Something about Koh's overwhelming bias for Apple seems really suspicious. It's one thing to preeminently ban sales of product A for reason X, but to also ban sales of product B for reason Y where products A and B have the same parent, and where reasons X and Y are completely unrelated? Something is wrong with this picture.
What else could be going on? Maybe I have a cynical view of humanity, but I spent a few minutes digging to see if I could find anything on requirements for District Judges to release tax returns (as they are essentially public officials, right?). Couldn't find anything on that, but generic salary data is available: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/js_3.html
$175K is probably rather low when you're used to working in the high-stakes world of patent litigation.
If you are accusing her of bribery, that is a very serious allegation.
Imagine if such a thing happens and is eventually exposed. What a scandal would it be. I don't think any large company, let alone Apple, would want to be involved in any such mess.
Corruption isn't as straight forward simple as Hollywood movies make it out be "Here take this dollars and do this for me". It's usually a complex net of interests and favors trading, that's really hard to prove. Maybe someone at apple just happen to contribute to someone's political campaign, who is proposing legislation that just so happens would benefit the judge's family business. This level of corruption happens every day, everywhere in the planet. People are trading favors as we speak.
Okay. Let me qualify my point. I find it hard to believe such a high profile bribery can happen in the US (the article you have posted is a case of bribery by an American company in Mexico). And given Apple's profile and a lot of entities already pursuing their case (ex: NYT's iEconomy series), they would never do such a big blunder.
The reason it is hard to believe is that people question decisions like the one made and are willing to investigate without government help. While it is unlikely, it should still be questioned.
1) Looking at your previous comment, you are an Apple fanboy. So you probably know NOTHING about what's happening here and you just want to support apple for Fuck's sake.
2)You don't live in the US. So keep your hard-to-believe's to yourself.
He didn't investigate it. He said, "here's what I did" which fell far short of any investigation. He had no reason to post how far he got along in his little dirt digging campaign.
There's a valid point in his statement. Its just that you haven't thought about it deeply yet. A dozen OEM's including HTC, Samsung and the rest, have about a 50 phone models in total (assume 50 for simplicity). Atleast one phone model from these OEM's is under litigation and/or have been banned w.r.t patents. Apple, is a single company with just 2-3 phones and NONE of these phones have been banned yet. This must mean 1) ALL the phones, with various flavors of Android are some how violating Apple's patents OR there is something unfair happening here. The possibility of about 50 (remember, we're assuming 50 is for simplicity) phone models violating a single company's patents is just ridiculous. This must mean these makers of these 50+ phone models haven't thought about these patents OR it clearly means something unfair is happening. To assume, these WELL-EXPERIENCED (Eg: HTC) Phone makers of these 50+ models haven't thought about these patents is plain stupidity, which leads us to the conclusion, there's something unfair going on.
Or it could be that android is violating lots of patents, and the common thread is they are all making android phones. Note that they are also all paying Microsoft. It seems the common thread isn't apple and Microsoft doing something wrong, rather it is android.
Most of these companies even manufacture Windows Phones, so it makes sense to license them with Microsoft (Eg: HTC, LG). And, the patent that Microsoft is suing OEM's with is related to ActiveSync. While Apple is ridiculously suing these OEM's for other pretty trivial patents which are not related to anything like ActiveSync. So, Apple and Microsoft are not on the same track as you think.
>>the patent that Microsoft is suing OEM's with is related to ActiveSync
Can you provide citation for the above?
As far as I know, neither Microsoft nor any of the Android H/W manufacturers have revealed any details on which patents are covered as part of the licensing agreement.
That article is about a law suit involving motorola; not a license agreement MS has with several companies including Samsung & HTC. What about these other Android companies that have got license agreements with Microsoft? They have never publicly talked about patents covered by the agreement.
I don't know about this case, but I think ITC has been suspiciously anti-Google for the past few patent cases. In almost every single instance they've ruled in favor of Apple or Microsoft, and against Google.
Setting aside your confirmation bias, I'll point out that Google haven't themselves brought these patent cases to the ITC in the same number or with the same force as have Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else. Google has filed fewer cases with a smaller patent portfolio.
You mean largely against non-US companies that wants to sell Android handsets on the US market.
If we posit that these decisions are biased rather than just an effect of the broken US patent system, I think it's more likely that the ITC is merely pushing a protectionist agenda that is being enabled by having somewhat plausible complaints from US companies than that there's somehow corruption going on.
AFAIK Apple is the only mobile phone corporation who refuses to pay Motorola a royalty for the fundamental patent of a "portable hand-held telephone device".
