To everyone nerd-raging over rounded corners, I say this: to believe that it's just about rounded corners is a gross over-simplification of the issue.
When Samsung's own lawyers can't tell the difference between the two products, how can you reasonably expect the average consumer to be able to tell the difference? That confusion is what a design patent protects against - consumers mistakenly thinking one product is actually another because the design is so similar.
As another poster pointed out elsewhere, _WE_ know that only Apple makes the iPad and thus know that Samsung doesn't. The average consumer doesn't. To the average consumer, if it looks like an iPad, it must be an iPad and if they buy a Galaxy, because it looks identical to the iPad they saw on TV and they really wanted to buy an iPad, that's a problem.
Protecting IP is important. Just ask Kleenex. Just ask Xerox. They allowed their IP (in their cases, trademarks, but the point is the same) to be casually used to describe similar products from different companies and now their brands are diminished because of it. Apple has invested a lot of money and effort into designing their products and, as Lucy Ko points out, the design of a product is a significant part of the purchase decision. Protecting that is important. Failing to protect it can cause significant harm to the brand.
There are many ways Samsung could have designed around the design patents. They chose not to. That is why they are being sued and (for example) RIM is not. The Playbook looks nothing like the iPad and nobody is going to confuse the two. And the Playbook has rounded corners... As does the Kindle Fire and Amazon are not being sued... Shall I point out other tablet-makers who aren't being sued because they managed to design around Apple's patented design, even though they too use rounded corners?
Samsung copied Apple's patented design. Not just the rounded corners - the entire design. Only upon very close inspection can one tell the difference. That is infringement of a design patent.
You don't have to like Apple to recognize that Samsung is in the wrong. I realize most people on Slashdot don't work in fields where their work can be copied and passed off as someone else's but try to imagine, for a second, that you do a lot of hard work and someone else takes the credit. I suspect that's not so hard to imagine - I suspect it's actually happened to many people here at some point or another. I would guess that situation would bother you, enormously. Even if you're drawing a paycheck for your work and making money - watching someone else get praise for your work would be bothersome, right? Even if it was only a couple people who thought that someone else did your work, it would bug you, right?
So why is it ok for Samsung to steal Apple's product design? Hating them doesn't make it ok...
Jesus H Christ, the patent isn't just on rounded corners, you simpleton. Rounded corners _are a part_ of the design patent. One piece. There are other parts that _when all used together_ constitutes infringement. Did your dinning room table copy all the design elements of an iPad? Did your TV? No. So of course they don't infringe. Did Samsung copy _ALL_ of the design elements of an iPad? _YES THEY DID!_ So much so that Samsung's own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between a Galaxy and an iPad.
Stop being intentionally obtuse just to justify your hatred of Apple - it makes you sound like a moron. Anyone who thinks this is just about "rounded corners" is either stupid or ignorant. It's about _the entire design_ which includes, as one part, rounded corners.
Now, feel free to mod me troll all you want but it would be nice if everyone who's simplifying this situation to "RAWR!!! Rounded corners!! RAWR!!!" could pull their collective heads out of their asses and actually recognize that a company is blatantly and outright copying the design of a competitor who has a patent protecting that design.
Oh, but they are getting into the hardware business. This isn't an example of it, but they are. After all, they bought (well, are in the process of buying) Motorola.
That's the kindest description of it I've ever seen. RIM have cut the price in half (presumably selling the thing at a loss) in an effort to make _some_ money back on inventory that's taking up space in their warehouses which is not what most people would describe as "having a tough time" - most would describe that as "a total failure."
I'm actually interested in what's going on in the mobile industry and especially curious what's going to happen to RIM so, of course, I clicked on the link to read the article (I know, rare eh?). What a waste of a click. The "article" had basically zero information. At the very least a link to the Sunday Times which Reuters claims is the source of their story would have been nice, even if the Sunday Times requires a subscription to view anything... Seriously, wasted click - don't bother. The Slashdot summary has all the info you're going to get. And, by "info" I mean "speculation".
I believe you are confusing the Samsung v Apple case with the Nokia case. Samsung is attempting to double-dip and get paid by Quallcomm for the chips and from Apple for using those chips.
Fine - you read it. I'll apologize for being (as you say) a tit about it. But, your claim that 2.25% (correcting for the typo) is "fairly standard" is absolutely wrong and Posner makes a pretty clear point of demonstrating that Motorola's requested royalty rates were excessive.
