Apple Threatening Patent Lawsuits Over New Palm Pre
from the ugh dept
You may recall back when Apple first announced the iPhone, Steve Jobs proudly talked up how the company had over 200 patents on the various technologies in the phone. We wondered whether the company really needed those patents. After all, most of the "new" technologies in the iPhone weren't really new at all. The compelling part of the iPhone was that it was put together in a nice (relatively inexpensive) package, and designed so well that people wanted it. The massive success of the iPhone since then has highlighted that fact. It had nothing to do with patents, and everything to do with designing a phone that many people wanted. And, of course, the patents did absolutely nothing to stop patent infringement lawsuits from being filed against the company. However, Apple had resisted using those particular patents against anyone else... but that may be changing.On the latest earnings call, when asked about the new Palm Pre phone, which is getting fantastic reviews for actually doing a bunch of things better than the iPhone, Apple's Tim Cook made it clear that the company was examining patent lawsuits against Palm:
We like competition--as long as our competitors don't rip off our IP. And we're going to go after anyone who does. I'm not talking about any particular company, but we are ready to suit up and go against anyone. We will not stand for having our IP ripped off, and we will use every weapon at our disposal....In other words, Apple doesn't really like competition -- at least not competition that improves upon an idea before Apple is able to do so. Once again, we're seeing the problem of patents and left wondering where the benefits are. Having a strong competitor to the iPhone in the market will drive everyone to more rapidly innovate and improve on the offering -- and that's only going to be good for everyone. More innovation will drive more revenue while making happier customers. Using patent lawsuits to take a strong competitor out of the market (or distract them with court time and costs) is about tearing down innovation, rather than encouraging it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: iphone, palm pre, patents
Companies: apple, palm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
unfortunately the only thing that counts is how many ppl go and buy it when it comes out.
Samsung has a great Phone its called Innov8 when i saw it specs i said wow that could be a winner but 3 month after its release nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wrong premice
The problem with patents is not that companies like Apple try to protect their investments ( like the iPhone ) but that there are companies who hold patents in hope that some day they will bring them money because the tech will be deemed useful by someone else. You'd be surprised to find out how many companies patent stuff that has nothing to do with any of their current products just in case someone else decides to use it in the future ( IBM being one of them ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wrong premice
for the record, it is possible to infringe on a patent without stealing. lame example: let's say i never even heard of an iphone and i come up with an idea for multi-touch and implement it in my new, hot smartphone. bam! i just infringed without stealing.
it's hard to imagine a company the size of palm not having a team of patent researchers, so infringement *seems* unlikely (then again, look at warner/fox/watchmen). this makes me wonder: is the uspo ever culpable in patent infringement cases? like, if they accidentally issue conflicting patents? after all, the uspo is just a bunch of fallible humans. and, it's the government, so you know there's gotta be huge fuck-ups all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wrong premice
How could Palm be STEALING the technology of Apple, if Apple still has the technology? Also I would ask, if it is possible to "steal" something from someone, without denying them the use of it, is it still morally wrong? Would it be wrong for me to steal food from you, if it didnt deny you of any food? If you think it would, why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wrong premice
Go shill for apple somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Steve Jobs,
This news is just another example of why I will never, ever, ever buy any Apple product. The business you helped create does nothing but screw consumers with overpriced goods, products which don't fit well with others, DRM encoded software, and of course, bad business practices.
I personally hope you suffer in pain as karma will surely take over from here. In your remaining days, you should help your previous business learn from example, not by "industry standards". You should empower for change and make Apple a business in which sells products *I* would buy.
Until then, Apple can rot in hell and this news only fuels my reason for believing this.
Sincerely,
Twinrova
Personal note: To those fanboys of Apple, don't bother wasting your time expressing your opinions to me. I could care less about your stupid dedication to this company.
Now, where's my Samsung MP3 player which was $100 less with 2GB more data and a battery life of nearly 40 hours? Ah, there it is. Excuse me now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
> to this company.
The phrase you want is "I couldn't care less".
Your phrase makes little to no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
You even have a right to be an angry, uncivil asshole in your posts - not that it's cool, but you do have that right - and you don't have to care what anyone else thinks. But you might want to be careful about invoking "karma" while you're being so transparently hateful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
It's what I do that keeps my karma in check.
To AC #1:
"The phrase you want is "I couldn't care less".