Motorola contributed some patents to a mobile telecom standard; they made a commitment to license these standard essential patents in Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms to everyone who wants to build a "portable hand-held telephone device".
Motorola wants 2.25% of the sale price of each Apple device in which the standard is used.
Now, if each patent contributor to the standard demands the same rate as Motorola, the outgo will be above 100%.
Essentially, only those who have contributed to the patent pool can build a mobile phone. No one else can enter the market. How is that Fair, Reasonable or Non-Discriminatory?
That is why there is talk about EU & FTC in US investigating Google/Motorola for anti-competitive behavior.
Also, there is another interesting point here - all these patents are implemented in the baseband chip built by Qualcomm and used by Apple in its devices. Qualcomm has already paid the royalty for using Google/Motorola's patents. Now Motorola wants royalty from Apple also, for the same patents. Double-dipping anyone?
Let's see here... Motorola together with telecom companies such as Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens etc worked for decades in establishing standards and infrastructure for digital mobile phones. In this they were truly succesful, and this would not have been possible unless they had shared patents with each other that were involved in common standards. Then, much later, enters Apple and brings nothing to the table with regards to telecom technology. Why should they not pay?
A patent owner can accept FRAND conditions and the patent becomes part of the standard. They then earn a steady stream of licensing money off the ensuing trillion dollar industry.
A patent owner can reject FRAND and their technology does not get included in the standard.
There is no third option.
You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND, because your patent was only made part of the standard -- and therefore only has value -- because of that promise.
But how much should they pay? In this special case of patents, Motorola is expected to charge Apple the same rates as other licensees. In fact, they have committed to do so.
But now, they are going back on that commitment and also trying to double dip.
FRAND (Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) patent commitment is an essential part of standard setting process. If companies are allowed to abuse FRAND committed patents like this, there will be chaos. We'll go back to the digital dark ages when there were no standards or interoperability.
I don't think Apple should pay. And I question whether anyone else should, either.
These "standards-essential" patents are under RAND terms because to do otherwise devalues the patent and provides incentive for the standard to "work around" the patent. If Motorola wants revenue from that patent, they must license it under RAND terms.
But now that there is significant investment in the infrastructure that uses these standards, what right does anyone have in threatening anyone else over their use of this patented technology? Judge Posner, presiding over Apple v. Motorola, which he has dismissed with prejudice, seems to feel the same way: That since Motorola has licensed their standards-essential patent under FRAND terms, they essentially lose their right to demand an injunction against Apple. (At least, that's my reading of his decision.) I.e., they are to negotiate reasonable terms or get no royalties at all.
The question in my mind is at what point these patents should be expired early due to their status as standards-essential; for without them, the standard must be redesigned, and with them, every participant must pay royalties to one incumbent. At no point is this fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory.
Personally, I don't see the point of this run-around: These patents are not a reward for invention; they're cudgels with which to steal your competitor's lunch money. They should be invalidated or expired for that reason alone.
Rather than having this ambiguous FRAND principle, standards bodies should require that companies that want their patents included in a standard hand over these patents to a patent pool in return for a shareholding in that pool.
Can a corporation pick and choose what patents/royalties or whatever they are to pay for if you use them just because the corporation deems it to be unfair?
The specific patent that is being used to block these devices, which from what I've read relates to a very weak patent on live search-as-you-type from multiple sources, is a bad patent.
It is one thing to say "They are stealing our design." It is another to say, "We happened to get here and patent this first, even though everyone is pretty sure that given enough time and money the patent will be struck down... but we're going to sue anyways."
One is a economically sound, consumer benefitting action. The other is the opposite. Apple Legal is at odds with Apple Engineering, trying to litigate away the competition instead of innovating past them. No one benefits from a patent apocalypse, least of all patent holders. In this, many other companies have shown much more restraint.
But still, I sort of get it. Have you used an up-to-date android phone in the last 6 months? Perhaps even gotten to play with an Nexus 7 or a Galaxy S 3? The competition is fierce right now, and Apple has badly mismanaged its money (by not expanding their engineering capacity enough) so that they're in the awkward situation of having to litigate to try and keep up.
Apple has never pretended to have scruples in the legal department, so it's not out of character for them to twist the broken patent system to its very limits to get what they want. But we should call them on it. Maybe we should even inform our purchases with that knowledge, because their business strategy is not good for us as consumers.
Apple Legal is at odds with Apple Engineering, trying to litigate away the competition instead of innovating past them
I don't even... what do you expect Apple Legal to innovate? "Accept EULA to unlock?" They aren't at odds with engineering any more than having a good defense is at odds with having a good offense.