I strongly suspect that, had Motorola requested fair and reasonable rates for their patents, Apple would have cut them the check. 2.25% is unreasonable by any logical measure. And, to me, this is a point that I am shocked more people aren't outraged by. Motorola requesting royalty rates that are unfair and unreasonable on standards essential patents is the biggest threat to competition within the industry because it means they can outright prevent companies from entering. This is why companies are required to agree to FRAND terms on standards essential patents.
I realize Motorola's enemy is Apple and there's a strong hate-on for Apple right now on Slashdot but Motorola's actions are... bad. I don't understand why more people don't recognize this, regardless of who they're doing it to...
...if Apple had wanted to license any of the patents in Motorolaâ(TM)s standards-essential portfolio, the license fee would have exceeded the product of the percentage of the portfolio represented by the patent and the value of the entire portfolio.
Did you even read the article to which you, yourself, linked? It says nothing, at all, about Apple refusing to pay. What it does say is that Apple was going to pay cash, not cross-license patents, and it was unclear what the fair and reasonable cash rate should be (Nokia obviously thought it should be higher than what Apple thought it should be), so they went to court to figure it out. Once figured out, Apple cut the check.
Screw it - I'm going to copy-paste a blog post I wrote back when this was making the rounds before.
-----
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."
Now, obviously, this quote is thrown about in an effort to make Apple and/or Steve look bad and imply that they ripped off ideas from others. Well, the problem is the quote is actually a misquote which thus clouds the point, which is rare for someone of Steve's speaking elegance. Most people who know it's a misquote believe he's misquoting Picasso but the truth is he's misquoted TS Elliot. The actual quote is:
"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."
Now, when you compare Steve's misquote and TS Elliot's actual quote, you see they actually say basically the same thing but TS Elliot's full quote obviously puts the whole thing into context so the point is understood.
And I agree with it.
I have long believed that there are no more original ideas, just interesting takes on old ideas.
Now, as with Steve's misquote, when expressed that simply, my point can get lost and often has led to people disagreeing with me, strongly. But my point is this - as we grow up, we are exposed to extensive amounts of information that becomes the background noise of our creative processes. As we write, paint, sculpt, compose, and otherwise create, we are influenced, in one way or another, by everything we've seen and heard up until that point. Sometimes the inspiration is heavy and obvious and other times it's subtle and we aren't even aware of it. But we're always influenced by what we've seen up until that point of creation. And good creators put an interesting spin or twist on their inspirations and come up with something that seems and feels new and original. But, at the end of the day, there are no more original ideas, only interesting takes on old ideas.
While many toss around Steve's misquote in the hopes of painting him and Apple in a bad light, they fail to realize that, though he over-simplified a complex issue, he's right. As was TS Elliot before him. Great creators are inspired by what has come before them; they transform and mold and adapt their creation until its something new and wonderful while other creators simply copy without any of the finesse, simply regurgitating what came before.
And, when viewed in the context of Apple, it is clearly relevant. Apple is often touted as being innovative and original by some while others quickly point out that they're just doing what others have done before them. And you know what, both sides are right, which shows that Apple is a "good poet" - they take something and make it into something better, or at least different. They weld the theft into a whole of feeling which is unique. Apple wasn't the first to market with a graphic UI, but they transformed the computer market with Mac OS; Apple wasn't the first to market with an MP3 music player, but they transformed the market with the iPod; Apple wasn't the first to market with a smartphone, but they transformed the market with the iPhone; Apple wasn't the first to market with an ultralight laptop, but they've transformed the market with the Macbook Air; Apple wasn't the first to market with a tablet PC, but they've transformed the market with the iPad. The list goes on and on - they may not be the first, but they transform a market when the enter it.
You don't have to like Apple, but you'd be foolish to ignore that TS Elliot's quote is an accurate portrayal of the company's overall approach. And that'
Motorola wasn't entirely clear about the rate they were requesting though the number 2.25% was thrown about. Start reading at the bottom of page 15 and the next few pages will make it clear that Posner felt that Motorola's requested rates were a) wishy-washy and b) excessive.
You know what - I've decided to actually post a more-detailed reply because posts like yours - and the modding it receives - highlight why Slashdot is becoming less and less valuable. How your post gets modded +5 Informative is beyond me when it shows a gross ignorance that is simply astounding.
