



I. Monopoly is Almost in Apple's Grasp




Apple gavel





II. Ubiquitous Patent Won't Expire Until 2028



Apple iPhone 4S
[Image Source: Carlos Rull]



III. How Did We Get Here?




Apple iPhone
[Image Source: David Paul Morris/Getty Images]





Game over



Source: FOSS Patents

Comments     Threshold


RE: If I have to get a Windows Phone,
By Tony Swash on 4/3/2012 6:02:59 AM , Rating: -1
Picking up on a few comments:

That's exactly what has happened. It turns out that the best they could dredge out of their patent war chest, that relates to modern smart phone design, is FRAND encumbered standards patents that will all ultimately crash and burn legally.

Whilst offering to make a commitment that the SIM related patents would be available to everyone royalty free.


Why bother with Microsoft when their market share is a rounding error?

The interesting question is what would Apple do if they won, what is their strategic aim? Apple's core business model is to make highly crafted distinctive products. Apple believes that it can design and produce products that are highly successful in the market place and at the same time highly profitable. The track record shows that Apple can do this. In the phone market Apple has seen it's sales continue to grow at a very high rate and it makes the bulk of the profits in the industry, and that is with full on Android competition. In the Android world profits seem elusive and only really Samsung seems capable of making any and only at a mediocre rate.

The long term danger for Apple is that it's competitors copy it's products, in toto as Samsung have done at times, or in detail, thus undermining Apple's product differentiation strategy. In which case should Apple secure a truly strategic legal victory giving it a considerable legal weapon then it is reasonable to assume that Apple would use not to eliminate competition (why bother when beating the competition is so easy especially as it would attract anti-trust attention) but to have a lever with which to insist that it's competitors do not copy or clone Apple's products.

The Oracle - Google trial is dues to start shortly and that really does have the potential to stop Android in it's tracks. Forget the issue of damages which is secondary but watch for a decision of wilful infringement because if Oracle win on that then it can really clobber Google.

RE: If I have to get a Windows Phone,
By Paj on 4/3/2012 7:20:41 AM , Rating: 4
The software patent arena is pretty flawed by allowing such broad patents in the first place. As has been proven, Apple doesnt really invent as much as it just buys up.

Im no lawyer, but if this goes through, I'm pretty sure Europe isnt going to like it. The EU takes a pretty dim view of these sort of tactics, treating them as the anticompetitive behaviour they clearly are (re: Microsoft, Intel). Apple could find themselves bearing the brunt of a massive fine or EU restrictions if Android is banned in the US.

Even if, in multiple courts around the world, it is found that the patents are in violation of something, refusing to license the technology that they themselves bought from someone else in the first place strikes me as particularly pig-headed.

RE: If I have to get a Windows Phone,
By Tony Swash on 4/3/2012 12:41:26 PM , Rating: 1

You mean like Google's search algorithms it got from Stanford but hasn't licensed to anyone else?

By sprockkets on 4/3/2012 2:47:38 PM , Rating: 5
You mean *that patent* that Google has never sued anyone over, and that the bulk of their tech is protected by trade secret?

RE: If I have to get a Windows Phone,
By testerguy on 4/3/2012 1:27:15 PM , Rating: 2

The question of who 'invented' it is irrelevant. You can buy patents, just like you can buy the companies who invent things. For all intents and purposes they become part of Apple once they are purchased.

The bottom line is that Apple was the first smartphone manufacturer to see the potential for multi-touch gestures, and of course when they did come up with this they patented the hell out of it, to protect their idea - exactly as any other company would have done. Now there are countless replications which all clearly share the same DNA as the first iPhone, so clearly Apple has a legitimate case.

You should also take Jasons articles with a pinch of salt, his bias exudes throughout every article and clearly aims to mislead people.

RE: If I have to get a Windows Phone,
By leviathan05 on 4/4/2012 9:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
to protect their idea

The problem with this is that patents aren't supposed to protect ideas, but the implementation of those ideas. Most software patents shouldn't exist, as the actual code written in a program would be copyrighted, not patented.

By The Raven on 4/5/2012 3:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well patent or not it should apply to the code and not the IDEA. My understanding (biz law 101) is that you cannot patent an "idea". This means that you have to show the very workings of it and not just a vague idea. And that is what is protected. Not the idea. (like prior art)

For example I cannot patent mind control for a phone. I have schematics of how it will work. And not just a picture with waves floating toward a phone lol. This is what I have seen of Apple's (and other tech companies for that matter) and I don't understand how such crap has been allowed to pass (efficient gov't I suppose).

Like wise I cannot actually make a mind control phone and then just tell everyone else that was working on the same idea (with different methods, or code in this case) that they can't do the same thing.

Again I am no lawyer, but this is not right whether it is legal or not.

RE: If I have to get a Windows Phone,



