system to do what they're supposed to: grow their business and maximize their profits? It's a flawed system, to be sure; but, it's the system we have at the moment.
It's obvious Apple isn't the only offender, but they are a big and, lately, very active one.
I fault them for their actions because I think what they're doing negatively affects a large number of people. It being legal and them being able to make money because of what they're doing doesn't make it okay.
To be clear: I will say the same thing about any company using using frivolous patents to suppress competition. It is a flawed system, and the people in the best position to oppose the system are the people in charge of large tech companies. Apple is not doing the best thing possible within a flawed system, and they are not trying to change the state of affairs. They are using their patent portfolio aggressively to try to suppress competition, and I think that's a problem.
Chaque goutte d'eau est un raz de marée en dénie.
> "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
I do hate the game. The game needs to be reformed.
But some players appear too keen to play the game. Not pointing fingers at Apple here; most of them are as bad as each other.
I actually support the idea of software patents and hardware patents and "look and feel" patents; just not how they're implemented now. Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significant advantage, yet still allow smaller players to use the stuff in time.
See the lack of single-handed (software and hardware) keyboards; many of these were attacked by a patent troll. This has harmed accessibility, and has benefited no-one. A two year patent would have given a good faith actor an advantage when producing and marketing their device, and yet allowed other people to compete in time.
> Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significant advantage, yet still allow smaller players to use the stuff in time.
Don't they take something like 2-3 years to only review the application and grant the patent at the moment ?
That and a 2 year window would mean that companies would have to file in such a way that their patent is granted right before they go to market.
If the patent gets filed a year before they go to market, their market time is halved.
Isn't that far worse for innovation? In this case we would have the original iPhone shipping in 2012 instead of 2007.
Well, 2 years was just off the cuff. The aim is to allow companies to innovate, and get benefits from that innovation and from disclosing that innovation.
I was ignoring all the paperwork stuff before the device goes to market, so this two years is from product launch. Maybe that's a little bit short.
Another idea is to only allow patent protections for active products. Thus, if you're making and selling a widget you can use patents; but if you made and tried to sell a widget, and failed, you cannot sit on the patent for years and extract money from anyone who comes after you who is selling a different widget that happens to infringe a patent you own.
I don't know - I recognise the need to protect the hard work that people do, and to give them incentives to innovate, and to reward them for releasing those innovations to the public, but the current system is now thoroughly broken.
I also recognise there's considerable bias in the reporting. Maybe there are some small inventors who use patents for what they're meant for.
I would say no: The short patent period will force them to improve on their inventions at a rapid pace to keep ahead of their competition. It might mean a two-year development cycle, but technology will progress rapidly.
That, as opposed to a company sitting on their patent for 20 years, filing a continuation, and letting the market stagnate while everyone else waits for the patents to expire so we can actually make some progress.
You're ignoring the fact that it dramatically raises the risk in the venture. When you only have a limited time to profit the risk that you won't profit skyrockets.
It'd likely affect funding at every level as investors realize quickly the dramatically increased risk. Who wants to invest in a company that will be out-competed in two years?
It would likely drive a lot of players out of those markets, bigger players who naturally move more slowly with their conservative product development cycles.
Not that any of that is explicitly bad, but it's certainly a big change.
That "could" is doing way too much work in that sentence. Yes, all the other patent holders "could" file ridiculous suits and bring the tech economy down, in the same way that the US "could" launch a nuclear first strike against china.
The thing is, for the most part they aren't, and haven't, over several decades of detente. Apple did. I think that distinction matters, no?
I think it'd be interesting to put that assertion to the test: has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google (as totally random examples pulled from thin air)? I'm honestly not sure of the answer; but, I'm skeptical that Apple is "worse" than other major tech companies in this regard.
"has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google"
There's no question that Apple has been more litigious than Google. Google stands pretty much alone these days as one of the tech giants who hasn't been an asshole when it comes to abusing the patent system.
Example: Hadoop is an open source implementation of Google's MapReduce and GFS papers, both technologies are patented by Google and were huge competitive advantages for them in their main business. Did Google go around suing people using Hadoop? No, they granted Apache a liberal blanket patent license to make sure anyone who used Hadoop would be secure in knowing they weren't going to be sued for it.
Up until fairly recently Microsoft was also pretty good with patents but lately they've become schizophrenic (some groups in the company have been doing good things to calm fears of patent suits stemming from Mono, some groups have been shaking down Android licensees for patent fees).
IBM has a long history of patent abuse. Oracle too (though not to the scale of IBM in their prime).
All other companies typically recognize that nobody ever invented anything on their own and the industry would be dead if products were banned because of infringements. So they settle either for royalties or a cross-licensing deal.
Not so with Apple. They want Android smartphones banned from the market.
Exactly, it's not so much the suits themselves as the goal they're pursuing. To extend the OP's metaphor, it's not enough to "hate the game" when one player is trying to change the rules. (To be clear, though, the game is indeed a terrible thing.)
I'd love to see some data for this.
Perhaps patent litigation is something that some consumers would base their buying decisions on?
Right in the article. 60% of mobile litigation is started by Apple.
"because if they don't patent it someone else will"
AFAIK it won't be worth the stamps if there is some prior art. I.e. once release nobody can patent it. The above statement is false. They patented it to hinder competition.
Note: I'm not against patents (for significant inventions) per se.
The fact that they did it to hinder competition does not invalidate the assertion that someone else likely would have patented it anyway.
I'd like to think that prior art would invalidate a lot of bad patents; but, prior art is not so clear cut as it seems on the surface.