We'll start with this:
Apple spent years trying to avoid paying nokia's patent licence fees for FRAND patents...
No. They didn't. Apple disputed the amount required to be paid but was always willing to cut a check. They went to court because they felt Nokia was demanding an inappropriate rate, the courts settled things, and Apple cut the check. Apple didn't attempt to avoid paying anything.
Now, more on-topic:
Apple doesn't want to pay any fees at all, let alone a fairly standard 2.5%.
Fairly standard??? I want you to do a math exercise. If there are 100 patents in a standards essential patent portfolio (that number is one picked by Judge Posner in his opinion and order so I'll go with it as well) and each one garners a 2.5% licensing fee, how much would the entire portfolio cost?
I'm going to assume you're able to recognize the immediate problem right there. If not, I'll quote Judge Posner:
"...if Apple had wanted to license any of the patents in Motorolaâ(TM)s standards-essential portfolio, the license fee would have exceeded the product of the percentage of the portfolio represented by the patent and the value of the entire portfolio.... âoeGoing for brokeâ is the inescapable characterization of Motorolaâ(TM)s damages claim."
You say 2.5% is "fairly standard" yet simple math would highlight that is an impossibility and Judge Posner characterizes such an effort as "going for broke", making it clear that Motorola's demands for 2.25% was well beyond the norm for a FRAND patent.
Your post is incredibly wrong and ill-informed. I do hope people will take a moment to download Posner's opinion and order and read it. _THAT_ is informative and will help clarify the situation.
I find it sad that Slashdot has fallen so far. There was a time that this site informed me of a great many things within the tech/geek world but the egregious misinformation that is spread is making the site next-to-useless now. The fact that "Informative" might, maybe mean "informative" but more than likely means "I hate that company and this post makes that company look bad so I'm going to mod it up" means the value of this site is vanishing...
It is Apple which abuses FRAND system, not Motorola, Nokia, etc.
Seriously, I don't care what you think about Apple - hate them all you want - but they are not abusing FRAND patents. They are refusing to pay excessive licensing fees on FRAND patents, which is entirely reasonable given that excessive licensing fees do not adhere to the requirements of FRAND patents. Motorola (and Samsung) are abusing FRAND patents by demanding excessive rates from one specific company, which is directly in opposition of the intent of FRAND patent requirements.
Seriously, please don't take my word for it - read Judge Posner's opinion and order and you will clearly see he feels that Motorola was asking for excessive (by a wide margin) licensing fees for their FRAND patents.
You don't have to like Apple if you don't want to but don't let that dislike of Apple delude you into thinking that they are being wronged by Motorola (and Samsung). Just because they have deep pockets doesn't mean they should pay a higher license rate - that would be discriminatory licensing which is counter to the Non-Discriminatory part of FRAND.
Go read Posner's opinion and order - don't take my word for it - take the judge's word for it.
I'm not going to quote portions of your post and refute them. What I'm simply going to say is that YOU ARE WRONG. Go read Judge Posner's opinion and judgement and learn something. You are wrong. Some of your fundamental beliefs about (F)RAND patents are outright, incredibly, over-the-top wrong.
Seriously - read Judge Posner's opinion and you will learn something.
Why garbage like your post continues to get modded up when it is clearly, incredibly wrong is beyond me.
You know what? It doesn't matter when it started. Apple is under no obligation to license their non-FRAND patents, should they choose not to. Motorola, however, is. Motorola submitted their technologies to the industry standard and agreed to license those patents under FRAND terms. They currently are not. It doesn't matter who started it or that Apple isn't licensing their patents or anything else for that matter. FRAND terms are clear - you license your patent to EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to license it at FAIR and REASONABLE terms and you do so WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, meaning you can't pick and choose. FRAND stands for Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory.
If Motorola didn't want to be subject to FRAND licensing requirements, they shouldn't have submitted their technology to the standards organization. They did, however, want to be part of it because, while they may make less-per-license under FRAND terms, they more than make up for it in bulk because EVERYONE that wants to make use of the technology has to license it.
So, it doesn't matter that Apple start it. It doesn't matter that Apple isn't cross licensing. It doesn't matter anything. Motorola (and Samsung, who are similarly abusing FRAND patents) are obliged to license the patents.
Oh, and when Company A license the patent to make a chip and then Company B comes in and buys that chip, Company B is not obliged to license the patent as well - it's already been licensed, by Company A. Attempting to get licensing fees from both companies is double-dipping.
