At this point i would agree the PTO needs to be scrapped. It's just too subjective a thing to say what is truely "novel" and worthy of protection. But on the otherhand the patent system may destroy itself. Are companies really getting a worthwile ROI on the legal expenses of these suits? At some point maybe they will give up on the lawsuits, then after that they will stop wasting money on the filings. I mean if you take the 100 million you spend on these lawsuits and just pour that money instead into the R&D can you beat the competitor to market with a better product and make a better ROI?
Interesting (and perhaps a little extreme) that the noted jurist Richard Posner says the patent system should be ditched: http://trib.in/NUoGU6.
Clearly our approach needs to be reconsidered based on the volume of patent applications and the chronic understaffing of the PTO.
Apple did this to themselves when they turned litigious. We all admire their products, just not their attitude. There is no mob mentality that Apple did not create themselves. There are many VERY big hitting IP holders Apple needs to steer clear of and doing what they are doing is only going to draw attention to their willful infringement of so many other players' IP. Good luck to them, but given their short but very successful history in this business, I really don't fancy their chances against 3 decade industry veterans. They should have shut up and carried on printing their money.
Why is it that we have this mob mentality... jumping on some one, the moment they have made it big and got out of the pack. We always do it, did it to IBM, to Microsoft and now Apple. All these players came up through sheer technological innovations and definitely, market smarts without which it becomes next to impossible to compete in a cut throat market. Isn't it the basis of capitalism...work hard and may the best person win. Let's not punish Success. Go Apple
I have never really understood the anti-Apple sentiment that is so prevalent out there currently. Of course, it is not so different from the anti-Microsoft sentiment, or anti-IBM sentiment or ... pick any market leader.
Call the IPhone warmed over technology all you want, but at the end of the day, Apple did EFFECTIVELY what no other company had accomplished in the past. Technology convergence in the mobile space. Sure RIM was close with Blackberry and PALM was close, but they never pulled all the pieces together effectively and hence why PALM no longer exists and RIM continues its decline from it's lofty heights.
In fact, RIM, who capitalized on a first level of convergence, phone and email, completely missed the next stage of convergence with media, entertainment, and yes, general computing.
Even Nokia, who in some ways was ahead of both RIM and Apple, missed the underlying concept of a computing platform, i.e. ease of development and user experience.
As opposed to constantly shooting down Apple's success, perhaps it would be more valuable to understand how they achieved that success and how it can be applied to one's own company and daily activities.
And by the way, this is not the first time Apple has tried to bludgeon the competition they couldn't out compete. They sued Microsoft for copying the 'design' they copied from PARC. The difference between then and now is patent 'reform' hadn't happen so they only had copyright to use as a weapon and lost.
They are overly aggressive going after small companies and individuals when they feel threatened. The latest I am aware of is having filing a criminal complaint against an artist who made a dubious decision to install software on computers in an Apple store to take photos of customers. In the resulting Secret Service investigation, they confiscated his computer equipment and he had to get an attorney. While I don't think the artist was correct, a simple phone call or cease and desist letter probably would have been more than adequate and they could have escalated to a criminal complaint. Instead Apple's starting point was the criminal complaint and sending DMCA take down requests (on somewhat dubious grounds) to the public websites used to host the photos.
This is typical of Apple's infamous overreaction to perceived violations of their 'property'. In reality they are focused on protecting their profit margin using intellectual protection laws as bludgeons.
I don't really agree with this. Apple really just leveraged the iPod as a cellphone platform. Everyone that had an iPod could get an iPhone that would replace the iPod and their cellphone.
Like many other Apple products, the iPod focused on the ascetics on top of mediocre hardware with large margins. The true innovation was incorporating iTunes to sell the 'software' which was probably more focused on the profit than anything else.
As you may be able to tell, I don't have much respect for Mr. Jobs. I never met him personally but, having worked for a company that made Macintosh peripherals, I am intimately aware of how he operated. He was nothing more than a marketer with a good sense of aesthetics. And like most marketers, he would sell his mother if he thought he could make a buck.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.