Jobs told the world he would do this at the 2007 MacWorld keynote introducing the iPhone:<p>"We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."<p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-steve-jobs-keynote/" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-s...</a>
Microeconomics 101: Apple is in the mobile device business. Apple makes money by selling high-end mobile devices. Google Android is an move towards commoditizing mobile devices, as they are a compliment to Google's business [1]. The point of this is simply to increase the costs of making mobile devices.<p>1. <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html</a>
Does anyone else think this is less about the patents and more about a boardroom beef between Jobs and Eric Schmidt?<p>My gut feeling is this is a private argument between two CEOs that has spiraled into the public eye.
"Who will want a pale imitation when they could have the original?"<p>I'd imagine it's the people who want a cheaper option that does most of the things an iPhone does and don't mind the lack of polish.
What troubles me about this whole thing is, Apple doesn't NEED to do this. They still have great products, there are still many geniuses who would love to work there, they still have an insanely valuable brand. This sort of thing should be a last resort.
This could be less to do with Apple asserting its rights and more to do with protection. Don't forget Nokia is if I remember correctly suing them for patent infringement with Apple counter suing so it could just be for protective purposes as well as legal maneuvering. I guess we'll see where things end up in a couple of years down the line. I doubt this would be cleared up quickly.
I think the issue is with the government issuing patents like these in the first place. Multitouch...are you kidding. I can see a patent on the technology behind multitouch so you can't open the iphone and steal it. Unlock by dragging an icon. rediculous. I am going to patent the form submit button. "an action by which a user submits information to a back-end server" Then I will sue everyone. Done!
Apple has always been vigorous about protecting its intellectual property. Its UI innovations are what keeps it ahead of the pack and not just another generic hardware manufacturer.<p>The loss of <i>Apple v. Microsoft</i> only means that they cannot protect UI elements under the copyright regime. Which leaves patents and trying to invoke UI elements as trademark/trade dress.
um, a CEO has an obligation to act in the financial best interests of his shareholders. software patents might suck, but them's the rules. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capitalism" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capitalism</a>
"<i>If Apple becomes a company that uses its might to quash competition instead of using its brains, it's going to find the brainiest people will slowly stop working there. You know this, you watched it happen at Microsoft. Enforcing patents isn't a good long-term play: it's the beginning of the end of the creative Apple we both love.</i>"<p>theorizing out my ass without thinking much about it here:
does anyone else feel like this is the long term lifecycle of every successful company? innovate, scale, stop innovating but keep executing what you know, scale, become too clumsy to innovate, die. But you made a heck of a lot of money along the way.
As someone who was using macs even when there was a death watch on the entire company 1997-1999'ish I find all this wringing over patent fights to be silly. For better or worse, it's what companies do in this day and age. It's also hard for me to imagine that Steve Jobs is going to let someone do what Bill Gates did with windows in the mid 1980's (e.g., steal Apple's dominant market position by basically copying Apple's stuff and then selling it for a lower price) again without a fight.
I believe the targeting of HTC might also be due to their modified android version with almost exact copies of the gesture from the iPhone (pinch to zoom in browser).<p>But frankly, that stuff falls in the obvious category to me. And Apple claims to being a great company with awesome originality does feel like re-visioning history.
The patent system is broke. Patents are handed out willy-nilly and only later validated through expensive legal litigation. Somehow the work needs to be done up front, to provide transparency and reduce litigation.<p>Here's an idea. A tax on any product or service which is covered under a patent. The tax would be placed in government trust. If a patent is successfully invalidated by later litigation, then the court could award the successful litigant all or some portion of the collected taxes.<p>When the patent expires, the collected taxes is transferred to the Patent Office.<p>The intention is to increase funding for patent deliberation up front, and to create incentive for awarding enforceable patents.
There is something very wrong with the fact that I can only get the 'best' technologies on my phone if I use an Apple product. I really should have the choice between several phones with similar technologies, and each of their respective companies should be spending their time competing to create the <i>next</i> best technology so that everyone can have even better phones in the near future.<p>But no, my only choice is Apple, because they want to 'protect' their patents. In reality, all they are doing is impeding the natural progress of innovation.
Interesting as Apple clearly copied the look and feel of Wil's application Delicious Library of use in thier iBook store application. Granted I doubt Wil holds a patent on that interface, but it does seem a bit hypocritical.
This is one of the more childish rants. Apple is a company working in a capitalistic government, Its no different to any other company out there. Defending patents isn't unusual...especially if they have a case (which I feel they do).<p>I don't agree necessarily with it because it stifles creativity and to some respect stops others from trying new things (or makes them too scared to try something else based on some current technology), but its the same with every other industry, HTC just have to payup or innovate. If they cant do either then they were taking a chance and it didn't pay off.
This is a sign that the Apple vs. Microsoft battle is over. Previously, Apple and Google felt the need to cooperate against Microsoft. Apple believes now they have won.