I feel that most people don't really understand idea behind FRAND patents. It had two objectives:
1) Prevent war between 'gorillas'. All of them were putting major resources into R&D in hardware and FRAND patents allow them to share knowledge without heavy fighting of negotiations which would only filled lawyers pockets
2) Lower barriers for small players. With FRAND they can license necessary technology without breaking budget and allow to concentrate on product.
Now we have third situation: gorilla enters the fray and want to use FRAND system without paying entry fee (resources put into R&D). It is Apple which abuses FRAND system, not Motorola, Nokia, etc. If it wants to not be treated with contempt it should put their 'design patents' into FRAND pool.
All correct, except the part about Apple not wanting to pay. Apple is covered under point 2, except they are not a "small player" just one that has no patents in the pool. They have always maintained that they will pay the FRAND rates for the pools in question (and have done so), just not by cross licensing any patents of their own. They are not obligated to cross licence, merely to pay the FRAND rate. It's unusual to pay in cash, since most companies don't have large cash reserves, and it's often better to simply cross licence assets, but it is allowed. There was an argument over exactly what that cash rate should be (between Nokia and Apple) but there was never any indication at any time that Apple did not want to pay. It is obvious to anyone that they need to licence the patents that they are obligated to use to make a compatible cellular phone.
Why would they put their design patents into a FRAND pool? I don't think you really understand why such a pool exists. The design of an object is not something that requires everyone who wants to make an object has to use, unlike the 3G standard which is a vital part of a phone. If a standards body were to set up a FRAND pool for Apple's design patents then what they are effectively saying is "it is impossible to make a smartphone unless it looks exactly like an iPhone, so everyone must licence these patents". It would be similar to forcing all of the car companies to put all of their design patents over the body shape and design of their cars because they all have four wheels and an engine.
FRAND doesn't mean you can't sue. It just means you have to offer the same licencing price to everyone first - if they pay that, they're safe. The licencing fee can't be too high - which isn't defined - but up to 5% is standard in the industry. But if someone refuses to licence, and then sues you first? That's hardly a dangerous precedent to sue right back, and motorola is far from the first to do so.
This is exactly what I wanted to say when I read the summary. The whole idea of a FRAND pool is that you can sue people who don't join it!
No, it really isn't. The whole idea is to enable a global standard (like, say 3G) to exist that requires patented technology to work effectively while simultaneously preventing market abuse by those who control those patents. They pool them and agree to abide by the specific FRAND terms involved in exchange for their particular patent being included (and thus assuring a return on investment through royalty payments).
The idea is set up precisely so that someone with no patents in the pool (for example, Apple) can use the technology to make a product (for example, a smartphone) without the current incumbent market leaders being able to force them out of the market that *requires* you use their patented technology by demanding unfair licensing rates (say, 2.5% of the product revenue).
It was not designed to allow the pool participants to dredge up an exception to the pool after a competitor gets in nice and deep and start suing them over it for "obviously infringing" - of course they are - the patent is part of the unavoidable, obligated-to-use pool! That's why you can't use it to sue someone with, assuming they pay the licensing cost (which Apple has done in all cases, give or take some arguing with Nokia over the cash value of some of the patents in the pool).
So, when is apple going to stop using everyone elses technology? For example,all these radio technology patents?
And really people, why do idiots seem to think apple has a stronger case with 'slide to unlock', roundtangles, and touch-to-launch than massivly complex radio standards that took decades of indepth research in to wireless systems to develop?
APPLE are starting to play desperate here, as was inevitable when they decided they were going to 'own' an area of technology they had no positioning in..
They're not, because they paid to use it. They have licensed the radio technology they use in the iPhone, just like every other phone manufacturer.
There's a difference between that and ripping off ideas wholesale and not licensing them. Whether you agree or not if Google did that with Android (personally, I don't really think so) does not mean you can call Apple hypocritical for claiming it while they themselves used other technology they have actually licensed.
Like a true brainwashed Apple zealot, forbidding things that you have no defense for.
Yes, Apple stole the GUI and the mouse, Yes, they stole the ideas for a personal computer, laptop, MP3 player, iPod interface, tablets, touchscreen smartphones and they even stole their OS from open source projects.
You certainly have an amusing definition of "steal".
No, they really don't - you already bought the hardware. iTunes, iCloud, the app store, the music and movie stores etc exist to sell the hardware.