You know, I'm constantly stunned that anyone, regardless of their feelings towards Apple, would support what Motorola and Samsung are doing. If you truly feel that patents being used as a weapon to hold back competition in a market are a bad thing, you should be OUTRAGED by what Motorola and Samsung are doing given that it's the most egregious abuse of their patents. Apple's patents can be designed around because they aren't essential. If you don't want to license them or Apple doesn't want to license them to you, just design around them and you're fine. Motorola and Samsung's patents are essential patents for the industry (thus their being covered by FRAND restrictions) so if either company decides not to license them to a company, they effectively prevent that company from participating in the industry. The patents can't be designed around.
But, hey, people can continue hating Apple and blindly ignoring the fact that Motorola and Samsung are the companies actually abusing the patent system to stifle competition...
Oh my gawd dude. Seriously?? Motorola and Samsung are brandishing FRAND patents against their competition which goes directly against the framework of FRAND patents and you're vilifying APPLE???
Holy crap dude. Insanely biased much?
Apple has the right to license their non-FRAND patents or to not license them, as they chose. That is how the patent system works. FRAND patents, such as those being wielded by Motorola and Samsung, however, MUST be licensed to EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to license them for FAIR and REASONABLE NON-DISCRIMINATORY rates. And, currently, they aren't.
And you're vilifying Apple.
Jesus dude. At least make some thinly veiled attempt to disguise your bias next time or you'll start to sound like a shill.
Apple doesn't want a royalty. They want dominance. I hope the judge hands them their balls on a plate instead.
And Motorola? A company that is abusing FRAND patents? Nothing? No comment on what they're doing?
Of course not. This is Slashdot - everything Apple is evil and if anybody attempts to screw them over, even if it's utilizing anti-competitive tactics, it's ok because fuck Apple, right?
Yeah.
Hand-in-the-sand anti-Apple fanboyism is just as annoying as blindly loyal pro-Apple fanboyism.
I'll be honest, I find it amusing that you talk about cluelessness of others in regards to the legal system while complaining about "Apple sue(ing) people's socks off for making tablets shaped like rounded rectangles". Your gross over-simplification of the situation shows a complete lack of understanding of trade dress issues (or simply an overwhelming anti-Apple bias that makes you blind yourself to the truth of matters). When Samsung's own lawyer can't tell the difference between their tablet and Apple's, perhaps Apple has a valid point.
There are numerous tablets on the market that aren't drawing Apple's ire over trade dress issues because they look nothing like an iPad, even if they have rounded corners. Samsung, however, blatantly copied Apple's design to an extreme extent (and any claim to the contrary shows either ignorance or rabid anti-Apple fanboyism) and that trade dress is protected by design patents. Thus, the lawsuit against Samsung but not against other tablet makers who have managed to design their own tablets without infringing Apple's trade dress patents.
But, hey, please continue talking about the cluelessness of others in regards to the legal system.
Style and pose value from Apple and usefulness and financial value from the Android market.
Support this.
No, really - if you honestly think that claim is true, support it because I would imagine there are literally millions of people who would strongly disagree with the claim that Apple's device is just style and pose value and not useful/financial value so, unless you're just trolling (which is what I suspect but I don't have mod points so I'm going to call you on it instead) back up your claim with actual facts.
I'm going to have to disagree - webkit is simply superior to the other options out there, imho. Whether you're using Safari or Chrome (my preference is Safari but take your pick - both are excellent), you simply get a better experience with webkit than you do with any of the other options. Obviously, that's my opinion in my experience but I have yet to experience something rendered by a different engine that makes me think "wow, that really was better than webkit".
If they had those qualities, they might not need to go seeking a VC for help.
Just because you have the skills to run a business and create something profitable doesn't mean you have the money to start it up. Perhaps you've heard of this company called Google - started with a $25 million investment from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital.
It's like he was doing his job or something. Who the hell does that?!
Certainly not Canadian politicians who are supposed to represent the will of the Canadian people rather than sell the country out to foreign corporate interests...
Slashdot Mirror
To everyone nerd-raging over rounded corners, I say this: to believe that it's just about rounded corners is a gross over-simplification of the issue.
When Samsung's own lawyers can't tell the difference between the two products, how can you reasonably expect the average consumer to be able to tell the difference? That confusion is what a design patent protects against - consumers mistakenly thinking one product is actually another because the design is so similar.
