If you were Apple, what would you do?

mrochester

mrochester

mrochester

Soldato
Joined
29 Sep 2003
Posts
5,834
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne
As we all know, Apple are currently embroiled in a number of law suits globally with numerous manufacturers. On just about every tech blog and forum I visit, the typical 'armchair patent lawyers' make the same old clichéd comments time and time again such as 'Apple should innovate instead of litigate' and 'Apple is scared of Android's success' etc etc. But my question is, what would you do if you were Apple?

Apple obviously feel that these companies have infringed on their IP. If you were Apple, would you be happy to see your competitors profiting and benefiting from designs and technology that you had developed and patented? Would you not want to see them brought to justice for ripping you off?

At the end of the day, it's for a court to decide if patents have been infringed and if damages should be awarded, but what is it that makes people think Apple shouldn't fight to protect it's IP?

Intelligent thoughts and banter welcome :)

M
 
well on the latest galaxy advert you can see the android UI basically copied apple, you even see someone pinching to zoom, id sue the ass outta samsung
 
MrMoonX said:
well on the latest galaxy advert you can see the android UI basically copied apple, you even see someone pinching to zoom, id sue the ass outta samsung
Click to expand...

I don't really think debating whether Apple do or don't have a valid case is worth discussing as that's been done to death, and as we don't know all of the facts and details, we aren't in a position to make a judgement anyway.

What I am interested in debating is why some people feel that Apple shouldn't be sueing in the first place, and why some feel that they shouldn't.
 
Again designs of these devices have been available long before apple first sold them. They just had inappropriate power and battery life to be successful with limited wireless technology.

Apple timed things near perfectly releasing the iphone as we were achieving high speed cellular tech to the masses in most major markets. The ipad followed with powerful chips to be able to run most cut down applications we are happy to use on the phones. Now they are just cycling their series of small/medium improvements through the iterations of devices.

I believe if apple have a patent which differentiates their products heavily, not some minor detailing about a rounded rectangle handheld computing device with a metal band. The problem is that seeming much of the IP being allowed has been poor structured so as to make it equally hard to uphold as it is to defend against.

If they have clear evidence they were the first to develop ergonomic gesture control on a computational input device then fair play to them, but if this was the case surely they would have to go attack the wii, kinect and whatever sony's equivalent is?
 
mrochester said:
I don't really think debating whether Apple do or don't have a valid case is worth discussing as that's been done to death, and as we don't know all of the facts and details, we aren't in a position to make a judgement anyway.

What I am interested in debating is why some people feel that Apple shouldn't be sueing in the first place, and why some feel that they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

The problem is the validity of their claims has a lot to do with what they should do. A lot of the problems are based on somewhat vague patents or patents for features Apple didn't invent, which is one of the reasons there are so many suggesting Apple are scared etc..

There comes a point where you should back down and agree to disagree and just carry on and in some ways that point wentg a long time ago in the Apple/Samsung litigation.

On the other hand Samsung Android devices have been and are massive copycats of Apple tech, for no real reason, when they want to they can design something beautifully original (eg the Omnia 7). The Galaxy S and S2 on the other hand (and touchwizz) are terrible copies.
 
The problem is the validity of their claims has a lot to do with what they should do. A lot of the problems are based on somewhat vague patents or patents for features Apple didn't invent, which is one of the reasons there are so many suggesting Apple are scared etc..
Click to expand...

Does it matter if Apple did or didn't invent said features if they hold the legal right to use them? Ownership isn't tied to whether you invented something or not as you may have simply bought the ownership.
 
By legal right do you mean a valid patent or a licence to use it (licenced by the patent holder)? The former is the problem. There are a number of patents Apple hold and are currently using to protect "their IP" that are copies of features available in products released prior to Apple patenting the idea. That causes big issues when lawsuits come in as the other side can then prove the patent wasn't valid. This has happened several times in the Apple/Samsung cases (see Netherlands as an example).

The latter, fine, but that's not really an issue in this case.

For example the patent they hold on the shape (essentially) of the iPad, all very well but there are numerous prior works of almost identical designs that really reduce their claims.

So onto your question in the OP, Apple should be protecting their IP, like any other companies. However they need to select a few valid patents that truly hold water rather than throwing a dozen or more at the problem and hoping one sticks, especially when they do it using the rules in certain countries (say Germany) where just a claim causes the withdrawal of the product from sale.
 
Last edited:
If I were Apple I would stop spedning large amounts of money on trying to sue and make more money and maybe think about all the people in the world who don't give a crap about an iPhone and want food and shelter to survive!
 
So onto your question in the OP, Apple should be protecting their IP, like any other companies. However they need to select a few valid patents that truly hold water rather than throwing a dozen or more at the problem and hoping one sticks, especially when they do it using the rules in certain countries (say Germany) where just a claim causes the withdrawal of the product from sale.
Click to expand...

I would have thought Apple had already picked the most valid patents to use.

I think an injunction is granted only if you demonstrate that you are likely to prevail in the proceeding court case.
 
Well yes and no. They have several generic patents they have used that have subsequently been classed as invalid im multiple locations. There are one or two that seem to be actually valid however they don't have the desired effect (the android software one) as it took Samsung about a week to rewite that particular piece of code.

Most of the patents they are throwing at Samsung (and Samsung are throwning back) are pretty much worthless...

So if Apple really do think they are valid (rather than trying to make something stick) then they should fire their lawyers and look at their patent portfolio carefully...
 
Last edited:
Apple can't moan really, wasn't it steve jobs who copied stuff from xerox with Apple Lisa in the first place to even get to the first mac release.

And now the boot is on the other foot apple:D
 
You have to protect ip rights and the only place to do that is court.

You seem to be under the impression this is an apple tactic. It's not this is standard procedure in big businesses and is done by all companies.
 
Glaucus said:
You have to protect ip rights and the only place to do that is court.

You seem to be under the impression this is an apple tactic. It's not this is standard procedure in big businesses and is done by all companies.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If you don't enforce your IP rights, you risk losing the ability to enforce them in the future.
 
Glaucus said:
You have to protect ip rights and the only place to do that is court.

You seem to be under the impression this is an apple tactic. It's not this is standard procedure in big businesses and is done by all companies.
Click to expand...

Unless your a 'droid fanboy, in which case its something completely new and anti-competitive, invented by Apple to try and rule the world!111!!One
 
Alpherah said:
Unless your a 'droid fanboy, in which case its something completely new and anti-competitive, invented by Apple to try and rule the world!111!!One
Click to expand...

The question I have is that the only patent Apple have fired at Samsung that has actually stuck is a generic Android one (Android photo album related), why go for the company that is most successful in taking market share)or more precisely sales) from Apple than the smaller fish that are usually taken first...
 
Steve Jobs' vow to destroy Android even if it took all of Apple's money and or his dying breath says it all really. I think it's a positive thing that he is no longer CEO of Apple because I think he would have destroyed them in the long run.

As for their claims, Apple are very one sided when it comes to most things. They're perfectly happy to do things themselves but seemingly can't handle it when others do the same to them. Maybe that was due to the influence of Steve Jobs though, I'm sure it'll soon become apparent but it is pretty clear that at the moment Apple choose to litigate over innovating, though again that might have been because of Steve Jobs' influence more than anything.
 
Apple copied x, Samsung ccopied x, Nokia copied x - they can sue each other till there blue in the face but it won't get them anywhere apart from a lot of money wasted.

In apples case I'm sure Samsung are laughing hard at them given that they have a big market share of phones out there and also practically make the iPhone for apple ( last time I checked)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom