Apple's iPhone did not rip off Googorola's wireless patent – US appeal judges A US appeals court has upheld a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that Apple's iPhone does not infringe a patent owned by Google's Motorola Mobility division. The protected technology in question was Motorola Mobility's US Patent No. 6,272,333, which describes a "method and apparatus in a wireless …
It all depends upon the evidence, m' friend.
And it seems that Apple has been mostly clean about patent infringement. Not completely by any means, but mostly. And some so many patents are (most unfortunately) vaguely written and cast a wide net, that isn't a bad track record.
For the most part, Apple doesn't do SEP patents so it seldom encounters the FRAND licensing issues that have bedeviled Samsung.
Apple has lot a few. But not any lately.
Reasonable response Peter, but let me get paranoid with you for a second...
U.S. economy not really doing well...over evaluated IT company showing big numbers for Wall Street. Who would it hurt more to side against Apple right now?
I'm not saying this is how it always is, but it will be from time to time.
@MyBackDoor a reasonable sounding supposition for the cynical... Without a shred of (non-circumstantial) evidence to support it. If you check out Lawrence Lessig's short TED book, Lesterville, or his longer Republic Lost, you will find an extremely convincing argument for how money works and corrupts the US political system. Anyone elected to the Senate quickly learns money is required to survive and political lobbyists are the source. The Capitol as a business runs almost completely on income from lobbying.
Yet it is well known of all the major tech companies Apple spend by a long way the least on political lobbying. Such is a legacy of Steve Jobs, who, character that he was, had to all accounts, something of a "f*** y**" attitude to giving politicians money. Indeed the two companies who are amongst those spending the most are Google and Amazon. So, amongst those who understand how the political money system works, there is greater registration of eyebrow lift when the Amazon eBook case is mentioned. Just recently Barnes and Noble have announced they are abandoning the Nook eBook reader business earlier than expected and this is because Amazon was granted permission to rip up Agency model contracts and heavily discount eBooks such that all competition is essentially being snuffed out.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/barnes-and-nobles-nook-sales-hurt-by-amazons-lower-e-book-prices
Business Week point out Donna Tart's gripping new novel "The Goldfinch" Kindle price is $7.50, Nook price $14.99. This is the second, classic monopolist step the anti-trust commission was set-up to detect and eliminate. Step 1. Control the market. Step 2. Reduce prices and margins to an extent others can't match to drive them out the market (or out of business). Step 3. Raise prices.
Of course we have no evidence yet for step 3, but on that one, when there is no effective competition, cynicism *is* justified.
Step 3. Raise prices.
Step 4. Watch all the competitors flood back into the market.
When it comes to e-books, it doesn't need huge investments in warehouses, stock and staff to get going. It isn't the same as selling at a loss to close a competitor's factory. Nobody can keep selling at a loss to maintain a monopoly. I see nothing wrong with reducing prices and margins to an extent others can't match.
Why can't they match them? Is it greed, inefficiency or what? It's an all too rare win for the long-suffering consumer who would otherwise end up paying more for the privilege of reading electronically (and never mind the loss of the tangible paper asset that can be sold or given to a friend after reading).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