This is a common misconception. It is also very wrong.
The hardware exists to sell content through iTunes, iCloud, app store, and so on.
The hardware is just a specific channel to the content. Just like Google is not a search company, but an advertising company, Apple is a content company, not a hardware company.
Their very public financial statements disagree with you so enormously that I don't think it would be possible to be more wrong unless your name was Glenn Beck. Still, keep up with that entirely unsourced, un-cited "truth".
If Apple doesn't care as long as you buy their hardware, then why is everything on their idevices locked down? Logic once again defeats jo_hamm the Apple fanboy.
Because the iOS and OS X ecosystems are different. One is not locked down, the other is much like many Android devices. Their business model for iOS devices is much more strongly focussed on vertical integration, hence the controlled ecosystem.
Hardly a great leap of logic. You also misspelled my name and forgot to log in.
And as with Nokia, they wanted Apple's patents (and rejected the cash fee). Apple was quite happy to let some patents go, but not others that Nokia *really wanted*, hence all the long drawn out negotiation. Apple would be quite happy to have settled for a cash payment given the nature of their business model.
The to-and-fro about the value of the various patents involved was at the heart of the deal, never that Apple "refused to pay", as is often stated as fact around here, or that Apple "refused to put in any patents into a [closed, standardised] FRAND pool" (seriously, that is a major WTF).
Because we aren't fanbois blinded by our bias, and can see that Apple is being dickish here.
You've never had a *single* bad thing to say about Apple. That probably means you're not capable of being objective. Therefore, we can ignore pretty much everything you have to say on the subject. If you can't examine your own sacred cows critically, please STFU and let the grown-ups do the talking.
You've clearly never read any of my posts then.
The Finder is terrible and needs serious work, Apple's lawsuits over slide-to-unlock and the Galaxy Tab are a major mistake, the use of pentalobe screws in the iPhone 4 and now in the new Macbook Retina is needless, the iOS UI needs a way to easily toggle common features like bluetooth and wifi like you can on Android, the Mac Pro "update" just done last month was one of the most laughably asinine things I have ever seen from any company (and the price of the MP is also much too high), the price for BTO options for many things is too damn high (RAM and SSD especially), Apple promised to open the FaceTime protocol "soon" ages ago and hasn't done so yet, iOS really needs something like Swype - which is one of the best input methods I've seen on a smartphone.
Sorry, anything else? This is just the stuff I remember talking about in the past year or so on here. I'm sorry if you simply choose to only see the positive things I have to say, given that there tend to be more of them. Each to his own I guess.
I'm also not sure how I can have a "pretend moderate" voice. Either I'm being moderate or I'm not? Do you see me raging and cursing at anyone?
Of course you are. You just want to distort the meaning so that you don't fit.
One can calmly, with a smile, advocate just about anything. That's a "pretend moderate" voice. One *seems* reasonable, affable and moderate - yet if another actually digs into the meat the animal is rabid.
Whether or not this accurately describes your position is left to the readers.
Regards.
I suppose that's true, and the quiet ones can often be more dangerous than the rabid, raging ones. All I can say is that I don't bear anyone any ill will, nor am I malicious in my comments. I'm occasionally facetious, but there's no malice in it.
Oh I agree - they are all about vertical integration, and it's one of the reasons that people are willing to pay the higher prices for an Apple product.
At the end of the day though, they exist to sell hardware. They do this by making the hardware and software attractive to use, but it doesn't mean that they're not going to be very pleased if you only want one of those things (as long as it's the hardware).
They're not going to question your purchase if you buy a Mac exclusively to run Linux or Windows. Other people might ("you can get a 20 times faster PC for 10% of that price!!!!!"), but Apple won't care. If you buy their hardware because you like it, even if you never intend to use their software, they'll be happy since you just gave them a nice chunk of change for the privilege.
I know a few people who have iMacs and never boot OS X - they just like the form factor of the machine over all the other all in one models available. One guy I know has a whole office full of them, all running XP.
You're arguing semantics. I offered an opinion and a question - that's the point of a discussion, no? I'm asking why, not proclaiming that they can't.
Here's a scenario for you.
A: I slipped over on a wet floor, it's the store's fault
B: How is it the store's fault?
A: They didn't have a sign up warning me.
