So basically, Apple fully supports software patents so long as it benefits them. When another company wants money for a BS patent, it's a travesty. You gotta love the way business works.
Implying they support software patents.
I can be opposed to the current income tax rate while still paying all my taxes. Observing the law should not be confused with endorsing the law.
They are not. Apple could have taken Lodsys to court for their patents were, in fact, quite feeble.
Now, thanks in part to Apple, Lodsys has enough money to litigate. The only way to crush a troll is if everyone refuses to pay extortion for worthless patents. Without a source of easy money, the troll dies.
You might disagree with that interpretation of the law but you should never claim that it’s an endorsement of software patents.
I do not know Apple’s stance on software patents but I simply cannot see how Apple’s actions in this case can be interpreted as revealing Apple’s stance on software patents in any way.
And yes. They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing?
Apple is a corporation. That is exactly how corporations behave: they do not take a stand unless they see material benefit in doing so. If you want to claim that something is revealing about Apple's view of patents, perhaps you should consider the number of patents Apple has.
Also, an analogy: if someone mugs me and I hand over my wallet, that does not mean that I'm endorsing the process of mugging. It means that I've decided that the known cost of complying (the contents of my wallet) is less than the potential cost of any injuries I might sustain in the process of fighting back.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070117/191446.shtml
A lot of people believe Apple used its patents, for example, to block Android from getting certain features. There's also speculation that MS spent a lot of time dealing with legal issues before WP7 -- which is why WP7 has different design decisions in so many places Apple has patents -- and one reason it was so late after WM6.1.
It's speculation, but it sounds like Apple may have used its patents as a way to stop competition on other carriers. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but it's legal.
And note that having patents doesn't protect you against trolls. Trolls don't care as they usually don't have product. Patents are only defensive against other actual product companies.
Regarding the accuracy of my comment, see http://www.macworld.com/article/46460/2005/08/ipodpatent.htm... for a quick summary of how Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Apple ended up settling for $100 million. This is an actual product company.
The article that you linked to, while interesting, is purely opinion. Its argument hinges on the assumption that exclusivity with AT&T was a bad business deal for Apple, which I would strongly disagree with. I didn't like the lock-in as a consumer, but the deal was excellent for Apple because it gave them control over the carrier in a way other phone manufacturers had only dreamed of until that point.
"Last month the United States Patent and Trademark office denied Apple a patent for some user interface elements of the popular iPod MP3 player, citing a patent submitted by Microsoft developer John Platt five months BEFORE Apple’s claim."
Whereas you say Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Obviously MS couldn't patent something used in a product months after release (and if they did it would be overthrown in court).
via http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Microsoft-beats-Ap...
> A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.
Apple couldn't file for a patent after it released the iPod. You have to do it before public disclosure. And of course MS couldn't have gotten the patent if Apple had released the iPod.
To bring in the Groklaw quote mentioned:
"The rejected Apple application is not exactly a critical one. It also doesn't appear that the Microsoft patent covers the subject matter of the Apple application, rather it was used as an example to deny the Apple application because it isn't an original idea.
Platt's application covers a way to automatically generate playlists from songs similar to one or more song manually chosen by the user. As an example of usage, Platt described a portable music player that uses a menu hierarchy for navigation. The menus aren't really the invention though.
The Apple application, on the other hand, is all about hierarchical menus. Yes, seriously, that's what they were trying to patent, the idea of using a tree of menus to operate a portable music player. Can you believe it? (I knew you could.) I'd chalk this rejection up to an example of the USPTO doing some good.
The rejected Apple application is 10/282,861 - Graphical user interface and methods of use thereof in a multimedia player
The Platt application is 10/158,674 - Auto playlist generation with multiple seed songs"
This makes a LOT more sense. The Apple patent was rejected because it wasn't an invention. And the MS patent went through because it was actually patenting something that wasn't in the iPod.
Their software patents too are always very specialized, with no real vague areas that can be used for patent trolling. Not that they need to make a habit of patent trolling when they can print money with their sales anyway.
Even a tiny startup company full of web 2.0 rockstars who hate software patents will be advised to patent as much as they can, because if they don't, some other count will come along and patent their stuff from under them and force THEM to pay.
Pretty much nobody likes the software patent system except for software patent trolls, and as such we have to deal with it. Software patents won't go away until bad people go away.
that is what is happening did you see how many people on HN (who are coders) want to abolish software patents?