As another poster pointed out elsewhere, _WE_ know that only Apple makes the iPad and thus know that Samsung doesn't. The average consumer doesn't. To the average consumer, if it looks like an iPad, it must be an iPad and if they buy a Galaxy, because it looks identical to the iPad they saw on TV and they really wanted to buy an iPad, that's a problem.
Protecting IP is important. Just ask Kleenex. Just ask Xerox. They allowed their IP (in their cases, trademarks, but the point is the same) to be casually used to describe similar products from different companies and now their brands are diminished because of it. Apple has invested a lot of money and effort into designing their products and, as Lucy Ko points out, the design of a product is a significant part of the purchase decision. Protecting that is important. Failing to protect it can cause significant harm to the brand.
There are many ways Samsung could have designed around the design patents. They chose not to. That is why they are being sued and (for example) RIM is not. The Playbook looks nothing like the iPad and nobody is going to confuse the two. And the Playbook has rounded corners... As does the Kindle Fire and Amazon are not being sued... Shall I point out other tablet-makers who aren't being sued because they managed to design around Apple's patented design, even though they too use rounded corners?
Samsung copied Apple's patented design. Not just the rounded corners - the entire design. Only upon very close inspection can one tell the difference. That is infringement of a design patent.
You don't have to like Apple to recognize that Samsung is in the wrong. I realize most people on Slashdot don't work in fields where their work can be copied and passed off as someone else's but try to imagine, for a second, that you do a lot of hard work and someone else takes the credit. I suspect that's not so hard to imagine - I suspect it's actually happened to many people here at some point or another. I would guess that situation would bother you, enormously. Even if you're drawing a paycheck for your work and making money - watching someone else get praise for your work would be bothersome, right? Even if it was only a couple people who thought that someone else did your work, it would bug you, right?
So why is it ok for Samsung to steal Apple's product design? Hating them doesn't make it ok...
Jesus H Christ, the patent isn't just on rounded corners, you simpleton. Rounded corners _are a part_ of the design patent. One piece. There are other parts that _when all used together_ constitutes infringement. Did your dinning room table copy all the design elements of an iPad? Did your TV? No. So of course they don't infringe. Did Samsung copy _ALL_ of the design elements of an iPad? _YES THEY DID!_ So much so that Samsung's own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between a Galaxy and an iPad.
Stop being intentionally obtuse just to justify your hatred of Apple - it makes you sound like a moron. Anyone who thinks this is just about "rounded corners" is either stupid or ignorant. It's about _the entire design_ which includes, as one part, rounded corners.
Now, feel free to mod me troll all you want but it would be nice if everyone who's simplifying this situation to "RAWR!!! Rounded corners!! RAWR!!!" could pull their collective heads out of their asses and actually recognize that a company is blatantly and outright copying the design of a competitor who has a patent protecting that design.
Oh, but they are getting into the hardware business. This isn't an example of it, but they are. After all, they bought (well, are in the process of buying) Motorola.
Playbook's having a tough time...
That's the kindest description of it I've ever seen. RIM have cut the price in half (presumably selling the thing at a loss) in an effort to make _some_ money back on inventory that's taking up space in their warehouses which is not what most people would describe as "having a tough time" - most would describe that as "a total failure."
I'm actually interested in what's going on in the mobile industry and especially curious what's going to happen to RIM so, of course, I clicked on the link to read the article (I know, rare eh?). What a waste of a click. The "article" had basically zero information. At the very least a link to the Sunday Times which Reuters claims is the source of their story would have been nice, even if the Sunday Times requires a subscription to view anything... Seriously, wasted click - don't bother. The Slashdot summary has all the info you're going to get. And, by "info" I mean "speculation".
I believe you are confusing the Samsung v Apple case with the Nokia case. Samsung is attempting to double-dip and get paid by Quallcomm for the chips and from Apple for using those chips.
Fine - you read it. I'll apologize for being (as you say) a tit about it. But, your claim that 2.25% (correcting for the typo) is "fairly standard" is absolutely wrong and Posner makes a pretty clear point of demonstrating that Motorola's requested royalty rates were excessive.
