Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Judge: Apple, would you be willing to accept my judgment? Apple: No, not really Judge: Case dismissed, have fun paying Google for each iPhone you make   (bloomberg.com) divider line 60
    More: Interesting, Apple Inc., Google, Motorola Mobility, patent portfolio, iPhone  
•       •       •

14210 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Nov 2012 at 12:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-07 09:31:33 AM  
There should be a standard-setting body that oversees standard-setting bodies

We have a body that could oversee them: Congress. Pass a law saying implementation of a standard approved by (list of international standards bodies) does not infringe patents under U.S. law or under any law applied in a U.S. court.  Royalty drops to zero, patent lawyers can turn to useful work like collecting cans for deposits.
 
2012-11-07 09:46:33 AM  

ZAZ: There should be a standard-setting body that oversees standard-setting bodies

We have a body that could oversee them: Congress. Pass a law saying implementation of a standard approved by (list of international standards bodies) does not infringe patents under U.S. law or under any law applied in a U.S. court.  Royalty drops to zero, patent lawyers can turn to useful work like collecting cans for deposits.


That is the exact opposite of the point of FRAND
The point of FRAND is to stop companies from each having to create their own proprietary standards as well as prevent a cold war in licensing. Instead the companies agree on the value of a pool of patents each has and trade those pools often agreeing to no monetary cost or very little.

Apple entered a market, cell phones, that had a lot of these gentleman's agreements to prevent legal chaos and allow for standardization. Apple, having only a few wifi patents at the time, had nothing to bring to the table and balked at what the prices were for the FRAND patents and tried to ignore them. They got sued for this and have been trying to make it seem like they are the wronged party. They were the new guy on the block and ignored the ground rules.

Your proposed system would require either:
1) A government body to invalidate patents on ground that the patent is too important to be patented
2) A body of some kind that had the resources to buy out essential patents and open source them or license them back at a lower rate

It would also kill most incentives of FRAND with companies instead going back to being as proprietary as possible resulting in the consumers losing out
 
2012-11-07 09:54:56 AM  

ZAZ: There should be a standard-setting body that oversees standard-setting bodies

We have a body that could oversee them: Congress. Pass a law saying implementation of a standard approved by (list of international standards bodies) does not infringe patents under U.S. law or under any law applied in a U.S. court.  Royalty drops to zero, patent lawyers can turn to useful work like collecting cans for deposits.


What you're proposing is really a variant of compulsory licensing, which has been implemented around the world (for instance, in Thailand) with regards to pharmaceutical patents. Sounds good on paper, but it really undermines the company's reasons for investing in new standards and technologies. Imagine where every major phone manufacturer has a completely non-compatible phone radio transmission system which fragments the mobile service provider industry (can you imagine forcing AT&T to support dozens of different radio transmission methods so it can accommodate dozens of phone manufacturers?).
 
2012-11-07 10:49:27 AM  
Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.
 
2012-11-07 12:37:53 PM  

GAT_00: Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.


Apple plays by no rules, other than its own.

Problem is, its rules are stupid, inane, and make no sense in the real world.

/This is why I'm a tech merc
 
2012-11-07 12:41:24 PM  
Wait they tried to treat a court decision like a bargaining table?

Good call!
 
2012-11-07 01:07:48 PM  
Put Judge Judy on these cases, she'll give them what for, let me tell you.
 
2012-11-07 01:15:47 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Wait they tried to treat a court decision like a bargaining table?

Good call!


I don't even think there was even a firm decision yet.. from what I understand the judge asked "If I set a price that I believe is fair will you (both sides) abide by the judgement?" and Apple effectively told the judge "No, because fark you, that's why".
 
2012-11-07 01:25:26 PM  

BStorm: DoBeDoBeDo: Wait they tried to treat a court decision like a bargaining table?

Good call!

I don't even think there was even a firm decision yet.. from what I understand the judge asked "If I set a price that I believe is fair will you (both sides) abide by the judgement?" and Apple effectively told the judge "No, because fark you, that's why".


Sort of... Basically, Apple said "if we disagree with your judgement, we reserve the right to appeal," so the judge said, "then there's really no point in trying to mediate this, no?"
 
2012-11-07 01:25:40 PM  

BStorm: I don't even think there was even a firm decision yet.. from what I understand the judge asked "If I set a price that I believe is fair will you (both sides) abide by the judgement?" and Apple effectively told the judge "No, because fark you, that's why".


