Apple Withholds Patent From Widget Standard
from the patents-and-standards dept
The idea of standardization around certain technologies makes some amount of sense. Once a standard is set at a lower level, it opens up plenty of innovation opportunities above that standard. However, in the past few years, we've seen a pretty massive problem with the combination of standards and patents. Basically, everyone starts looking for ways to somehow connect a patent to a standard -- but they often try to hide the details so that, once the standard is set, they can start demanding everyone pay up for patent infringement. This is even more likely when companies come up with an agreement to pool patents in a royalty-free manner for the sake of the patent. Companies try to keep their patents out so they can later demand money. It's way too common these days. The latest to do this appears to be Apple, who withheld a key patent on technology for online "widgets", which has recently been standardized. The standard was set by the W3C, who asked for companies to commit their patents royalty-free in order to move the standard forward so that everyone could benefit. Instead, Apple held out a key patent, and can now start demanding people pay up. On the whole, Apple hasn't been that aggressive in enforcing its patents, and hopefully that doesn't change now -- but it does show once again how important patents have become in the standards setting process, and how much trouble they can cause.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Complete nonsense obvioulsy, but it's always amusing to see teh lengths the Masnicks will go to to stay aliigned with the "winners".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I said "on the whole" and "that aggressive." I would argue that's quite accurate. I never said it wasn't enforcing its patents, but it certainly has not been nearly as aggressive as many other companies.
Furthermore, it's rather ridiculous to claim that I (and who the hell are "the Masnicks"? there's only one of me here...) "stay aliigned (sic) with the 'winners'". I've never shied away from giving my opinion -- good or bad -- on any company. If I were shilling for Apple, why have I been so negative on the company in so many ways?
In fact, doing a basic search on Apple seems to show I'm probably negative on the company's actions more than I'm positive.
But, obviously, facts aren't your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And by the way, in one sense everyone sides with the winners. If Apple wins, they enjoy economic growth because so many people are buying their product. As a society we all enjoy the benefits of that growth. That's what half the post on this blog are about. Remove patents and let the winners win. Using patents and copyright to enforce monopolies is a weak way to keep an inefficient business from losing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Can I be a Masnick?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In fairness Mike all those qualifiers are designed to make your statement as meaningless as possible. Its accurate, but mainly becuase it doesnt really say anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And In Other News
Film at eleven
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
When Apple launched the iPhone it also made sure to point out how many patents covered it. Even a hurrying moron coudn't miss that message, and even if you did the treatment of potential competitors should clarify things for you.
"...and who the hell are "the Masnicks"?" I've no idea but most of your articles these days include a pretty narrow specification of whatever it is that "we" think - how would you like to identify this group ?.
"I've never shied away from giving my opinion -- good or bad.." actually you always do - as one poster has already commented your criticism of Apple s watered down to meaninglessness, but you don't wimp out on you criticisms of those you think are failing,or on your attitude towards those who criticize the successful (such as Apple and Microsoft).
The main premise of you original article is very silly - you basically say that withholding patents on key technology for standards is reprehensible, if it's Apple doing it it probably OK. But, obviously, facts aren't your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Am I the only one the sees
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sued for following the standard?
Can I release the widget into the wild or use it in another innovation? Absolutely.
Can I get sued by some troll popping up from the depths saying my widget violates its patent? More than likely. Increasingly likely it seems.
Can I use the fact I built to the standard and not to the patent as defense? Hmm. Someone needs to run through the first three so we can get a definitive answer on this from the courts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and we ragged on them for doing so (what happened to us siding with the winners always?). But, my point was that unlike others, Apple does NOT have a history of SUING very often over patent infringement charges. That's what I meant by being aggressive. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but, frankly, given your comments, I think you know quite well that it was clear.
I've no idea but most of your articles these days include a pretty narrow specification of whatever it is that "we" think - how would you like to identify this group ?.
There are a bunch of different writers for the site, and about a dozen employees here...
actually you always do - as one poster has already commented your criticism of Apple s watered down to meaninglessness
I disagree. I fail to see how it was meaningless at all. I made the point pretty clear, but it's obvious in your rush to toss out an insult without any factual basis that you were going to ignore that.
but you don't wimp out on you criticisms of those you think are failing,or on your attitude towards those who criticize the successful (such as Apple and Microsoft).
Honestly? You're clearly reading a different site. I'm pretty clear in my widespread criticism of both Apple and Microsoft, both of whom are companies I think are doing a lot of very dumb things. I've never shied away from criticizing either one.
The main premise of you original article is very silly - you basically say that withholding patents on key technology for standards is reprehensible, if it's Apple doing it it probably OK.
Huh? I'm not saying it's ok if Apple does it. I'm saying it's equally reprehensible. I'm very troubled by the fact that Apple did this, but the point of this post was to focus on the mess created by standards and patents for everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: sued for following the standard?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: sued for following the standard?
Software patents are a bad idea.
Further to that, W3C members agree to issue a royalty-free license for technologies used in open standards. Everyone else has allowed that, but Apple has suddenly decided to not allow it for some reason.
This is not about patent infringement defense. This is about Apple not following the normal open standards route. Apple happens to be a member of the W3C, so your comment seems to be rather misguided.
[ link to this | view in thread ]