I strongly suspect that, had Motorola requested fair and reasonable rates for their patents, Apple would have cut them the check. 2.25% is unreasonable by any logical measure. And, to me, this is a point that I am shocked more people aren't outraged by. Motorola requesting royalty rates that are unfair and unreasonable on standards essential patents is the biggest threat to competition within the industry because it means they can outright prevent companies from entering. This is why companies are required to agree to FRAND terms on standards essential patents.
I realize Motorola's enemy is Apple and there's a strong hate-on for Apple right now on Slashdot but Motorola's actions are ... bad. I don't understand why more people don't recognize this, regardless of who they're doing it to...
...if Apple had wanted to license any of the patents in Motorolaâ(TM)s standards-essential portfolio, the license fee would have exceeded the product of the percentage of the portfolio represented by the patent and the value of the entire portfolio.
Did you even read the article to which you, yourself, linked? It says nothing, at all, about Apple refusing to pay. What it does say is that Apple was going to pay cash, not cross-license patents, and it was unclear what the fair and reasonable cash rate should be (Nokia obviously thought it should be higher than what Apple thought it should be), so they went to court to figure it out. Once figured out, Apple cut the check.
This is up AGAIN???
Screw it - I'm going to copy-paste a blog post I wrote back when this was making the rounds before.
-----
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."
Now, obviously, this quote is thrown about in an effort to make Apple and/or Steve look bad and imply that they ripped off ideas from others. Well, the problem is the quote is actually a misquote which thus clouds the point, which is rare for someone of Steve's speaking elegance. Most people who know it's a misquote believe he's misquoting Picasso but the truth is he's misquoted TS Elliot. The actual quote is:
"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."
Now, when you compare Steve's misquote and TS Elliot's actual quote, you see they actually say basically the same thing but TS Elliot's full quote obviously puts the whole thing into context so the point is understood.
And I agree with it.
I have long believed that there are no more original ideas, just interesting takes on old ideas.
Now, as with Steve's misquote, when expressed that simply, my point can get lost and often has led to people disagreeing with me, strongly. But my point is this - as we grow up, we are exposed to extensive amounts of information that becomes the background noise of our creative processes. As we write, paint, sculpt, compose, and otherwise create, we are influenced, in one way or another, by everything we've seen and heard up until that point. Sometimes the inspiration is heavy and obvious and other times it's subtle and we aren't even aware of it. But we're always influenced by what we've seen up until that point of creation. And good creators put an interesting spin or twist on their inspirations and come up with something that seems and feels new and original. But, at the end of the day, there are no more original ideas, only interesting takes on old ideas.
While many toss around Steve's misquote in the hopes of painting him and Apple in a bad light, they fail to realize that, though he over-simplified a complex issue, he's right. As was TS Elliot before him. Great creators are inspired by what has come before them; they transform and mold and adapt their creation until its something new and wonderful while other creators simply copy without any of the finesse, simply regurgitating what came before.
And, when viewed in the context of Apple, it is clearly relevant. Apple is often touted as being innovative and original by some while others quickly point out that they're just doing what others have done before them. And you know what, both sides are right, which shows that Apple is a "good poet" - they take something and make it into something better, or at least different. They weld the theft into a whole of feeling which is unique. Apple wasn't the first to market with a graphic UI, but they transformed the computer market with Mac OS; Apple wasn't the first to market with an MP3 music player, but they transformed the market with the iPod; Apple wasn't the first to market with a smartphone, but they transformed the market with the iPhone; Apple wasn't the first to market with an ultralight laptop, but they've transformed the market with the Macbook Air; Apple wasn't the first to market with a tablet PC, but they've transformed the market with the iPad. The list goes on and on - they may not be the first, but they transform a market when the enter it.
You don't have to like Apple, but you'd be foolish to ignore that TS Elliot's quote is an accurate portrayal of the company's overall approach. And that'
Motorola wasn't entirely clear about the rate they were requesting though the number 2.25% was thrown about. Start reading at the bottom of page 15 and the next few pages will make it clear that Posner felt that Motorola's requested rates were a) wishy-washy and b) excessive.
You know what - I've decided to actually post a more-detailed reply because posts like yours - and the modding it receives - highlight why Slashdot is becoming less and less valuable. How your post gets modded +5 Informative is beyond me when it shows a gross ignorance that is simply astounding.
We'll start with this:
Apple spent years trying to avoid paying nokia's patent licence fees for FRAND patents...