B: I see, well I'd suggest that you watch your step in future, but I agree that the store should put up a sign - perhaps they hadn't noticed yet?
The question does not mean "you are not allowed to assign blame".
I'm also not sure how I can have a "pretend moderate" voice. Either I'm being moderate or I'm not? Do you see me raging and cursing at anyone?
You're claiming "Apple don't want to pay that price [the licence cost of a FRAND patent]" - but on what grounds? Do you have a citation on that? They were in negotiation with Nokia for years over the value of cross-licenced patents to come to an agreement. There was certainly never any indication that they "didn't want to pay" - they just want to pay what's fair.
As far as lawsuits with Motorola and Samsung over FRAND patents, well that's where the water gets murky. For some reason both Samsung and Moto seemed totally fine with Apple's payment to use the 3G patents, right up until they needed a stick to beat them with, then all of a sudden "ooh, they are infringing on this patent, and haven't paid for it!". Funny that. I'm not sure how they can only partially have paid to use the 3G patents. If they have not paid for one, then they must also be in violation of all of them. Apple uses pretty standard 3G radios and chipsets - if it took Samsung 5 years to determine that there was one patent that Apple didn't pay for (given that they've been licensing their part of the 3G pool for years) then I have to wonder what on earth they were doing for all that time? Surely not holding one back that they could use in the event they got sued? How blameless of them! The alternative is extreme incompetence on Samsung's part. I'm not sure what's worse.
The 3G patent pool does not require that "you put patents in the pool" in order to licence what is currently in there (and this is what we're discussing here). If it did then the 3G standard would be meaningless, since the patent pool would continue to grow. What happens to older devices if new "essential" patents are added to the pool? The 3G FRAND patents are set the way they are to ensure interoperability across all the different cellular manufacturers, otherwise there would be chaos. The pool is static, containing the patents necessary for the standard to work.
Just for completeness, I am aware that different licence conditions are possible for FRAND patent pools, but that in general they are used when an industry standard is involved, so they tend not to grow (in terms of patents) once the standard is set, unless that standard is extended.
FOSS/GNU/Linux people will not purchase Windows 8 signed machines anyway. They will be forced to build their own PCs, which is, guess what, what they do already. This will force more people to build their own or steer clear of any large OEM that wants Windows 8.
What components will they use? How much will it cost if they go for special non-UFEI components when the majority of the industry is using UFEI motherboards?
Of course they care. If you don't use their operating system you are much less likely to use the services they have tailored to that system, like iTunes and iCloud and iWhatNot.
No, they really don't - you already bought the hardware. iTunes, iCloud, the app store, the music and movie stores etc exist to sell the hardware.
You can see this by looking at their financial statements (unless you think they're lying on a massive scale, in which case report them to the SEC) - the hardware division, on both the iOS and OS X sides of the equation are where the profit is made.
They'd love you to buy a Mac and run Linux on it - you bought a Mac and gave them 90% of the profit they'd expect to get from you as a customer. The 20-30% margin on a $1-2k purchase is the lion's share of the money they make from you. The $0.30 they make from you every time you buy a song, or the cost they incur by giving you free iCloud access is peanuts in comparison.
Just because you love Apple so much, any criticism "must" (in your insane logic) be for no reason at all.
Apple CHOSE their actions. People CHOOSE to blame Apple FOR their actions.
How else does this work?
I notice you didn't manage to answer that.
PS FRAND licenses require a payment of "put your patent in the pool and pay this amount of cash". Apple don't want to put their patents in the pool and therefore you're arguing that Apple should get the same patents cheaper than anyone else. How is that "fair"?
Err, wrong. FRAND patents require that you licence your patent reasonably, fairly and in a non-descriminatory fashion. It *does not* require that you put patents into the pool. How could it? You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the reason for the FRAND system. The standard is set - if a new player comes along and "puts their patents in" then surely the standard would have to change? There is absolutely no requirement that the fee for use of FRAND patents includes licencing patents of your own. You *can* do that, if you choose to (and the licensing party agrees) but you are not obligated to do so - you can pay in cash, or goats, or blue M&Ms or anything else you can trade with, as long as you pay the same amount as everyone else.