Actually, "could not" is incorrect. As "irregardless" is often mispoken, so is the "couldn't" in the phrase.
Could not implies I, well, could not care. I do care. I care less, hence "could care less".
In actually, I should have written it as "I will care less", as it will imply my actual intent.
:)
And for those who think I'm an angry, bitter asshole, you may be right. But I feel I've earned the right to be so. Every day, Corporate America makes it more difficult for consumers to enjoy the wants in life.
Not all businesses are like this, of course, but many are. And why does it seem it's always those who've established themselves in the marketplace?
This blog is a perfect example. Some of you, who don't feel as angry as I do, can feel free to discuss your reasons why Apple is taking this direction and why you continue to support the decision via product purchases.
I'll check back throughout the day for replies to this.
Enjoy your day! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
"The phrase you want is "I couldn't care less".
Actually, "could not" is incorrect. As "irregardless" is often mispoken, so is the "couldn't" in the phrase.
Could not implies I, well, could not care. I do care. I care less, hence "could care less".
You're quite wrong.
From...
http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html
"I could care less."
If one cares to any degree at all, it is possible to care less. Those who care a great deal could care less.
"I couldn't care less"
It it impossible to care less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw you twinrova you dumbass
Also, If you don't listen to arguements then how do you know that apple is as bad as you think and that you are right
What do you mean "bad business practices" last time I checked being
competitive wasn't bad business!
Apple is not screwing the customer over the durability of their products amazes me and I would gladly pay more for Steve's art than that ugly as shit samsung bullshit that breaks in half
They do have a problem with secrecy and paranoia I will give you that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Steve Jobs,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palm Pre
The Pre promises to get right, at CES there was only a Demo Unit that got shown to the reviewers but they were not allowed to touch and the GUI is not finished yet.
Also you are assuming that Cook was talking about the Pre he never specified the product or companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate the sin, not the sinner
Apple has absolutely no reason not to, and every reason to, take full advantage of every business method at their disposal. Unfortunately suing someone to stop them competing is not only valid, it's popular. Everyone's doing it and the only way to change that reality is to change the system that encourages this hijinkery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate the sin, not the sinner
It's time to put a stop to this behavior, and as consumers we can flex our spending muscles and stop rewarding companies that engage in this kind of behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just who are you disagreeing with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just who are you disagreeing with?
It's one thing to argue that the way we're granting patents on software makes a mockery of the Constitutional intent. It's quite another to argue that the whole notion of such a tradeoff is invalid. You'll find little support, outside of some (not all) libertarian think tanks, for the latter proposition (and implementing it would arguably require an amendment to the Constitution).
Combinations of old ideas in new ways *can be* the basis of a good patent. In fact, to some degree, it's the basis of *most* patents - very little we do is *completely* new. As Newton said, he stood on the shoulders of giants.
Apple doesn't have a particularly bad history in using its patents to attack competitors. (It certainly has an unfortunate history of various other techniques for attacking those it doesn't like - though it's tended to be more those who it perceives as leaking its secrets than anything else). Attacking them for something they *might* do based on a patent that *might* be bogus ... that's a bit extreme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just who are you disagreeing with?
"Using patent lawsuits to take a strong competitor out of the market (or distract them with court time and costs) is about tearing down innovation, rather than encouraging it."
Not to put words in Mike's mouth, but based on my frequent reading of TechDirt, I don't think he's arguing that all patent lawsuits are bad or even that the "tradeoff [associated with the concept of the patent] is invalid". My interpretation is that he's arguing that bad patents are the problem which has ended up doing more harm to innovation than good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just who are you disagreeing with?
The patent system was brought forward with one purpose: to promote advances in science and technology. Mike has made it quite clear that there is NO evidence to show that patents indeed promote advances.
But there is lots of evidence showing that patents HINDER innovation, both directly such as in lawsuits and indirectly in that companies/individuals will not do work in certain areas specifically because those areas are "patent encumbered".
IMO, the primary author on TechDirt is quite pro-free markets, and the patent system is specifically anti-free market; a patent is a government granted monopoly.
If someone claims to be free market capitalists (i.e. believe in capitalism) and yet be pro-patent (and/or pro-copyright), they are suffering from a severe case of philosophical inconsistencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
multitouch essential patent
If any guy suppose or know APPLE have such essential patents, pls specify for discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: multitouch essential patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pre - what a bad name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SADLY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rip-Offs = Innovation?