Have you used an up-to-date android phone in the last 6 months? Perhaps even gotten to play with an Nexus 7 or a Galaxy S 3? The competition is fierce right now, and Apple has badly mismanaged its money
That's really the heart of the matter. Patents were created to reward innovation by actually disadvantaging competitors that sat around and waited -- because the market by itself doesn't produce brand new things just by competition. Even though Galaxy-whatever today may be a better phone and the economy is hurt on a small scale by holding it back a bit, the economy is improved on a large scale by rewarding the big innovations.
The tech crowd doesn't get that a local meritocracy where the best phone wins optimizes existing things, like making a better keyboard or improved battery life, but it doesn't often lead to an iPhone or other revolutionary change. A pure merit-based market actually punishes innovation -- if you spend years and a billion dollars researching HCI, form factors, etc and your competitors just copy you then you are competing with a billion dollar hand tied behind your back.
Is this particular patent valid? Maybe, maybe not... it doesn't really matter. What really matters is that unless Apple's competitors need to compete much more effectively in order to make up for their lack of innovation then the market has failed.
> I don't even... what do you expect Apple Legal to innovate?
Apple Engineering creates great products. Apple Legal pays private security firms and complicit local officials to storm journalist's houses. Apple Engineering is trying to create a reputation as a great place to work, Apple Legal is scaring away engineers left and right. Apple Legal plays dirty, Apple Engineering and Design talk about the nobility of great products.
> The tech crowd doesn't get that a local meritocracy where the best phone wins optimizes existing things, like making a better keyboard or improved battery life, but it doesn't often lead to an iPhone or other revolutionary change. A pure merit-based market actually punishes innovation -- if you spend years and a billion dollars researching HCI, form factors, etc and your competitors just copy you then you are competing with a billion dollar hand tied behind your back.
I'm not sure how Apple hasn't been rewarded for their efforts. What more, exactly, do they need? They've gone from 0 to a lead in smartphone marketshare, dictating the discussion and product form factors the entire time. The entire industry turns on the axis of Apple's release cycles. Their product, "iPad", is practically the "kleenex" name of the post-PC era. They have an incredible stockpile of money, goodwill, and clout in their local government.
Do they also get to make spurious patent claims left and right now, and expect everyone to take them seriously?
> Is this particular patent valid? Maybe, maybe not... it doesn't really matter.
I am pretty sure it matters a lot, as there's nearly $100m in bonds being laid out.
> What really matters is that unless Apple's competitors need to compete much more effectively in order to make up for their lack of innovation then the market has failed.
But they _do_. Please note how many big players in the market have simply been crushed because of their complete inability to adapt to the market forces Apple brought to bear. Nokia? Pif. Blackberry? Swirling down the drain.
Android is only where it is because the remainder of the industry banded together and formed some kind of freakish multi-headed alliance which barely works and has taken twice as long to even begin to compete. And it's taken a ton of money and engineering time dumped in by Google to keep the project from imploding.
The problem, ultimately, is that the patent system is broken. It should not be possible to patent such obvious variations on interface tropes as "search as you type... from multiple sources... also on a phone!" It _should_ be the case that Patent holders get punished for writing broad patents (so that more things qualify as prior art) rather than the current situation where patents receive almost no vetting at all and are seldom challenged.
I'm not sure how much advantage Apple should get for being the first mover, but at some point competition will exist. We've had years of Apple sitting on an epic pile of money and not hiring engineers while the entire valley of has been gobbled up by Google, Facebook, and others. If other companies are finally starting to outpace Apple, it's inevitable given Apple's oddball management decisions. These are the same bad management decisions–in my opinion, of course–that have led Apple to be so very weak when it comes to actually fielding software services. They've had nothing but a string of embarrassments in this field and most people I know in my field are extremely leery about considering employment with Apple in this capacity as a result.
Trying to litigate on weak patents and novel definitions of "irreparable damage (!!!™)" is bad for me, as a consumer. I am yet again disappointed in them, and I am furious at how broken our patent system for software and technical innovation.
I'm not sure how Apple hasn't been rewarded for their efforts. What more, exactly, do they need ... We've had years of Apple sitting on an epic pile of money
What you are doing is looking at the success story and saying 'they already made 100x on their investment that should be enough!' but neglecting to consider the chance of failure. We don't have patents so that Apple can make 150x times their investment instead of 100x, we have them so that companies looking at 150:1 odds instead of 100:1 will try to make those big changes in the first place.
Do they also get to make spurious patent claims left and right now
Absolutely Apple should continue to get advantages over non-innovating competitors even though Apple already has gobs of money.
> What you are doing is looking at the success story and saying 'they already made 100x on their investment that should be enough!' but neglecting to consider the chance of failure.