You are also (wilfully, I hope, but possibly not, in which case I'm so very sorry) about "choosing to blame". My point is not that Apple are not blameless, or that people aren't free to assign blame. My point concerns the hypocrisy of their statements. "Apple is abusing the patent system! rwar! I won't give them any of my money! Ooh, check out my shiny Samsung Galaxy!"
"Exclusive use of the granted patent allows us to recoup the cost of the research spent on making this product, allowing us to work on future products".
You won't agree with that (and I don't really), but a court will (and has).
And if we don't like their attitude as displayed by the choice they took, we can blame apple.
What else can you blame someone for, if not the choice they made?
Tell me where the patent laws say that apple HAD to do what they did?
Nowhere.
First and foremost, Apple want our money. Acting like this, I decide to forbid them access to it and blame them for the choices they took.
So in your militant nerd rage are you "forbidding" Motorola and Samsung from accessing your money too? No one has clean hands here, but at least they're not abusing FRAND patents.
Surely Apple have the choice when it comes to a patent that has been granted to them. If they *want* to licence it for a steep fee, they can. If they *want* to block anyone else from using it, they can.
I don't disagree with your sentiment (I think the whole patent system is getting out of hand), but the way it it currently set up, Apple is perfectly within its rights to sue other companies who infringe on patents it holds (even frivolous ones) - that's how the system works.
The patent system was set up to foster exactly the sort of thing that Apple (and many of its competitors) are doing. It's just getting into a ridiculous position because more and more things are being patented that really shouldn't be.
First and foremost, Apple is a business - it is going to do what it can to ensure that it succeeds at that goal. I may think it's a stupid move, but they are well within their rights to make it.
If anything is going to create a monoculture in the computing industry it will be the relentless drive from consumers that says PCs must be cheaper cheaper cheaper!
You forgot to mention how this is bad? I prefer computer prices AND quality today than 10 years ago. Same goes for airline tickets. Win! Win! Win!
It's bad because eventually the drive to lower and lower margins will mean it's an unattractive industry to join, thus the established players will simply stagnate and innovation will halt. Choice will go down, and while your computer may now be cheap cheap cheap, it will be whatever the one or two manufacturers who are left decide it will be.
They are taking the distance "d" to be 10" and 15" (in classic non-SI units!) as typical viewing distances for the iPhone and iPad respectively, but your personal distance may vary - I sit 56 cm away from my iMac's screen (51 cm/20") and I hold my iPhone approximately 38 cm/15" from my eyes (I just measured both).
So, for me I'd be able to get by with a lower dpi screen if I went for a retina smartphone - I think 10" is quite close to hold your phone!
I think that's exactly what it means, but the original commenter feels compelled to point it out for nerd cred, just to show that he's not "fooled" by the marketing.
How did this garbage parent comment get +5 insightful?
I take it that your company routinely puts out press releases that call the product's value and science into question? That's why it's doing so well, right?
Let me guess; you skimmed the first paragraph and then rushed to hit the reply button on/. to try and get high up on the page?
Not really. There are tons of companies assembling pre-made parts into computers, but the actual construction of the things that go into a PC has slimmed right down to just a few large-scale manufacturers, with most of that happening in Asia.
The entire operation operates on razor thin margins that can only really work with high volume sales.
If you are a higher-level "manufacturer" like Dell, Toshiba, HP, Apple etc, then you are limited by what parts are available to you. Unless you have the purchasing power to make it worth while for a component maker to do something custom for you (like Apple) then having custom parts made for you is expensive and drives up costs to the end user - which is very tough in a race-to-the-bottom PC market. Subsequently, the PC you buy from Dell, HP, Toshiba or even Apple doesn't really differ all that much. The cases are different, but that's most of it. If you want ethernet, there's a small number of controllers for that, if you want audio, the same is true. If you want wireless, again you have a small selection of components.
If anything is going to create a monoculture in the computing industry it will be the relentless drive from consumers that says PCs must be cheaper cheaper cheaper!
Slashdot Mirror
I feel that most people don't really understand idea behind FRAND patents. It had two objectives:
1) Prevent war between 'gorillas'. All of them were putting major resources into R&D in hardware and FRAND patents allow them to share knowledge without heavy fighting of negotiations which would only filled lawyers pockets
2) Lower barriers for small players. With FRAND they can license necessary technology without breaking budget and allow to concentrate on product.
