I think the end game for patents is upon us...

[theeedude]

Can you imagine if IBM went "thermonuclear" on Apple back in the days, and sued it relentlessly out existence using all its computing patents? People need to realize that Apple is far worse than the "Big Brother" it claimed to fight in the 80s. It's acting like a bully to suppress innovation and limit choice in the mobile computing space.

 

[alent1234]

what would IBM sue apple for? they couldn't sue the clone makers because everything was made by Intel or someone else

 

[theeedude]

what would IBM sue apple for? they couldn't sue the clone makers because everything was made by Intel or someone else

You can say same thing about Android devices.
You don't think IBM had patents on key aspects of operating systems and hardware?

 

[BenSkywalker]

what would IBM sue apple for?

IBM owns more IP then any other tech company by a long shot, noone is in their league. They have been granted more patents then anyone else for the past ~10 consecutive years, when you get to the level of absurdity that we are seeing the mobile space, most companies probably violate a few hundred of IBM's patents per device.

they couldn't sue the clone makers because everything was made by Intel or someone else

They could have, they didn't. Behaving like a child throwing a temper tantrum isn't how most companies behave themselves in the business world. It gets you a lot of enemies. When you are doing very well, it doesn't matter. If you end up hitting a rought spot, it could end your company.

 

[you2]

This sort of matches my view; MS was (imho) one of the modern irresponsible companies but much of their 'bad' behavior was around OEM deals.

Apple is one of the first companies in recent history I've seen that has taken the 'tantrum' appraoch. Yes samsung, htc and others have filed similar suites in the past few months but 99% of it has been retaliatory.
-
A recent california ruling showed a judge actually using common sense in recognizing the weakness of apples patents when they refused to issue a preliminary judgement.
-
Ultimately I'm not sure who is to blame but I *hope* the results include (a) a stop to allowing these silly patents in the first place and (b) an overhaul of the legal process defending against this sort of 'crap'.
-
Mind you I am expressing my non-legal but quasi technical opinion that a large number of these patents are plain crap and there should be a penalty for this sort of behavior (unfortunately I'm unsure of how one implements a penalty fairly differentiate between bullying and legit defense of ones intellectual product.
-
And yes I am expressin my non-legal opinion that apple is a hypocrite and a very poor one at that.

IBM owns more IP then any other tech company by a long shot, noone is in their league. They have been granted more patents then anyone else for the past ~10 consecutive years, when you get to the level of absurdity that we are seeing the mobile space, most companies probably violate a few hundred of IBM's patents per device.



They could have, they didn't. Behaving like a child throwing a temper tantrum isn't how most companies behave themselves in the business world. It gets you a lot of enemies. When you are doing very well, it doesn't matter. If you end up hitting a rought spot, it could end your company.

 

[zinfamous]

algorithms aren't patentable

wouldn't Google be screwed if that were not the case? their core business, I mean--their search algorithm.

or is that why they are so secretive and guarded over how it works?

 

[Mopetar]

You don't think IBM had patents on key aspects of operating systems and hardware?

Highly doubtful as far as operating systems go. Their deal with Microsoft shows exactly how clueless they were as far as that aspect goes.

As far as the hardware goes, that was legally reverse engineered through clean room design. Also, Apple and several other companies had released PCs years before IBM, so it's questionable how many patents IBM would have in that space.

 

[Mopetar]

wouldn't Google be screwed if that were not the case? their core business, I mean--their search algorithm.

or is that why they are so secretive and guarded over how it works?

There are papers that have been published about it (PDF warning), but Google doesn't disclose all of the changes and additions that they've made, mostly because it would be difficult to prove that any company was violating that patent without inspecting their code.

 

[theeedude]

Highly doubtful as far as operating systems go. Their deal with Microsoft shows exactly how clueless they were as far as that aspect goes.

As far as the hardware goes, that was legally reverse engineered through clean room design. Also, Apple and several other companies had released PCs years before IBM, so it's questionable how many patents IBM would have in that space.

IBM could have buried Apple with legal fees long before you got to the point of answering that question. Who said they couldn't use their mainframe patents against PCs, like Apple is using their desktop patents against mobiles? A lot of the concepts are carried over, just a shrunk form factor.
Point is IBM is more interested in collecting royalties than going thermonuclear on the competition.
IBM comes into patent negotiations with its patent stack, competitor comes with its stack and puts $100K checks on top until the stacks even out.

 

[theeedude]

I do think one of these needs to get to an injunction point before the regulators step in and set the rules. I think Apple is dreaming if it thinks it can just make Android disappear without anti-trust repercussions.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Also, Apple and several other companies had released PCs years before IBM, so it's questionable how many patents IBM would have in that space.

IBM's 5100 came out in 1975, the year before Apple was founded. It wasn't the architectural ancestor of the machines we use today as the 5150 was that is likely the 'PC' you are thinking of, but IBM was releasing machines that could fall under that classification prior to Apple existing at all. Also, IBM patents everything, they have metric tons of patents that they *could* say apply to almost anything tech related, it's just not good business to conduct yourself in such a manner most of the time.

