So basically, Apple fully supports software patents so long as it benefits them. When another company wants money for a BS patent, it's a travesty. You gotta love the way business works.
Hardly. Apple isn't claiming the patents are invalid or that software patents in general are invalid - they're simply claiming that Lodsys is trying to get iOS app developers to pay for something that Apple has already bought (and been given rights to license to the iOS developers).
You seem to believe Lodsys patents are as unavoidable as the taxes you pay. That's a funny idea.
They are not. Apple could have taken Lodsys to court for their patents were, in fact, quite feeble.
Now, thanks in part to Apple, Lodsys has enough money to litigate. The only way to crush a troll is if everyone refuses to pay extortion for worthless patents. Without a source of easy money, the troll dies.
Apple’s lawyers seem to believe that licensing those patents is unavoidable or at the very least that not licensing would cost more than licensing them.
You might disagree with that interpretation of the law but you should never claim that it’s an endorsement of software patents.
I do not know Apple’s stance on software patents but I simply cannot see how Apple’s actions in this case can be interpreted as revealing Apple’s stance on software patents in any way.
I do not disagree that crushing Lodsys forever would have cost more than enabling it by paying their racket. OTOH, it will cost more to the market as whole not having crushed Lodsys when it was easy and, by helping it grow, Apple has done a disservice to us all.
And yes. They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing?
Why wouldn't they support software patents? The dispute here isn't some silly ideological pissing contest about whether software patents are valid or not. This is Apple saying they bought these licenses to be used in the App store and the same patent can't then be applied to their own customers.
What irony? Apple licenses thousands of patents in both directions. As does Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and anyone other major player in the tech industry.
Apple has a long history of supporting patents. In fact in a keynote that Jobs gave a few years back one of his lines was something like, "And we've patented this up and down" which was followed by loud cheers. Apple is a very strong believer of HW and SW patents.
He said that when announcing the iPhone because Apple failed to properly patent the iPod when it was first released, and subsequently got tied up in a lot of litigation and licensing fees when other companies started trolling them. If anything, Apple hates the patent system, but is forced to play the game.
A lot of people believe Apple used its patents, for example, to block Android from getting certain features. There's also speculation that MS spent a lot of time dealing with legal issues before WP7 -- which is why WP7 has different design decisions in so many places Apple has patents -- and one reason it was so late after WM6.1.
It's speculation, but it sounds like Apple may have used its patents as a way to stop competition on other carriers. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but it's legal.
And note that having patents doesn't protect you against trolls. Trolls don't care as they usually don't have product. Patents are only defensive against other actual product companies.
I haven't read anything about Apple proactively blocking other companies, but it's believable that post-iPhone Apple is less shy about pushing the competition around a little. I know they did protect their multitouch gesture patents, which is why Android couldn't have pinch to zoom for a while.
Regarding the accuracy of my comment, see http://www.macworld.com/article/46460/2005/08/ipodpatent.htm... for a quick summary of how Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Apple ended up settling for $100 million. This is an actual product company.
The article that you linked to, while interesting, is purely opinion. Its argument hinges on the assumption that exclusivity with AT&T was a bad business deal for Apple, which I would strongly disagree with. I didn't like the lock-in as a consumer, but the deal was excellent for Apple because it gave them control over the carrier in a way other phone manufacturers had only dreamed of until that point.
This article seems to say that MS patented this BEFORE Apple did:
"Last month the United States Patent and Trademark office denied Apple a patent for some user interface elements of the popular iPod MP3 player, citing a patent submitted by Microsoft developer John Platt five months BEFORE Apple’s claim."
Whereas you say Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Obviously MS couldn't patent something used in a product months after release (and if they did it would be overthrown in court).
Yes, that was my point. Microsoft patented aspects of the iPod BEFORE Apple did, but AFTER the introduction of the iPod. Should it have been allowed? Probably not. I can't find any articles about the settlement, so Apple may have managed to appeal and get it overthrown eventually. I don't remember. Regardless, the reason patenting the crap out of the iPhone was a big deal was that Apple was basically showing it had learned from past mistakes.
> A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.
I don't think I've ever seen Apple gloat about software patents. They mostly talk about hardware patents, things like the MagSafe connector, which is a really good invention and they deserve to keep the credit for inventing it.
Their software patents too are always very specialized, with no real vague areas that can be used for patent trolling. Not that they need to make a habit of patent trolling when they can print money with their sales anyway.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but really anyone who wants to get into this game has to play by the rules.
Even a tiny startup company full of web 2.0 rockstars who hate software patents will be advised to patent as much as they can, because if they don't, some other count will come along and patent their stuff from under them and force THEM to pay.
Pretty much nobody likes the software patent system except for software patent trolls, and as such we have to deal with it. Software patents won't go away until bad people go away.