

Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction - zacharye
http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/20/apple-takes-patent-attacks-in-a-new-direction/

======
systemizer
Apple's aggressive patent strategy is really turning me off; as it should for
other people as well. I hope this is understand not only by the Tech
community, but also average consumers.

I don't know their claims, but given the past, this is getting out of hand.
Last month, I would have said that I would consider buying an Ipod because it
is a great product; but because of the past events, I would not consider
buying an Apple product whatsoever.

Man up, Apple. You are going to have competitors in the mobile and tablet
industry. Stop trying to cop out with all this patent crap.

~~~
barkingllama
You can only hope that Apple is being as obnoxious as possible to spark
interest in patent reform.

~~~
scottmp10
Unfortunately this is clearly not the case. There actions are clearly harming
both competitors (Samsung, etc) and consumers (through less consumer choice in
the tablet market).

~~~
admiralpumpkin
So your implied argument is that patents hurt consumers because they don't
allow one company's patented innovations to be used without restriction by
other companies?

Your view is that the limit of one's benefit from an innovation should be the
time between when one releases an innovative product and when your competitors
release copy-cat products?

~~~
Natsu
Motorola Mobility can get an injunction blocking Apple products in Germany
banning the iPad. What good would it do if we could have no tablets at all,
because they each violate each others' patents over trivial things?

Seriously, one of the patents is over automatic linking. Okay, it covers
something more general, actually, but that's the embodiment that's the most
recognizable.

------
ryandvm
So... I feel like Apple has come full circle.

I find myself wishing for a Hooters waitress to come running down the aisle of
the next Apple PR event and hurl a sledgehammer through the presentation.

~~~
js2
Discus thrower - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anya_Major>

------
melling
At least Apple is a company that sells something and is trying to protect
their products. They are playing the game under the current law, which is
clearly flawed. Rather than complain everytime Apple/Microsoft, etc go after
others, can we try to get problem solved?

The game is so flawed that there's an entire industry built around it, and
it's getting worse.

------
epo
Except for ammunition to the endless legions of kneejerk anti-Apple fandroids,
what is the point of this article? It is essentially content-free, the limited
claim being that Apple, who are infringed upon in many areas, is suing people
who rip off its case designs as well as Samsung who ripped of the design of
the iPad wholesale.

The patent system exists, Apple are using it correctly. Companies like Samsung
should quit whining and stop copying.

------
mrinterweb
It seems thar Apple does not care about the negative PR lawsuites like this
generate for them. Apple owes a lot of their success to being cool and
innovative. Lawsuites like this make apple neither.

------
bryanlarsen
This sort of behaviour isn't visible to consumers, so it doesn't hurt them in
the short term.

But it does piss off developers. If they keep up pissing off developers with
patent & app store shenanigans they'll lose their most passionate developers
and end up with just those who are in it for the money.

And we know how that ends up. ~10 years ago passionate developers jumped from
Windows to OS X, even though at the time there was virtually no money in OS X
application development. And the availability of some very nice applications
was a large driver of the OS X market share increase from 2% to 15%.

~~~
rimantas

      > And the availability of some very nice applications was a
      > large driver of the OS X market share increase from 2% to 
      > 15%
    

I doubt it very much. I'd say people came to OS X by discovering other Apple
products first (iPod and iPhone).

Also, developers who would be most pissed of by this most likely are Android
developers already.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Sure, the iPod got people into the store, but presumably people played with
the machine in the store or at a friend's house or read reviews before
actually buying the machine.

Sure, lots of developers have left already because of the app store
shenanigans. But judging by the tone of comments here in Hacker News, the
patent shenanigans have alienated another group.

------
marshray
Sounds like Apple has been taken over by the business people and IP lawyers.

They're already out of new ideas.

------
sukuriant
Am I the only person that actually thinks that charger cable (assuming its the
same size) is a bit suspiciuos? It's like Samsung is either being lazy at this
point, or is trying to goad Apple on to attack them.

I have to side with Apple on the shape of the charger issue. Especially since
there are plenty of shapes they could have used, some of them standardized,
like mini/microUSB...

By the way, the clenching feature was two bumps at the ends of the charger
that, I think are used for holding the charger in place.