Now we have third situation: gorilla enters the fray and want to use FRAND system without paying entry fee (resources put into R&D). It is Apple which abuses FRAND system, not Motorola, Nokia, etc. If it wants to not be treated with contempt it should put their 'design patents' into FRAND pool.
All correct, except the part about Apple not wanting to pay. Apple is covered under point 2, except they are not a "small player" just one that has no patents in the pool. They have always maintained that they will pay the FRAND rates for the pools in question (and have done so), just not by cross licensing any patents of their own. They are not obligated to cross licence, merely to pay the FRAND rate. It's unusual to pay in cash, since most companies don't have large cash reserves, and it's often better to simply cross licence assets, but it is allowed. There was an argument over exactly what that cash rate should be (between Nokia and Apple) but there was never any indication at any time that Apple did not want to pay. It is obvious to anyone that they need to licence the patents that they are obligated to use to make a compatible cellular phone.
Why would they put their design patents into a FRAND pool? I don't think you really understand why such a pool exists. The design of an object is not something that requires everyone who wants to make an object has to use, unlike the 3G standard which is a vital part of a phone. If a standards body were to set up a FRAND pool for Apple's design patents then what they are effectively saying is "it is impossible to make a smartphone unless it looks exactly like an iPhone, so everyone must licence these patents". It would be similar to forcing all of the car companies to put all of their design patents over the body shape and design of their cars because they all have four wheels and an engine.
FRAND doesn't mean you can't sue. It just means you have to offer the same licencing price to everyone first - if they pay that, they're safe. The licencing fee can't be too high - which isn't defined - but up to 5% is standard in the industry. But if someone refuses to licence, and then sues you first? That's hardly a dangerous precedent to sue right back, and motorola is far from the first to do so.
This is exactly what I wanted to say when I read the summary. The whole idea of a FRAND pool is that you can sue people who don't join it!
No, it really isn't. The whole idea is to enable a global standard (like, say 3G) to exist that requires patented technology to work effectively while simultaneously preventing market abuse by those who control those patents. They pool them and agree to abide by the specific FRAND terms involved in exchange for their particular patent being included (and thus assuring a return on investment through royalty payments).
The idea is set up precisely so that someone with no patents in the pool (for example, Apple) can use the technology to make a product (for example, a smartphone) without the current incumbent market leaders being able to force them out of the market that *requires* you use their patented technology by demanding unfair licensing rates (say, 2.5% of the product revenue).
It was not designed to allow the pool participants to dredge up an exception to the pool after a competitor gets in nice and deep and start suing them over it for "obviously infringing" - of course they are - the patent is part of the unavoidable, obligated-to-use pool! That's why you can't use it to sue someone with, assuming they pay the licensing cost (which Apple has done in all cases, give or take some arguing with Nokia over the cash value of some of the patents in the pool).
+5 informative for the parent comment?
*shakes head sadly in despair and looks for the "I don't want to live on this planet any more" meme*
I take it you get all of your news from slashdot comments exclusively?
Excellent.
So, when is apple going to stop using everyone elses technology?
For example,all these radio technology patents?
And really people, why do idiots seem to think apple has a stronger case with 'slide to unlock', roundtangles, and touch-to-launch than massivly complex radio standards that took decades of indepth research in to wireless systems to develop?
APPLE are starting to play desperate here, as was inevitable when they decided they were going to 'own' an area of technology they had no positioning in..
They're not, because they paid to use it. They have licensed the radio technology they use in the iPhone, just like every other phone manufacturer.
There's a difference between that and ripping off ideas wholesale and not licensing them. Whether you agree or not if Google did that with Android (personally, I don't really think so) does not mean you can call Apple hypocritical for claiming it while they themselves used other technology they have actually licensed.
Like a true brainwashed Apple zealot, forbidding things that you have no defense for.
Yes, Apple stole the GUI and the mouse, Yes, they stole the ideas for a personal computer, laptop, MP3 player, iPod interface, tablets, touchscreen smartphones and they even stole their OS from open source projects.
You certainly have an amusing definition of "steal".
No, they really don't - you already bought the hardware. iTunes, iCloud, the app store, the music and movie stores etc exist to sell the hardware.
This is a common misconception. It is also very wrong.
The hardware exists to sell content through iTunes, iCloud, app store, and so on.
The hardware is just a specific channel to the content. Just like Google is not a search company, but an advertising company, Apple is a content company, not a hardware company.