This is the dumbest article I've read this entire month. You just sound like a whinging Microsoft fan that's said way too much to ever switch without being called a complete hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rip-Offs = Innovation?
In the end though, it's just a touch screen, why even give it a patent? iPhone, like the iPods, does well because of design. Apple is a consumer electronics company at the end of the day. As an interesting question, would the iPhone have done as well had it not followed the iPod, don't think so.
Unfortunately for Palm they missed a number of opportunities and lost out to the Blackberry and iPhones of this world. On saying that, so did Nokia, I had their first brick (communicator) back in 1996 - that was the first smart phone - and guess what, 10 years later it is pretty much the same, just a tad smaller and still with no market share.
While Apple does some great electronics its proprietory philosophy sucks and stifles innovation. Incidently, they are now suing and saying jail breaking the iPhone is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History repeating itself
The end result? The GUI was categorized as prior art (invented at Xerox PARC), Apple's lawsuits were thrown out, and the judgments also invalidated claims that Apple claimed to own that its competitors were respecting.
As a result, the competition was able to add features that had been off-limits for a long time to their own machines, and Microsoft proceeded to whittle Apple's global market share from 20% of the world market in PCs down to the rounding error that it is today.
If Apple repeats this mistake by claiming patents on touch-screens, multi-touch, full-screen web browsing, and other commodity ideas on cell phones, there's no reason to believe this attempt would be any more successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents should be enforced!
companies can rip you off. Why would any company want to innovate if they knew it would be more profitable to knock-off and improve on someone else's genius. They should enforce the patents, I think they should even enforce "trade dress" laws for all the touch screen phones that have ripped off the look of the iPhone. In addition investors in innovation should receive a tax credit
and low cost financing as an incentive to take a risk and innovate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents should be enforced!
Tar and Feather those bastard IP pirates. Walk the plank you scallywag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You lose your credibility on these IP arguments when you cross that line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not?
Are you saying companies which create a product and patent it have *no* right to protect that patent? Especially recent ones?
No one said anything about their rights. They may have a right to protect, but that hardly means that it's a positive development.
You lose your credibility on these IP arguments when you cross that line.
Actually, I'd say you lose credibility when you set up a strawman of something we didn't say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. These specific patents are bad and shouldn't have been issued (if so, why?)
2. What Palm is doing doesn't infringe Apple's patents, so they should keep their mouths shut
3. The whole idea of granting monopoly rights in the patent system is inappropriate and should be eliminated
4. Although Apple's patents are legitimate and Palm is infringing them, Apple shouldn't attempt to enforce those patents (if not, why not?)
5. ?
You didn't offer any evidence for really any of these. I don't think 3 is your position, but if it is by all means let us know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palm Should Countersue Apple For Infringement...
1) A ringer on/off switch with red coloring that vibrates when the phone has turned off (something that Palm was first to market with);
2) Push e-mail for IMAP and POP3;
3) A touch-screen smartphone (another thing Palm OS was first to market with);
4) Desktop synchoronization and software ROM updates via USB.
Those are four that pop to mind immediately as "IP" that Apple "borrowed" from Palm.
And as iFanatics inform us, it doesn't matter if the concepts were prior art OUTSIDE of cell phones -- whoever used them first gets to claim them for all eternity. Thus, since Palm used them first, Palm should file an injunction declaring all iPhones to be illegal and get them pulled off the store shelves if Apple even LOOKS at them cockeyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have little doubt that Palm's got most, if not all, of the five features I listed patented. And Apple's sold something like 20 million iPhones. If Palm gets $50 for every infringement on every phone sold, Apple could end up owing Palm something like $5 billion.
Add in another lawsuit on top of that suing Apple for loss of revenue due to the infringements and a suit hitting them for malicious litigation, and Apple could end up going under.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple protects its patents
A truly empty and flaccid article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meizu m8 FTW
im gonna get the meizu m8 when it hits ebay.. or just wait for the next android phone..
trump anything that crapple will put out..
as far as mac vs pc.. not even going to start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, in reality, without patents - no one would be willing to put in the legwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appke
the iPhone isn't gonna be the best phone always.
I have an iPhone 3G
and battery sucks ass
I bet it's not
much of
a difference of 3G S
the bills are ridiculous, costs are unbelievable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IBTL!
10 minutes of my life I will never get back.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palm Pre Hammers iPhone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]