Pretty much, except it was more along the lines of "Only if your 'fair price' is less than a $1 per unit, otherwise fark you"...
 
2012-11-07 01:28:24 PM  
Groklaw's take is that as a matter of law, the judge is unable to continue to trial. The courts are not the place for advisory opinions. Unless a dispute can be settled through court order that the parties will abide by, then the decision of the court is only advisory. Since the court cannot advise, only decide, it's only option is to dismiss the case for lack of a remedy under the law.
 
2012-11-07 01:31:15 PM  

GAT_00: Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.


Ah ... what rules would those be exactly?

/I look forward to your expert insight on patent law and its impact on the mobility industry
 
2012-11-07 01:43:03 PM  
If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.
 
2012-11-07 01:43:36 PM  
Eh screw apple. Apple complaining about unreasonable pricing of anything makes me laugh.
 
2012-11-07 02:01:36 PM  

bingethinker: If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.


i20.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-07 02:02:02 PM  

bingethinker: If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.


It's not the judge's job to bargain with the parties like they're at a swap meet, it's her job to make a decision. Apple made clear that they wouldn't agree to any decision unless the judge essentially caved in to their demands, and in light of that the judge decided that there was no point in wasting her time.
 
2012-11-07 02:39:37 PM  

BStorm: DoBeDoBeDo: Wait they tried to treat a court decision like a bargaining table?

Good call!

I don't even think there was even a firm decision yet.. from what I understand the judge asked "If I set a price that I believe is fair will you (both sides) abide by the judgement?" and Apple effectively told the judge "No, because fark you, that's why".


That's what I'm saying they played chicken with a judge. It's not a deal where you can request a price or you walk away. You aren't walking away you're going to just have to take whatever ass reaming the other guy demands.
 
2012-11-07 03:16:31 PM  

BStorm: bingethinker: If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.

It's not the judge's job to bargain with the parties like they're at a swap meet, it's her job to make a decision. Apple made clear that they wouldn't agree to any decision unless the judge essentially caved in to their demands, and in light of that the judge decided that there was no point in wasting her time.


Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".
 
2012-11-07 03:17:54 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-07 03:25:39 PM  

Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".


I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit. They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.
 
2012-11-07 03:30:45 PM  

joeshill: Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit.


Which argument? I was just restating the facts without the bit about demanding the judge "cave".

They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.


Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?
 
2012-11-07 03:41:58 PM  
I love it.

Apple is going to be bankrupt in a few years.

They're going to piss off every judge on the planet so much they won't be able to sell their products anywhere.

If their hardware manufacturers don't simply decide to stop selling them components.

It's kind of silly to sell people hardware when they're just going to sue you for doing them a gigantic farking favor.
 
2012-11-07 03:48:18 PM  

Theaetetus: joeshill: Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit.

Which argument? I was just restating the facts without the bit about demanding the judge "cave".

They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.

Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?


Theaetetus: joeshill: Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit.

Which argument? I was just restating the facts without the bit about demanding the judge "cave".

They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.

Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?


Well, it kinda was preemptive, as far as things went.

Motorola had not filed a patent infringement suit against Apple.

Motorola had made a licensing offer which Apple rejected.

Apple had not submitted a counteroffer of any kind before filing suit.

Apple had not gone through any of the ETSI complaint mechanisms afforded FRAND licensees before filing suit.
 
2012-11-07 04:01:45 PM  
2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!
 
rpm
2012-11-07 04:03:12 PM  

fluffy2097: Apple is going to be bankrupt in a few years.


Really? They're sitting on more cash than most countries.
 
2012-11-07 04:08:11 PM  

fluffy2097: If their hardware manufacturers don't simply decide to stop selling them components.

It's kind of silly to sell people hardware when they're just going to sue you for doing them a gigantic farking favor.


These companies make mega millions by selling these components to Apple. They're not doing to be charitable saps.

These lawsuits are daily routine. It's just business, it's nothing personal, Sonny, even if the Corleone family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore, since the Godfather died from pancreatic cancer.
 
2012-11-07 04:29:33 PM  

GAT_00: Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.


headcase.ie 
"Heh, that's about as unlikely as me playing by someone else's rules besides my own, which I would never do. I play by my own rules, nobody else's, not even my own."
 
2012-11-07 04:38:54 PM  

bingethinker: brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.