Their very public financial statements disagree with you so enormously that I don't think it would be possible to be more wrong unless your name was Glenn Beck. Still, keep up with that entirely unsourced, un-cited "truth".
If Apple doesn't care as long as you buy their hardware, then why is everything on their idevices locked down? Logic once again defeats jo_hamm the Apple fanboy.
Because the iOS and OS X ecosystems are different. One is not locked down, the other is much like many Android devices. Their business model for iOS devices is much more strongly focussed on vertical integration, hence the controlled ecosystem.
Hardly a great leap of logic. You also misspelled my name and forgot to log in.
And as with Nokia, they wanted Apple's patents (and rejected the cash fee). Apple was quite happy to let some patents go, but not others that Nokia *really wanted*, hence all the long drawn out negotiation. Apple would be quite happy to have settled for a cash payment given the nature of their business model.
The to-and-fro about the value of the various patents involved was at the heart of the deal, never that Apple "refused to pay", as is often stated as fact around here, or that Apple "refused to put in any patents into a [closed, standardised] FRAND pool" (seriously, that is a major WTF).
So wait, why is this Apple's fault?
Because we aren't fanbois blinded by our bias, and can see that Apple is being dickish here.
You've never had a *single* bad thing to say about Apple. That probably means you're not capable of being objective. Therefore, we can ignore pretty much everything you have to say on the subject. If you can't examine your own sacred cows critically, please STFU and let the grown-ups do the talking.
You've clearly never read any of my posts then.
The Finder is terrible and needs serious work, Apple's lawsuits over slide-to-unlock and the Galaxy Tab are a major mistake, the use of pentalobe screws in the iPhone 4 and now in the new Macbook Retina is needless, the iOS UI needs a way to easily toggle common features like bluetooth and wifi like you can on Android, the Mac Pro "update" just done last month was one of the most laughably asinine things I have ever seen from any company (and the price of the MP is also much too high), the price for BTO options for many things is too damn high (RAM and SSD especially), Apple promised to open the FaceTime protocol "soon" ages ago and hasn't done so yet, iOS really needs something like Swype - which is one of the best input methods I've seen on a smartphone.
Sorry, anything else? This is just the stuff I remember talking about in the past year or so on here. I'm sorry if you simply choose to only see the positive things I have to say, given that there tend to be more of them. Each to his own I guess.
I'm also not sure how I can have a "pretend moderate" voice. Either I'm being moderate or I'm not? Do you see me raging and cursing at anyone?
Of course you are. You just want to distort the meaning so that you don't fit.
One can calmly, with a smile, advocate just about anything. That's a "pretend moderate" voice. One *seems* reasonable, affable and moderate - yet if another actually digs into the meat the animal is rabid.
Whether or not this accurately describes your position is left to the readers.
Regards.
I suppose that's true, and the quiet ones can often be more dangerous than the rabid, raging ones. All I can say is that I don't bear anyone any ill will, nor am I malicious in my comments. I'm occasionally facetious, but there's no malice in it.
So, you are following my posts. Interesting. Can I assume you're just forgetting to log in?
You also ignored the rest of my argument.
Oh I agree - they are all about vertical integration, and it's one of the reasons that people are willing to pay the higher prices for an Apple product.
At the end of the day though, they exist to sell hardware. They do this by making the hardware and software attractive to use, but it doesn't mean that they're not going to be very pleased if you only want one of those things (as long as it's the hardware).
They're not going to question your purchase if you buy a Mac exclusively to run Linux or Windows. Other people might ("you can get a 20 times faster PC for 10% of that price!!!!!"), but Apple won't care. If you buy their hardware because you like it, even if you never intend to use their software, they'll be happy since you just gave them a nice chunk of change for the privilege.
I know a few people who have iMacs and never boot OS X - they just like the form factor of the machine over all the other all in one models available. One guy I know has a whole office full of them, all running XP.
You're arguing semantics. I offered an opinion and a question - that's the point of a discussion, no? I'm asking why, not proclaiming that they can't.
Here's a scenario for you.
A: I slipped over on a wet floor, it's the store's fault
B: How is it the store's fault?
A: They didn't have a sign up warning me.
B: I see, well I'd suggest that you watch your step in future, but I agree that the store should put up a sign - perhaps they hadn't noticed yet?
