|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 01:00 PM EST |
>Strategically, Apple has an interest in up-valuing their software-based
patents and any other forms of patent/protection they have, and in de-valuing
competitors' hardware-based patents because they have very little to trade.
Strategically, society has no interest whatsoever in supporting this
purely-selfish interest of Apple's. I hate to invoke Godwin, but
"strategically, Hitler had an interest in up-raising the lands occupied by
Aryans and de-valuing neighbor's pre-existing claims to land." Yes, that's
true, but should the rest of the world pressure Poland to cede lands?
Apple has a right to try to get into any market, early or late. But pre-existing
entrants have the legal right to require Apple to rent (or design around)
existing patents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 01:49 PM EST |
Look and feel was adjudicated many years ago when the whole
windows/gui thing got underway.
Never mind that Apple claimed foul on MS for taking its "look
and feel", despite Apple having taken the "look and feel" from
Xerox PARC.
And then there is Excel vs VisiCalc & QuatroPro.
Lots and Lots of prior art to defeat look and feel type of
patents, not to mention just plain non-obviousness.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2013 @ 05:59 AM EST |
I'm not a fan of MS ..., but there's a bit of misrepresentation
in saying that they intentionally aren't part
of standards...
I
would have to disagree; for example consider ODF and OOXML where MS could have
joined the odf standard but went their own way to barge through ooxml; or html
where IE is notorious for not being standards compliant and requires work
arounds for web devlopers, they could have followed the standards.
But I do
agree that they are intentionally part of some standards: those they develop and
get accepted as de facto standards - which they control and which are
incompatible with de jure standards.
Any patent required for one of MS's de
facto standards should be considered as a SEP and as such subject to FRAND
licensing in the same way that MS feels they should be able to license mobile
phone SEPs, I wonder if MS will really consider their vfat patent really is
worth the near enough zero value they put on Moto's mobile phone SEP? Tomtom
(for one) would be very interested... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2013 @ 05:50 PM EST |
I'm afraid I don't understand your reply.
What does "late to the game" have to do with not participating in
standards? In fact, in a truly competitive market, following the standards
would be the fastest way to make up ground.
Early or late, both Apple and MS have used standards only as a way to get their
foot in the door. Once the foot is in, neither of them cares, or follows the
standard.
Apple will develop an entirely new proprietary version, then migrate their users
to it. "Ours is better"
Microsoft will slowly break the standard through their embrace and extend
practice, then claim the broken version as a de-facto standard. "Ours is
standard, everyone else is broken"
Neither wants the actual standard to prevail, because it isn't
"theirs", and anyone can use it. That encourages competition, which
must then be sued into oblivion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