Really? So "paid shills" and "MS/Linux/Google fanbois" don't just lurk on internet forums, they sit go to law school, establish themselves with a decades long legal career in the hopes that they get to pass judgement on Apple?

I think I understand your mindset now.
 
2012-11-07 04:56:15 PM  
Between the election and this, I am riding a major schadenfreude high right now.
 
2012-11-07 05:16:48 PM  
Except that's not what happened, but this is Fark and an Apple thread, so there's really no point arguing with hipster haters who insist Apple products suck and their company will go out of business. You just let them continually be on the wrong side of history.
 
2012-11-07 05:29:37 PM  

mltain: 2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!


Eh, for fundemental stuff like a FAT file system that Microsoft had a number of patents around M$ charged 25c or something like that per device which Slashdot considered outragious once upon a time. I don't think google really wants to go to war with Microsoft over this since they've got fundemental computer science patents out the ass on everything, all the protons in the universe will decay before a court manages to sort that mess out.
 
2012-11-07 05:52:11 PM  

Tickle Mittens: mltain: 2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!

Eh, for fundemental stuff like a FAT file system that Microsoft had a number of patents around M$ charged 25c or something like that per device which Slashdot considered outragious once upon a time. I don't think google really wants to go to war with Microsoft over this since they've got fundemental computer science patents out the ass on everything, all the protons in the universe will decay before a court manages to sort that mess out.


Isn't MS currently charging like $5 / phone to various handset manufacturers for those patents?
 
2012-11-07 05:53:12 PM  

TheAnvil: These lawsuits are daily routine. It's just business, it's nothing personal, Sonny, even if the Corleone family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore, since the Godfather died from pancreatic cancer.


Contract disputes are much different from lawsuits that will result in the banning of products being sold in major world market.

If it was just business it would be handled by the lawyers outside of court.
 
2012-11-07 06:10:52 PM  

fang06554: Tickle Mittens: mltain: 2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!

Eh, for fundemental stuff like a FAT file system that Microsoft had a number of patents around M$ charged 25c or something like that per device which Slashdot considered outragious once upon a time. I don't think google really wants to go to war with Microsoft over this since they've got fundemental computer science patents out the ass on everything, all the protons in the universe will decay before a court manages to sort that mess out.

Isn't MS currently charging like $5 / phone to various handset manufacturers for those patents?


I think that covers the entire suite of patents and indemnification from a lawsuit like google's via motorola. Sort of like how the UK leases nuclear weapons from the US. No matter how it starts, everyone dies at the end.
 
2012-11-07 06:49:37 PM  

justtray: Except that's not what happened, but this is Fark and an Apple thread, so there's really no point arguing with hipster haters who insist Apple products suck and their company will go out of business. You just let them continually be on the wrong side of history.


Translation: "My reading comprehension ranks somewhere below that of a pygmy goat. However, I've bought into the cult of Apple, so I refuse to accept reality and will instead insist that any criticism of my Lord and Saviour Apple Inc. is just 'hipster haters' (which adds an extra layer of irony to my post, since hipsters tend to be Apple fans, rather than detractors.)"

Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with. They've never been the first to bring a given technology to market, and they have a long history of failing to adapt even basic features their competitors have until years later. FFS, the only reason Apple even still exists today is because Microsoft gave them a shiat-ton of money in the 90s. But I'm sure you're too busy sucking on Jobs' zombie wang to be aware of any of that.
 
2012-11-07 06:57:03 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with. They've never been the first to bring a given technology to market


Innovative and efficient design and user interfaces. See, e.g. Fitz' Law.
 
2012-11-07 07:01:42 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: justtray:

Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with. They've never been the first to bring a given technology to market, and they have a long history of failing to adapt even basic features their competitors have until years later. FFS, the only reason Apple even still exists today is because Microsoft gave them a shiat-ton of money in the 90s. But I'm sure you're too busy sucking on Jobs' zombie wang to be aware of any of that.


Key Apple Innovations:

The Lisa - not to be confused with the Xerox STAR system
The Newton - not to be confused with the Psion Organizer
Mac OS X - not to be confused with NEXT
The iPhone - not to be confused with the Prada LG Phone
 
2012-11-07 07:05:12 PM  

Theaetetus:
Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?