The question does not mean "you are not allowed to assign blame".
I'm also not sure how I can have a "pretend moderate" voice. Either I'm being moderate or I'm not? Do you see me raging and cursing at anyone?
You're claiming "Apple don't want to pay that price [the licence cost of a FRAND patent]" - but on what grounds? Do you have a citation on that? They were in negotiation with Nokia for years over the value of cross-licenced patents to come to an agreement. There was certainly never any indication that they "didn't want to pay" - they just want to pay what's fair.
As far as lawsuits with Motorola and Samsung over FRAND patents, well that's where the water gets murky. For some reason both Samsung and Moto seemed totally fine with Apple's payment to use the 3G patents, right up until they needed a stick to beat them with, then all of a sudden "ooh, they are infringing on this patent, and haven't paid for it!". Funny that. I'm not sure how they can only partially have paid to use the 3G patents. If they have not paid for one, then they must also be in violation of all of them. Apple uses pretty standard 3G radios and chipsets - if it took Samsung 5 years to determine that there was one patent that Apple didn't pay for (given that they've been licensing their part of the 3G pool for years) then I have to wonder what on earth they were doing for all that time? Surely not holding one back that they could use in the event they got sued? How blameless of them! The alternative is extreme incompetence on Samsung's part. I'm not sure what's worse.
The 3G patent pool does not require that "you put patents in the pool" in order to licence what is currently in there (and this is what we're discussing here). If it did then the 3G standard would be meaningless, since the patent pool would continue to grow. What happens to older devices if new "essential" patents are added to the pool? The 3G FRAND patents are set the way they are to ensure interoperability across all the different cellular manufacturers, otherwise there would be chaos. The pool is static, containing the patents necessary for the standard to work.
Just for completeness, I am aware that different licence conditions are possible for FRAND patent pools, but that in general they are used when an industry standard is involved, so they tend not to grow (in terms of patents) once the standard is set, unless that standard is extended.
FOSS/GNU/Linux people will not purchase Windows 8 signed machines anyway. They will be forced to build their own PCs, which is, guess what, what they do already.
This will force more people to build their own or steer clear of any large OEM that wants Windows 8.
What components will they use? How much will it cost if they go for special non-UFEI components when the majority of the industry is using UFEI motherboards?
Of course they care. If you don't use their operating system you are much less likely to use the services they have tailored to that system, like iTunes and iCloud and iWhatNot.
No, they really don't - you already bought the hardware. iTunes, iCloud, the app store, the music and movie stores etc exist to sell the hardware.
You can see this by looking at their financial statements (unless you think they're lying on a massive scale, in which case report them to the SEC) - the hardware division, on both the iOS and OS X sides of the equation are where the profit is made.
They'd love you to buy a Mac and run Linux on it - you bought a Mac and gave them 90% of the profit they'd expect to get from you as a customer. The 20-30% margin on a $1-2k purchase is the lion's share of the money they make from you. The $0.30 they make from you every time you buy a song, or the cost they incur by giving you free iCloud access is peanuts in comparison.
Just because you love Apple so much, any criticism "must" (in your insane logic) be for no reason at all.
Apple CHOSE their actions. People CHOOSE to blame Apple FOR their actions.
How else does this work?
I notice you didn't manage to answer that.
PS FRAND licenses require a payment of "put your patent in the pool and pay this amount of cash". Apple don't want to put their patents in the pool and therefore you're arguing that Apple should get the same patents cheaper than anyone else. How is that "fair"?
Err, wrong. FRAND patents require that you licence your patent reasonably, fairly and in a non-descriminatory fashion. It *does not* require that you put patents into the pool. How could it? You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the reason for the FRAND system. The standard is set - if a new player comes along and "puts their patents in" then surely the standard would have to change? There is absolutely no requirement that the fee for use of FRAND patents includes licencing patents of your own. You *can* do that, if you choose to (and the licensing party agrees) but you are not obligated to do so - you can pay in cash, or goats, or blue M&Ms or anything else you can trade with, as long as you pay the same amount as everyone else.
You are also (wilfully, I hope, but possibly not, in which case I'm so very sorry) about "choosing to blame". My point is not that Apple are not blameless, or that people aren't free to assign blame. My point concerns the hypocrisy of their statements. "Apple is abusing the patent system! rwar! I won't give them any of my money! Ooh, check out my shiny Samsung Galaxy!"
