War and Peace
I do not know about you, but I can no longer hear this news from the fields about the battles around the iPhone and iPad. Apple risks being a lover of ships and litigation and the enemy of progress and innovation not only in forums. Are these requirements significant? And will the hard position of Apple leadership change after the death of founder Jobs?
To understand how managers in Cupertino think it’s worth taking a quick look back: Apple made the first shot in this patent war 20 months ago. In March 2010, Apple sued rival HTC iPhone and accused this company of violating 20 Apple patents. It was already clear to many observers that Apple actually targets Android and its “coordinator” Google. And after Steve Jobs’s biography is out, we can read it in black and white: “Our lawsuit explicitly declares that Google, God damn it, stole the iPhone and robbed us,” Steve Jobs told his biographer a week before filing a lawsuit against HTC. Going into a rage, Jobs was no longer holding back: “If necessary, I will fight to the end of my life and will not regret the last penny of all $ 40 billion from Apple. I will destroy Android because it is a stolen product. I'm ready for thermonuclear war. ”
Since then, Apple has been trying to make life difficult for manufacturers of Android smartphones and tablets in a variety of ways. Even professional observers can hardly keep track of a series of all patent lawsuits and litigation. If you count on points, then Apple really managed to achieve at some stages of victories, but what Apple cannot achieve is the recognition of its interpretation of the legal situation throughout the world.
')
Let's look at three cases that are representative of many of the processes in the world: New York (Samsung), Mannheim (Motorola) and Australia (Samsung). The DĂĽsseldorf District Court, at the end of August 2011, introduced a preliminary injunction on the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. This dispute dealt with the so-called iPad security design. In this dispute, Apple is ahead. But in this case, Samsung is not going to give up and release a new 10.1N Galaxy Tab with a modified screen frame and speaker position. It seems to me that Samsung wants to experience in Germany how close they can come to the original design of Apple without legal problems.
That is not all that great for Apple in DĂĽsseldorf. And in Mannheim even the clouds are gathering. There is a lawsuit filed by Motorola in the district court. In February 2012, the judge will decide whether using Apple's online service iCloud violates Motorola's two patents. In the worst case, for Apple, the court will set far-reaching restrictions on the sale of iOS devices using iCloud.
The process in Mannheim shows that Apple has a flank: Steve, of course, spoke during the presentation of the first iPhone in 2007, “And we patented it so much!” However, these patents are mainly related to the look and feel & feel of the device. In the field of mobile technology, Apple is virtually defenseless. In the late 90s, when companies such as Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Siemens and Nortel defended their research and development for the third and fourth generation mobile communications in the patent offices, Apple still struggled for life as a manufacturer of personal computers. The first projects related to the iPhone and iPad, appeared in 2004. At an auction in June 2011, Apple (in a consortium with Microsoft, Sony and RIM) buys 6,000 patents from Nortel for $ 4.5 billion in order to become less vulnerable.
But more important than the two mentioned litigation in Germany, for Apple is the final result of the lawsuit against Samsung in Australia. The Australian Federal Court, which is the highest court in the country, issued an injunction against Tab Galaxy 10.1, which, to a greater or lesser extent, allows to prohibit the sale of any new Android device. Unlike the process in DĂĽsseldorf, this is not about relatively trivial surface details, like rounded corners, but about two key patents from Apple, which could be the "killers" of Android and other systems for smartphones.
In the Australian patent under the number 2009233675, Steve Jobs is one of 25 inventors. The 362 pages of this patent mainly describe multi-touch and methods for interpreting gestures on the screen and, moreover, how the motion sensor is used in the device to change the orientation of the screen. Some experts believe that a similar patent in the United States (7479949) will not survive legal battles and will be declared void as "too general."
Patents 2009233675 in Australia and 7663607 in the States are described technically much more detailed: namely, how to divide the screen with a grid so that you can detect several points of contact on the display at once. If Apple can protect this patent in Australia and other regions, Android will be in big trouble. Therefore, Samsung, HTC and Motorola have already instructed hordes of lawyers, for example, to find devices (such as the touchscreen of the Neonode N1 mobile phone, which appeared on the market in July 2004) that could protect them from the Apple patent.
The first patent war will enrich the large corporate law firms. However, Apple's new chef, Tim Cook, sees the lawsuit against Android as protecting Apple's stock price. Apple is an open-type joint-stock company and Tim Cook sees no possibility of being generous in a patent dispute with competitors. AAPL is currently selling at $ 350 per share and the stock price is increasing. Sales of iOS devices currently account for about two thirds of Apple Inc.’s total sales. Therefore, shareholders will insist that management protect Apple’s intellectual property used by competitors. However, Apple will win only if these patents are valid and stand up to the courts. The very fact that in the US something is protected by a patent or trademark says little. Otherwise, Terrence Lenahan, the owner of the “Bread Freshener” patent issued in 2000, would receive payments from all firms producing toasters. But his great idea to heat bread with a hot heating element to a crisp has already been invented by others.
In my opinion, Apple should not follow the path of this inventor of the toaster. It is clear that companies - whether Apple, Samsung, Motorola or Google - should be able to protect their innovations (requiring large investments) with patents. And also to defend this defense in court, sorry for the tautology. But Apple should not succumb to the temptation to ban competitors from selling trivial things with patents. It would be much more important to invest in innovations like Siri.