A question of course is, "should this be patentable". I'm not arguing that
right now, and haven't thought about it enough to have a position, but it is
awkwardly similar, and when there are already a fair amount of already-
existing standards they could have chosen, they went with an Apple-specific
one. ... that's all I'm saying.

~~~
Terretta
You are not the only one.

What's more, Apple didn't start this. A few times in the past, I've traced the
history of these suits in HN threads. Everyone is suing everyone, but
reporters love to highlight Apple because it's a brand that ignites page
views.[1,2,3]

Part of the (broken) cross licensing process is testing and setting cross
licensing pricing using these suits and settlements. Given the limited market
and limited market info for patent values and the unpredictability of
enforcement results, this litigation seems to participants as reasonable a
method as any for determining the cross licensing value if you're not going to
just put everything in a pool (which certainly is supposed to work better,
except when Samsung or Nokia sues over the very patents they put into the
pool).

Most forget that Apple spent 20 years of R&D on personal mobile devices, then
moved into phones in a way that made it obvious the rest of the industry was
stagnantly producing what the carriers wanted instead of what humans would
really use.

As Apple's "Jesus phone" swallowed demographic segments whole, raking in the
lion's share not of units shipped but of profits, the mobile industry went
nuts at seeing the lucre they'd left on the table and started suing Apple from
every side, both directly and through intermediaries. Of course, Apple, with
its 20 years of actually innovative R&D in the space, countered.

When some of the industry start playing the "fast follow" game instead, Apple
is forced by trade law to defend against that or they de facto give up their
rights to the undefended points.

The charger and cable design show this wasn't a happy design coincidence; this
was a calculated move to establish a "me too" product line. Part of that
calculation was "What will be our expense from design and patent assertions by
Apple when we fast follow these products so closely?"

Before Apple got into mobile, this was how the business was done, but it
wasn't in the press because nobody was interested. The only thing different
now is that we're talking about it.

(Footnote: the Prada phone design timing has been debunked[4] previously.)

    
    
        1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit
        2. http://news.designlanguage.com/post/1252039209
        3. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-in-the-telecoms-trade/
        4. http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-samsung-f700-prada-phone-rumors-debunked-20147320/

------
maeon3
Your product is in the shape of a rectangle, we invented rectangle. Pay us
money for our invention or we will sue you in 50 different nations. there
needs to be a penalty for the attacking company when frivolous patent suits
are shown to be ridiculous.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
The problem is that very few claims are genuinely ridiculous.

There can be differences of opinion on what's valid, and things which are
untested in law, but for the most part there will be a germ of something at
the heart of the claim which will make it potentially reasonable.

Judges tend to throw the genuine dross out very early on.

The one that always springs to mind is the MacDonald's too hot coffee case. On
the surface it sounds like complete nonsense but when you look at the detail
the claim was perfectly reasonable and deserved to win (which it did).

~~~
grannyg00se
I think there are plenty of frivolous cases.

When I looked at the details of thee hot coffee case the claim seemed even
more absurd.

The physical damage was worse than I expected but that doesn't make her less
responsible.

~~~
admiralpumpkin
Please explain "the details" which made it "even more absurd" to you.

At what temperature would you start to assign responsibility to McDonalds? Can
they, in your mind, give out boiling coffee without culpability?

[edit: typo]

~~~
talmand
If a person asks for boiling water, then yes, McDonald's may sell such a
product without culpability.

But the debate over how hot coffee should be is a different discussion. I'm
curious though, what is the proper temperature of coffee? I for one don't
drink it so I have no idea.

~~~
yason
If Mr Darwin is at work, nobody should have the right to sue.

Their coffee might be very hot or not so very hot, but the real problem is
that _thinking which allows_ the customer to lay blame on McDonald's without
ever considering any responsibility for himself.

That thinking blatantly ignores the fact that everyone is—to a fair extent and
by default—responsible for their own mishaps unless they truly had no
reasonable way to guess or test for the surprise outcome.

If you're _buying a hot drink_ in the first place, it's just common sense to
merely touch the cup first to figure out if it's too hot before lifting it and
burning your fingers. Similarly, when washing your hands you will generally
first test the temperature of the running water before you splurge into your
watery rejoicings instead of suing the café for reckless overuse of their
water boiler. Further, most people learn very early on to try out if a stove
plate is hot first before focusing on pressing their hands against it.

Now, admittedly, there are some things that you couldn't possibly avoid
yourself. For example, unless otherwise signposted, publicly available
staircases should hold together while you're stomping up and down on them.
Door handles shouldn't deliver you a surprise shock directly from electric
mains. A new car probably shouldn't explode on you when you turn on the
ignition. But these come in rare numbers and equally extreme conditions.

Known accident-prone activities, such as driving, are explicitly protected via
mandatory insurance in general. But in life in general, anyone can be expected
to avoid many unexpected accidents with mere common sense, and still most of
the rest of the incidents are well, just accidents. Accidents do happen and
the driving nature of accidents is well, accidental, i.e. "nobody's fault" in
general.

~~~
cbr
"when washing your hands you will generally first test the temperature of the
running water before you splurge into your watery rejoicings instead of suing
the café for reckless overuse of their water boiler"

No. In washing my hands at a café, I just turn on the water and put my fingers
in. If it comes out at 210F instead of 130F, burning me badly, that is very
much reckless overuse of the boiler by café.