Also, you forgot to log in.
"Exclusive use of the granted patent allows us to recoup the cost of the research spent on making this product, allowing us to work on future products".
You won't agree with that (and I don't really), but a court will (and has).
And if we don't like their attitude as displayed by the choice they took, we can blame apple.
What else can you blame someone for, if not the choice they made?
Tell me where the patent laws say that apple HAD to do what they did?
Nowhere.
First and foremost, Apple want our money. Acting like this, I decide to forbid them access to it and blame them for the choices they took.
So in your militant nerd rage are you "forbidding" Motorola and Samsung from accessing your money too? No one has clean hands here, but at least they're not abusing FRAND patents.
So wait, why is this Apple's fault?
Surely Apple have the choice when it comes to a patent that has been granted to them. If they *want* to licence it for a steep fee, they can. If they *want* to block anyone else from using it, they can.
I don't disagree with your sentiment (I think the whole patent system is getting out of hand), but the way it it currently set up, Apple is perfectly within its rights to sue other companies who infringe on patents it holds (even frivolous ones) - that's how the system works.
The patent system was set up to foster exactly the sort of thing that Apple (and many of its competitors) are doing. It's just getting into a ridiculous position because more and more things are being patented that really shouldn't be.
First and foremost, Apple is a business - it is going to do what it can to ensure that it succeeds at that goal. I may think it's a stupid move, but they are well within their rights to make it.
If anything is going to create a monoculture in the computing industry it will be the relentless drive from consumers that says PCs must be cheaper cheaper cheaper!
You forgot to mention how this is bad? I prefer computer prices AND quality today than 10 years ago. Same goes for airline tickets. Win! Win! Win!
It's bad because eventually the drive to lower and lower margins will mean it's an unattractive industry to join, thus the established players will simply stagnate and innovation will halt. Choice will go down, and while your computer may now be cheap cheap cheap, it will be whatever the one or two manufacturers who are left decide it will be.
Not sure if it's on their site any more, but here is a photo from the keynote given at the launch of the iPad 3's display.
This is a photo of an Apple slide.
http://cdn.iphonehacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/apple-new-ipad-retina-display-math.jpg
They are taking the distance "d" to be 10" and 15" (in classic non-SI units!) as typical viewing distances for the iPhone and iPad respectively, but your personal distance may vary - I sit 56 cm away from my iMac's screen (51 cm/20") and I hold my iPhone approximately 38 cm/15" from my eyes (I just measured both).
So, for me I'd be able to get by with a lower dpi screen if I went for a retina smartphone - I think 10" is quite close to hold your phone!
OWC sells PCIe SSD drives alongside their more traditional 2.5" ones.
Not as small as 60GB (seems 120 is the smallest), but they use Sandforce controllers:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury_Accelsior/RAID
While it's predominantly a Mac-based site, there's nothing stopping you using the drives with other machines.
I think that's exactly what it means, but the original commenter feels compelled to point it out for nerd cred, just to show that he's not "fooled" by the marketing.
How did this garbage parent comment get +5 insightful?
I take it that your company routinely puts out press releases that call the product's value and science into question? That's why it's doing so well, right?
Let me guess; you skimmed the first paragraph and then rushed to hit the reply button on /. to try and get high up on the page?
Not really. There are tons of companies assembling pre-made parts into computers, but the actual construction of the things that go into a PC has slimmed right down to just a few large-scale manufacturers, with most of that happening in Asia.
The entire operation operates on razor thin margins that can only really work with high volume sales.
If you are a higher-level "manufacturer" like Dell, Toshiba, HP, Apple etc, then you are limited by what parts are available to you. Unless you have the purchasing power to make it worth while for a component maker to do something custom for you (like Apple) then having custom parts made for you is expensive and drives up costs to the end user - which is very tough in a race-to-the-bottom PC market. Subsequently, the PC you buy from Dell, HP, Toshiba or even Apple doesn't really differ all that much. The cases are different, but that's most of it. If you want ethernet, there's a small number of controllers for that, if you want audio, the same is true. If you want wireless, again you have a small selection of components.
If anything is going to create a monoculture in the computing industry it will be the relentless drive from consumers that says PCs must be cheaper cheaper cheaper!