You are missing a bit of a key bit here, Apple wasn't talking about appeal. Apple was asking the court to force Motorola to set a FRAND license price for the patents. The court asked "If we determine a FRAND price, will Apple be obligated to license it at that price?" Apple responded "Nope! But if it is less than $1 per unit we probably will take that." The Judge rightfully came to the conclusion that the case was worthless unless the results were binding on both parties and thus solved the dispute, thought that Apple had started the case in bad faith (as they were unwilling to be bound by the court's future ruling), and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Simply put Apple's position was that they didn't even have to appeal if they didn't like the price; they instead could just walk away.
 
2012-11-07 07:18:57 PM  

TheAnvil: fluffy2097: If their hardware manufacturers don't simply decide to stop selling them components.

It's kind of silly to sell people hardware when they're just going to sue you for doing them a gigantic farking favor.

These companies make mega millions by selling these components to Apple. They're not doing to be charitable saps.

These lawsuits are daily routine. It's just business, it's nothing personal, Sonny, even if the Corleone family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore, since the Godfather died from pancreatic cancer.


Samsung already decided not to sell them LCD panels. Which is why they're relying on Sharp as a supplier for the iPhone 5. Sharp, who's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
 
2012-11-07 07:20:31 PM  

Derigiberble: Theaetetus:
Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

You are missing a bit of a key bit here, Apple wasn't talking about appeal. Apple was asking the court to force Motorola to set a FRAND license price for the patents. The court asked "If we determine a FRAND price, will Apple be obligated to license it at that price?" Apple responded "Nope! But if it is less than $1 per unit we probably will take that." The Judge rightfully came to the conclusion that the case was worthless unless the results were binding on both parties and thus solved the dispute, thought that Apple had started the case in bad faith (as they were unwilling to be bound by the court's future ruling), and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Simply put Apple's position was that they didn't even have to appeal if they didn't like the price; they instead could just walk away.


No, sorry, that's just false. Apple's explicit statement was:
"Motorola cannot offer evidence at this trial that the rate should be higher than $1 per phone, but to the extent the Court sets the rate higher than $1 per unit, Apple reserves the right to exhaust all appeals,"

You're correct that the judge concluded the case was worthless if the results weren't binding on the parties, but this has nothing to do with bad faith, and dismissing a case with prejudice does not mean that it was brought with bad faith - it merely means the case cannot be refiled. Simply, Apple wanted a court judgement of a royalty determination, and Motorola and the court wanted to do non-appealable binding arbitration. I think the court made the right decision to drop the case, and I also think Apple made the right decision to walk away from a proverbial black box.
 
2012-11-07 07:22:43 PM  

bingethinker: If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.


It is not Apple's place to determine whether a judgment imposed by the legal system is fair or not. The judge refused to be party to a farce in which a corporation declared themselves above the government of the United States -- good for him.

And please, if you have any evidence of judges being "paid puppets" as you state, come forward. Bribing a judge is illegal, for both the briber and the bribee.
 
2012-11-07 07:33:20 PM  
bingethinker has been extra derpy since his majesty died.
 
2012-11-07 07:39:27 PM  

HeartBurnKid: It is not Apple's place to determine whether a judgment imposed by the legal system is fair or not.


It's also not usually a district court's place to determine whether its judgment is appeal-proof, y'know. ;)
 
2012-11-07 08:39:16 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with.


Hypercard. Hypercard was brilliant in its time. With the included tools and a bit of scripting you could create interactive media. There are stacks on all sorts of subjects. Educational stacks, games, applications and more. It was the first manifestation of what would come later with the Web and it was fantastic.

I'm not sure if Hypercard started on the Mac or on the IIGS. The IIGS also had scalable fonts and CD-ROM support quite early on, possibly before anything else on the market. And it had the mouse plug in through the keyboard. Oh, and I belive the Apple II was the first microcomputer with a colour display. It definitely had Steve Wozniak's new, cheap and efficient floppy disk access hardware.

There were a number of fresh ideas around the Apple II.
 
2012-11-07 08:49:44 PM  

Tourney3p0: bingethinker has been extra derpy since his majesty died.


He's just another troll that drops one post to try and stir the pot, then is not seen again until the next apple thread. Not sure why people respond to him. I guess he's the lunatic to theaetetus' straight man.
 
2012-11-07 08:56:00 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with.