 

[zerocool84]

Highly doubtful as far as operating systems go. Their deal with Microsoft shows exactly how clueless they were as far as that aspect goes.

As far as the hardware goes, that was legally reverse engineered through clean room design. Also, Apple and several other companies had released PCs years before IBM, so it's questionable how many patents IBM would have in that space.

As Apple has shown, it doesn't matter who created it first, just who patented it first.

 

[you2]

That's a problem with the patent/legal system. Yes Apple has the patent but would they pass the legal test ? I think perhaps in Europe; as vaguely I believe it does not matter if you invent something or not but rather if who files the patent first - but I'm not 100% sure - in the usa the matter is a bit different (hopefully someone more familiar with European legal system will comment).

Unfortunately the legal system isn't really setup to handle the situation of this magnitude. So while I believe that many of the patents will be ruled invalid, though I do not know this factually, but if they run their full course this could take decade+ to resolve in the court system.

As Apple has shown, it doesn't matter who created it first, just who patented it first.

 

[Pliablemoose]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-motorolamobility-apple-eu-idUSTRE81H0BB20120218

Apple has asked EU anti-trust regulators to step in and settle a technology patent dispute between the company and Motorola Mobility, according to Motorola Mobility.

The move came after regulators on both sides of the Atlantic said they would intervene to prevent companies from gouging rivals when they license patents essential to ensuring different communications devices work together.

If the EU regulators approve, it will clear up a few lawsuits, and it will slow down the lawsuits a bit, while companies review their strategy to ensure future lawsuits don't include FRAND patents.

 

[Mopetar]

IBM could have buried Apple with legal fees long before you got to the point of answering that question. Who said they couldn't use their mainframe patents against PCs, like Apple is using their desktop patents against mobiles? A lot of the concepts are carried over, just a shrunk form factor.

For a long time, IBM didn't think that there was any value in the desktop market so it wasn't something that they pursued until much later in the game. It's possible that they could have gone after Apple, but that they didn't suggests that either they did not feel as though they had a good enough case with the patents that they had, that the market that Apple was involved in wasn't worth owning, or as you've pointed out that they stood to make more money licensing anything that they had.

To get a better understanding of this it would be necessary to do a lot of research and dig through tons of old patents. I honestly have no idea what IBM had patent-wise at the time, but it's easy to see that they got into the PC business only after other companies, including Apple among many others, had a lot of success. This may have allowed these companies to get enough patents of their own that things would result in a legal stalemate where neither company could win.

 

[Brian Stirling]

IBM's 5100 came out in 1975, the year before Apple was founded. It wasn't the architectural ancestor of the machines we use today as the 5150 was that is likely the 'PC' you are thinking of, but IBM was releasing machines that could fall under that classification prior to Apple existing at all. Also, IBM patents everything, they have metric tons of patents that they *could* say apply to almost anything tech related, it's just not good business to conduct yourself in such a manner most of the time.

Correct, the 5100 series was an APL box but it was a luggable box not unlike the early PC clone luggables.

IBM has TONS of OS experience and the single biggest mistake they EVER made was to whip something up quick by going to Gates for the OS on the IBM PC. Gates, of course, didn't have an OS and he had to buy a CPM clone for $50K.

The point is ... IBM could have killed ALL the PC makers in patent court. I think the main reason they didn't go down that road was fear the DOJ would file an anti-trust motion against them. That and the fact that IBM executive management was way out of there league against Gates.


Brian

 

[Bateluer]

Oracle withdraws its patent suits after judge dismisses the bulk of them.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/20/oracle-drops-patent-from-google-lawsuit-google-moves-to-strike/



Edit

Correct, the 5100 series was an APL box but it was a luggable box not unlike the early PC clone luggables.

IBM has TONS of OS experience and the single biggest mistake they EVER made was to whip something up quick by going to Gates for the OS on the IBM PC. Gates, of course, didn't have an OS and he had to buy a CPM clone for $50K.

The point is ... IBM could have killed ALL the PC makers in patent court. I think the main reason they didn't go down that road was fear the DOJ would file an anti-trust motion against them. That and the fact that IBM executive management was way out of there league against Gates.


Brian

This is actually one of the computing industries biggest 'What Might Have Been' mistakes. I believe Xerox's earlier blunder edges it out.

 

[Ancalagon44]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-motorolamobility-apple-eu-idUSTRE81H0BB20120218




If the EU regulators approve, it will clear up a few lawsuits, and it will slow down the lawsuits a bit, while companies review their strategy to ensure future lawsuits don't include FRAND patents.

If you ask me, its bullshit though.

Motorola and Google - not allowed to use the 3G patents to bully, sue and/or threaten others. Considered too universal.
Apple - allowed to sue whoever they want for using tablet shaped devices with rounded corners and icons. Somehow not too universal.

Why not apply the same standard? Tell Apple that the majority of its patents are simply too universal, widely used, or obvious.

 

[Cstefan]

Apple should just patent "the displaying of information on a screen" and get it over with.