To understand how managers in Cupertino think it’s worth taking a quick look back: Apple made the first shot in this patent war 20 months ago. In March 2010, Apple sued rival HTC iPhone and accused this company of violating 20 Apple patents. It was already clear to many observers that Apple actually targets Android and its “coordinator” Google. And after Steve Jobs’s biography is out, we can read it in black and white: “Our lawsuit explicitly declares that Google, God damn it, stole the iPhone and robbed us,” Steve Jobs told his biographer a week before filing a lawsuit against HTC. Going into a rage, Jobs was no longer holding back: “If necessary, I will fight to the end of my life and will not regret the last penny of all $ 40 billion from Apple. I will destroy Android because it is a stolen product. I'm ready for thermonuclear war. ”
Since then, Apple has been trying to make life difficult for manufacturers of Android smartphones and tablets in a variety of ways. Even professional observers can hardly keep track of a series of all patent lawsuits and litigation. If you count on points, then Apple really managed to achieve at some stages of victories, but what Apple cannot achieve is the recognition of its interpretation of the legal situation throughout the world.
')
Let's look at three cases that are representative of many of the processes in the world: New York (Samsung), Mannheim (Motorola) and Australia (Samsung). The DĂĽsseldorf District Court, at the end of August 2011, introduced a preliminary injunction on the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. This dispute dealt with the so-called iPad security design. In this dispute, Apple is ahead. But in this case, Samsung is not going to give up and release a new 10.1N Galaxy Tab with a modified screen frame and speaker position. It seems to me that Samsung wants to experience in Germany how close they can come to the original design of Apple without legal problems.
That is not all that great for Apple in DĂĽsseldorf. And in Mannheim even the clouds are gathering. There is a lawsuit filed by Motorola in the district court. In February 2012, the judge will decide whether using Apple's online service iCloud violates Motorola's two patents. In the worst case, for Apple, the court will set far-reaching restrictions on the sale of iOS devices using iCloud.
The process in Mannheim shows that Apple has a flank: Steve, of course, spoke during the presentation of the first iPhone in 2007, “And we patented it so much!” However, these patents are mainly related to the look and feel & feel of the device. In the field of mobile technology, Apple is virtually defenseless. In the late 90s, when companies such as Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Siemens and Nortel defended their research and development for the third and fourth generation mobile communications in the patent offices, Apple still struggled for life as a manufacturer of personal computers. The first projects related to the iPhone and iPad, appeared in 2004. At an auction in June 2011, Apple (in a consortium with Microsoft, Sony and RIM) buys 6,000 patents from Nortel for $ 4.5 billion in order to become less vulnerable.
But more important than the two mentioned litigation in Germany, for Apple is the final result of the lawsuit against Samsung in Australia. The Australian Federal Court, which is the highest court in the country, issued an injunction against Tab Galaxy 10.1, which, to a greater or lesser extent, allows to prohibit the sale of any new Android device. Unlike the process in DĂĽsseldorf, this is not about relatively trivial surface details, like rounded corners, but about two key patents from Apple, which could be the "killers" of Android and other systems for smartphones.
In the Australian patent under the number 2009233675, Steve Jobs is one of 25 inventors. The 362 pages of this patent mainly describe multi-touch and methods for interpreting gestures on the screen and, moreover, how the motion sensor is used in the device to change the orientation of the screen. Some experts believe that a similar patent in the United States (7479949) will not survive legal battles and will be declared void as "too general."
Patents 2009233675 in Australia and 7663607 in the States are described technically much more detailed: namely, how to divide the screen with a grid so that you can detect several points of contact on the display at once. If Apple can protect this patent in Australia and other regions, Android will be in big trouble. Therefore, Samsung, HTC and Motorola have already instructed hordes of lawyers, for example, to find devices (such as the touchscreen of the Neonode N1 mobile phone, which appeared on the market in July 2004) that could protect them from the Apple patent.
The first patent war will enrich the large corporate law firms. However, Apple's new chef, Tim Cook, sees the lawsuit against Android as protecting Apple's stock price. Apple is an open-type joint-stock company and Tim Cook sees no possibility of being generous in a patent dispute with competitors. AAPL is currently selling at $ 350 per share and the stock price is increasing. Sales of iOS devices currently account for about two thirds of Apple Inc.’s total sales. Therefore, shareholders will insist that management protect Apple’s intellectual property used by competitors. However, Apple will win only if these patents are valid and stand up to the courts. The very fact that in the US something is protected by a patent or trademark says little. Otherwise, Terrence Lenahan, the owner of the “Bread Freshener” patent issued in 2000, would receive payments from all firms producing toasters. But his great idea to heat bread with a hot heating element to a crisp has already been invented by others.
In my opinion, Apple should not follow the path of this inventor of the toaster. It is clear that companies - whether Apple, Samsung, Motorola or Google - should be able to protect their innovations (requiring large investments) with patents. And also to defend this defense in court, sorry for the tautology. But Apple should not succumb to the temptation to ban competitors from selling trivial things with patents. It would be much more important to invest in innovations like Siri.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/134758/
All Articles