Hypercard. Hypercard was brilliant in its time. With the included tools and a bit of scripting you could create interactive media. There are stacks on all sorts of subjects. Educational stacks, games, applications and more. It was the first manifestation of what would come later with the Web and it was fantastic.

I'm not sure if Hypercard started on the Mac or on the IIGS. The IIGS also had scalable fonts and CD-ROM support quite early on, possibly before anything else on the market. And it had the mouse plug in through the keyboard. Oh, and I belive the Apple II was the first microcomputer with a colour display. It definitely had Steve Wozniak's new, cheap and efficient floppy disk access hardware.

There were a number of fresh ideas around the Apple II.


You know what, I had forgotten about Hypercard. I stand corrected, Apple was innovative...30 years ago.
 
2012-11-07 08:56:21 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with.

Hypercard. Hypercard was brilliant in its time. With the included tools and a bit of scripting you could create interactive media. There are stacks on all sorts of subjects. Educational stacks, games, applications and more. It was the first manifestation of what would come later with the Web and it was fantastic.

I'm not sure if Hypercard started on the Mac or on the IIGS. The IIGS also had scalable fonts and CD-ROM support quite early on, possibly before anything else on the market. And it had the mouse plug in through the keyboard. Oh, and I belive the Apple II was the first microcomputer with a colour display. It definitely had Steve Wozniak's new, cheap and efficient floppy disk access hardware.

There were a number of fresh ideas around the Apple II.


Xerox PARC - Notecards

But even that was second generation, as the hypertext concept dates back into the 1970's (or even to the 1940's depending on the references).
 
2012-11-07 10:02:18 PM  
This is like the Judgment of Solomon.
Except Solomon isn't suggesting that the baby be cut in half.
Instead, the two women are tearing the baby in half with their bare hands. 

So maybe it's not like the Judgment of Solomon after all.
 
2012-11-07 10:22:57 PM  

GhostFish: This is like the Judgment of Solomon.
Except Solomon isn't suggesting that the baby be cut in half.
Instead, the two women are tearing the baby in half with their bare hands. 

So maybe it's not like the Judgment of Solomon after all.


Apple: That is my baby!!!
Motorola: Actually, it's my baby. Here's the birth certificate. And the hospital photos. And the birth announcement.
Judge: Will you accept my judgement?
Motorola: Yes
Apple: Only if you say it's my baby!!!
 
2012-11-08 01:23:36 AM  
Bahahaha.

Apple, if the "technology is only worth $1 per phone", then drop the price of your phones by $1 and the feature. If you are correct, the market will prove you right.
 
2012-11-08 01:27:20 AM  
Pardon my air travel weakened brain, but wouldn't the justicibility requirement prevent the district court from having the power to even hear the case? Or has fatigue set in and done scrambled me noggin'?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-08 10:07:02 AM  
starsrift

Suppose there are 200 essential patents covering a $200 phone. The patents can't be worth more than $1 each on average, even though each is essential to the product.
 
2012-11-08 10:16:44 AM  

ZAZ: starsrift

Suppose there are 200 essential patents covering a $200 phone. The patents can't be worth more than $1 each on average, even though each is essential to the product.


Then it isn't a 200 dollar phone, is it?

That was an easy one. You don't set a price and work backward to figure out what it cost to make an item, and that holds true for physical parts as well as intellectual.

None of that means the patent isn't worth more or less than a dollar. On that I don't know, but you can't determine that a patent IS worth a dollar because heck you plan on selling the phone for 200 bucks and you want to make it a phone that includes another X dollars in patents and Y dollars in materials.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-08 11:21:25 AM  
Smackledorfer

But each of my 200 hypothetical patents is worth as much as the entire phone, no matter where the price ends up, because you can't make a phone without a big pile of patents. So this is effectively a monopoly type situation. The disagreement up at top of thread was over whether we (a) break the monopoly on public goods by eliminating the legal barrier to entry (my view), or (b) let the industry get protectionist against round-cornered intruders without necessarily allowing "unfair" behavior (zedster's view).

(Unfair in quotes because it has a meaning in this context beyond the common one.)
 
2012-11-08 11:26:25 AM  
Apple and Microsoft raised the breach-of-contract claims based on demands for royalties of 2.25 percent on the retail price of each product, which Motorola Mobility has said was its standard opening offer. The company has said neither Microsoft nor Apple would negotiate.
If Motorola won't negotiate, isn't 2.25% a final rather than opening offer?
 
rpm
2012-11-08 11:32:07 AM  

joeshill:
Mac OS X - not to be confused with NEXT


Yeah, I bet the founder of NeXT is really pissed at Apple. His name is on the tip of my tongue, damn it.