Incorrect. I'm saying that they have a big advantage and they have failed to capitalize on it.
> Absolutely Apple should continue to get advantages over non-innovating competitors even though Apple already has gobs of money.
The asinine accusation of non-innovation bured in this is worth pointing out, but not worth replying to otherwise. For shame, sir. For shame.
> Is this particular patent valid? Maybe, maybe not... it doesn't really matter.
Are you shitting me??? They just got two of their competitors' flagship products banned from sale over that bullshit patent, which will likely take years to invalidate.
What on earth makes you think it "doesn't matter"?
I think he's saying this is exactly what should be happening. The competitors didn't innovate, they copied. For that, they have to be punished or there will be no "next iPad" level advancement.
Except for this current patent fiasco with the Galaxy Nexus! They definitely did innovate, and yet they are getting knocked down for something that has been in use on normal computers for years now ... but for some reason is patentable because it's now on a phone.
For blatant copying? Sure, knock that down, ban sales of it. But to say that the Galaxy Nexus is copying the iPhone is ridiculous to the extreme, and Apple is just using the weapons they have (these silly, over-broad patents) to try to limit competition. I mean come on, unified search? Google practically invented that.
Can you point to a specific case? From what I can tell, the first two major cases were Nokia v. Apple and Apple v. HTC, in October 2009 and March 2010, respectively (and Nokia's not really part of the current kerfuffle of suits).
Over two years ago, I argued that patent suits were how the licensing game was played among the existing players. It was considered an everyday cost of doing business by the incumbents, but Apple wasn't well prepared for this. (They've learned fast.)
This wasn't on consumers' radar because none of the fights were as interesting as the juggernauts of Apple v. Android which get framed in almost religious terms and taken personally by users who have chosen a camp.
The argument then was that Apple had not been actively litgating patents, but when Nokia (faced with dwindling profits, most of which appeared to be landing in Apple's pockets) started the fight, and Kodak piled on, Apple had to demonstrate that the patents it was using to counter these suits were patents that it was actively defending.
This pushed Apple to file against HTC, and eventually against others who, again, had all been actively (but boringly) suing one another before Apple got to the table.
If something needs long winded comments, I am skeptical. For example, did HTC do something to litigate with Apple that caused Apple to sue HTC? I don't see anything like that.
If you assert that Apple sued HTC because Nokia sued Apple first, that does not make any sense whatsoever. Nokia isn't even an Android OEM.
Nokia started suing Apple in 2009. I do not consider them a smartphone incumbent. After some back and forth between the two companies Apple sued the first Android manufacturer (HTC).
This isn't a corrupt country (there is a specific list of corrupt countries, this is a pretty objective statement.) It makes 0 sense for you to post "how far you got" as you didn't get anywhere.
I'd be a little skeptical of an index which shows Japan as being relatively less corrupt than the US. If one were to read up on Japan, it's clear that for a first world country, it's rather corrupt --not the same way, say Indis is corrupt, but still, I feel more so than the US, specifically.
Dogs and Demons (A. Kerr) is filled with instances how corruption has contributed to massive misallocation of resources, coverups of environmental contamination, political favoritism, cronyism, etc. resulting in the paralysis which afflicts Japan.
Do you have an opinion on the measures used to create the index? Are they leaving something significant out? Or is the data gathering process flawed perhaps?
I'd hardly say Japan is not corrupt--obviously, it is--but saying it must be more corrupt than the US isn't exactly a justified statement when all you're working off is a feeling.
No I don't. I don't know enough. And you are right. It's only a feeling --but one based on my experiences compared with other people's experiences.
I think the big knock on the US, deservedly, is the undue influence of PACs on our politics. That said, in Japan, PACs are less necessary because of the business <-> gov't relationship (i.e Japan Inc.)
I mean that it's unheard-of for judges to be literally bribed as this implies. This guy is posting his research digging things up - a very interesting read: if he had found anything!
But he didn't. The steps he took are worthless and don't deserve so much as a mention. This would be like me googling your username and some illegal activity, finding that I couldn't find your username on any forums dedicated to that illegal activity, "but still." Come on. The steps I took are worthless and aren't worth mentioning.
What else could be going on? Maybe I have a cynical view of humanity, but I spent a few minutes digging to see if I could find anything on requirements for District Judges to release tax returns (as they are essentially public officials, right?). Couldn't find anything on that, but generic salary data is available: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/js_3.html
$175K is probably rather low when you're used to working in the high-stakes world of patent litigation.
It'll be interesting to investigate this with more depth. ( Another interesting / related read: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/local/me-judges-pay2... )