No. They didn't. Apple disputed the amount required to be paid but was always willing to cut a check. They went to court because they felt Nokia was demanding an inappropriate rate, the courts settled things, and Apple cut the check. Apple didn't attempt to avoid paying anything.
Now, more on-topic:
Apple doesn't want to pay any fees at all, let alone a fairly standard 2.5%.
Fairly standard??? I want you to do a math exercise. If there are 100 patents in a standards essential patent portfolio (that number is one picked by Judge Posner in his opinion and order so I'll go with it as well) and each one garners a 2.5% licensing fee, how much would the entire portfolio cost?
I'm going to assume you're able to recognize the immediate problem right there. If not, I'll quote Judge Posner:
"...if Apple had wanted to license any of the patents in Motorolaâ(TM)s standards-essential portfolio, the license fee would have exceeded the product of the percentage of the portfolio represented by the patent and the value of the entire portfolio. ... âoeGoing for brokeâ is the inescapable characterization of Motorolaâ(TM)s damages claim."
You say 2.5% is "fairly standard" yet simple math would highlight that is an impossibility and Judge Posner characterizes such an effort as "going for broke", making it clear that Motorola's demands for 2.25% was well beyond the norm for a FRAND patent.
Your post is incredibly wrong and ill-informed. I do hope people will take a moment to download Posner's opinion and order and read it. _THAT_ is informative and will help clarify the situation.
I find it sad that Slashdot has fallen so far. There was a time that this site informed me of a great many things within the tech/geek world but the egregious misinformation that is spread is making the site next-to-useless now. The fact that "Informative" might, maybe mean "informative" but more than likely means "I hate that company and this post makes that company look bad so I'm going to mod it up" means the value of this site is vanishing...
It is Apple which abuses FRAND system, not Motorola, Nokia, etc.
Seriously, I don't care what you think about Apple - hate them all you want - but they are not abusing FRAND patents. They are refusing to pay excessive licensing fees on FRAND patents, which is entirely reasonable given that excessive licensing fees do not adhere to the requirements of FRAND patents. Motorola (and Samsung) are abusing FRAND patents by demanding excessive rates from one specific company, which is directly in opposition of the intent of FRAND patent requirements.
Seriously, please don't take my word for it - read Judge Posner's opinion and order and you will clearly see he feels that Motorola was asking for excessive (by a wide margin) licensing fees for their FRAND patents.
You don't have to like Apple if you don't want to but don't let that dislike of Apple delude you into thinking that they are being wronged by Motorola (and Samsung). Just because they have deep pockets doesn't mean they should pay a higher license rate - that would be discriminatory licensing which is counter to the Non-Discriminatory part of FRAND.
Go read Posner's opinion and order - don't take my word for it - take the judge's word for it.
I'm not going to quote portions of your post and refute them. What I'm simply going to say is that YOU ARE WRONG. Go read Judge Posner's opinion and judgement and learn something. You are wrong. Some of your fundamental beliefs about (F)RAND patents are outright, incredibly, over-the-top wrong.
Seriously - read Judge Posner's opinion and you will learn something.
Why garbage like your post continues to get modded up when it is clearly, incredibly wrong is beyond me.
I think you'll find that started after...
You know what? It doesn't matter when it started. Apple is under no obligation to license their non-FRAND patents, should they choose not to. Motorola, however, is. Motorola submitted their technologies to the industry standard and agreed to license those patents under FRAND terms. They currently are not. It doesn't matter who started it or that Apple isn't licensing their patents or anything else for that matter. FRAND terms are clear - you license your patent to EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to license it at FAIR and REASONABLE terms and you do so WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, meaning you can't pick and choose. FRAND stands for Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory.
If Motorola didn't want to be subject to FRAND licensing requirements, they shouldn't have submitted their technology to the standards organization. They did, however, want to be part of it because, while they may make less-per-license under FRAND terms, they more than make up for it in bulk because EVERYONE that wants to make use of the technology has to license it.
So, it doesn't matter that Apple start it. It doesn't matter that Apple isn't cross licensing. It doesn't matter anything. Motorola (and Samsung, who are similarly abusing FRAND patents) are obliged to license the patents.
Oh, and when Company A license the patent to make a chip and then Company B comes in and buys that chip, Company B is not obliged to license the patent as well - it's already been licensed, by Company A. Attempting to get licensing fees from both companies is double-dipping.