Oh yeah, Steve Jobs. Bet he can't stand Apple.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-08 11:34:23 AM  
Forgot to comment on this earlier: which Motorola Mobility has said was its standard opening offer.

My other problem with the industry practice is the "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms are not. If there is an "opening offer," as opposed to a fixed price, then the terms are discriminatory.
 
2012-11-08 11:55:50 AM  

rpm: joeshill:
Mac OS X - not to be confused with NEXT


Yeah, I bet the founder of NeXT is really pissed at Apple. His name is on the tip of my tongue, damn it.

Oh yeah, Steve Jobs. Bet he can't stand Apple.


The question was on Apple innovations. If the technology is developed outside of Apple (while Apple is suing the developer for "nefarious schemes"), and then later bought by Apple, is it really Apple innovation? Or is it Steve Jobs and a bunch of people who left Apple (because they didn't want to innovate?) who innovated and then Apple just bought some existing tech, and decided to claim it as their own?
 
2012-11-08 12:28:48 PM  

ZAZ: Smackledorfer

But each of my 200 hypothetical patents is worth as much as the entire phone, no matter where the price ends up, because you can't make a phone without a big pile of patents. So this is effectively a monopoly type situation. The disagreement up at top of thread was over whether we (a) break the monopoly on public goods by eliminating the legal barrier to entry (my view), or (b) let the industry get protectionist against round-cornered intruders without necessarily allowing "unfair" behavior (zedster's view).

(Unfair in quotes because it has a meaning in this context beyond the common one.)


You said it was a 200 dollar phone and the 200 patents were a buck each. So no, "each" of the 200 patents are not worth as much as the entire phone. ALL of the 200 patents are costing the company as much in total as the phone they WANT to sell for 200 dollars. Assuming the phone then costs X bucks to make for the physical parts and labor, they are selling the phone at a loss.

To that I say: they have priced their phone improperly.

You cannot start by imagining a phone that you want to market for X dollars and then complain that you cannot produce it for less than X dollars. My problem with your argument isn't that you think it should be more or less in total for any given patent usage. My problem is that you base it on an imaginary preset price of the widget to be sold. If widgets have to be 250 dollars, then they have to be 250 dollars - patents should be no different than other aspect of the cost of producing a product.

You wouldn't agree that manufacturers of plastic should cut prices so phone company A can sell it at the price they want to, would you?

ZAZ: My other problem with the industry practice is the "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms are not. If there is an "opening offer," as opposed to a fixed price, then the terms are discriminatory.


Hypothetical: if company A has a widget patent that company B can't sell their superior widgets without, while company B's widgets are so awesome due to their originality that they would dominate company A in the widget market, then company A should be forced to let B steamroll them in the market and company B should be allowed to decide how much they want to pay for the patent usage?

I don't see how your solution does anything except create an unfair advantage in the opposite direction of the unfair advantage you are against.

Personally I've never been convinced that millions, sometimes billions, need to be a possible gain in order for creative minds to work with and improve technology, but then you get into another monopoly issue wherein creativity gets completely trumped by infrastructure and the big company will always win over something new, which is also bad. I don't have a solution, but I still don't see why anyone should be allowed to make the argument that product X shouldn't pay more than Y dollars for a patent simply because they want to sell it at price P. At some point the too damn bad rule comes into play, and ffs we are talking about apple here: the company pissed off that they might be forced to reveal profit margins and costs of creating iphones.
 
2012-11-10 02:27:52 PM  
Seems to be some on this thread that know their shiat so I'm going to ask what is probably a stupid question.....

We all know what Moore's Law is. Is it so insane to require that certain types of technology patents have a life of only 2 or three years before they are made available to the public? It just seems to me, in the Tech world, 20 years before common use would put most technology well beyond obsolete anyway. 20+ years just seems like an insanely long time for a company to be a sole profiteer from patents it, as likely as not, bought from another company. At the very least I could see the current model costing us technological advances due to the non-sharing nature of most corporations and Apple specifically. Then again I could just be very ignorant of patents and patent law....

/am very ignorant of patents and patent law
 
Displayed 60 of 60 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report