You know, I'm constantly stunned that anyone, regardless of their feelings towards Apple, would support what Motorola and Samsung are doing. If you truly feel that patents being used as a weapon to hold back competition in a market are a bad thing, you should be OUTRAGED by what Motorola and Samsung are doing given that it's the most egregious abuse of their patents. Apple's patents can be designed around because they aren't essential. If you don't want to license them or Apple doesn't want to license them to you, just design around them and you're fine. Motorola and Samsung's patents are essential patents for the industry (thus their being covered by FRAND restrictions) so if either company decides not to license them to a company, they effectively prevent that company from participating in the industry. The patents can't be designed around.
But, hey, people can continue hating Apple and blindly ignoring the fact that Motorola and Samsung are the companies actually abusing the patent system to stifle competition...
Oh my gawd dude. Seriously?? Motorola and Samsung are brandishing FRAND patents against their competition which goes directly against the framework of FRAND patents and you're vilifying APPLE???
Holy crap dude. Insanely biased much?
Apple has the right to license their non-FRAND patents or to not license them, as they chose. That is how the patent system works. FRAND patents, such as those being wielded by Motorola and Samsung, however, MUST be licensed to EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to license them for FAIR and REASONABLE NON-DISCRIMINATORY rates. And, currently, they aren't.
And you're vilifying Apple.
Jesus dude. At least make some thinly veiled attempt to disguise your bias next time or you'll start to sound like a shill.
Apple doesn't want a royalty. They want dominance. I hope the judge hands them their balls on a plate instead.
And Motorola? A company that is abusing FRAND patents? Nothing? No comment on what they're doing?
Of course not. This is Slashdot - everything Apple is evil and if anybody attempts to screw them over, even if it's utilizing anti-competitive tactics, it's ok because fuck Apple, right?
Yeah.
Hand-in-the-sand anti-Apple fanboyism is just as annoying as blindly loyal pro-Apple fanboyism.
I'll be honest, I find it amusing that you talk about cluelessness of others in regards to the legal system while complaining about "Apple sue(ing) people's socks off for making tablets shaped like rounded rectangles". Your gross over-simplification of the situation shows a complete lack of understanding of trade dress issues (or simply an overwhelming anti-Apple bias that makes you blind yourself to the truth of matters). When Samsung's own lawyer can't tell the difference between their tablet and Apple's, perhaps Apple has a valid point.
There are numerous tablets on the market that aren't drawing Apple's ire over trade dress issues because they look nothing like an iPad, even if they have rounded corners. Samsung, however, blatantly copied Apple's design to an extreme extent (and any claim to the contrary shows either ignorance or rabid anti-Apple fanboyism) and that trade dress is protected by design patents. Thus, the lawsuit against Samsung but not against other tablet makers who have managed to design their own tablets without infringing Apple's trade dress patents.
But, hey, please continue talking about the cluelessness of others in regards to the legal system.
Style and pose value from Apple and usefulness and financial value from the Android market.
Support this.
No, really - if you honestly think that claim is true, support it because I would imagine there are literally millions of people who would strongly disagree with the claim that Apple's device is just style and pose value and not useful/financial value so, unless you're just trolling (which is what I suspect but I don't have mod points so I'm going to call you on it instead) back up your claim with actual facts.
I bet you can't.
I'm a professional IT technician and I can't figure out how it works half the time!
Then you might want to find a new line of work. I'm not an IT professional and I consider using iTunes to manage an iDevice to be exceptionally easy.
I'm going to have to disagree - webkit is simply superior to the other options out there, imho. Whether you're using Safari or Chrome (my preference is Safari but take your pick - both are excellent), you simply get a better experience with webkit than you do with any of the other options. Obviously, that's my opinion in my experience but I have yet to experience something rendered by a different engine that makes me think "wow, that really was better than webkit".
They still got venture capital funding. The point remains the same.
If they had those qualities, they might not need to go seeking a VC for help.
Just because you have the skills to run a business and create something profitable doesn't mean you have the money to start it up. Perhaps you've heard of this company called Google - started with a $25 million investment from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital.
Would you rather hear the hard truth about why your startup didn't get funded or some vague dismissal?
If you can't handle hearing the cold, hard truth then you are in the wrong line of business. Period.
It's like he was doing his job or something. Who the hell does that?!
Certainly not Canadian politicians who are supposed to represent the will of the Canadian people rather than sell the country out to foreign corporate interests...