Apple CEO Tim Cook previously said that he wants other companies to “invent their own stuff,” and that Apple shouldn’t be the “inventor for the world.” Google Senior Vice President and General Counsel Kent Walker seems to disagree with the statement and even went as far as writing a letter to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee arguing that commercial inventions that impact “consumer welfare” should be just as important as technical patents. John Paczkowski of All Things D shared the following interpretation of Walker’s argument:
Originally Posted by :
In other words, Google’s view is that just as there are patents that are standard essential, there are also patents that are commercially essential — patents that cover features that are so popular as to have become ubiquitous. The latter are just as ripe for abuse as the former, and withholding them is just as harmful to consumers and the competitive marketplace. Viewed through that lens, multitouch technology or slide-to-unlock might be treated the same way as an industry standard patent on, say, a smartphone radio.
Apple’s top lawyer, Bruce Sewell, wrote a rebuttal letter to the committee stating that as a proprietary technology becomes quite popular [it] does not transform it into a ‘standard’ subject to the same legal constraints as true standard.” To put it in simpler terms, Apple is stating that even if Apple’s technology is popular with consumers, it doesn’t mean Apple has to license that technology to its competitors. The statement goes to show how strongly Apple disagrees with Walker’s point of view. On the other hand, Apple does own numerous patents regarding nearly all iOS technology. Sewell mentioned the following in his rebuttal letter:In other words, Google’s view is that just as there are patents that are standard essential, there are also patents that are commercially essential — patents that cover features that are so popular as to have become ubiquitous. The latter are just as ripe for abuse as the former, and withholding them is just as harmful to consumers and the competitive marketplace. Viewed through that lens, multitouch technology or slide-to-unlock might be treated the same way as an industry standard patent on, say, a smartphone radio.
Originally Posted by :
The capabilities of an iPhone are categorically different from a conventional phone, and result from Apple’s ability to bring its traditional innovation in computing to the mobile market. Using an iPhone to take photos, manage a home-finance spreadsheet, play video games, or run countless other applications has nothing to do with standardized protocols. Apple spent billions in research and development to create the iPhone, and third party software developers have spent billions more to develop applications that run on it.
Although Cook mentioned previously that he hates lawsuits, he also said that he will defend Apple’s inventions from copycats. This is similar (although its toned down) to what Jobs said in his biography where he threatened to “go thermonuclear” on Google for what he considered was theft of Apple’s intellectual property. For those of you who are interested in reading more specific details about the letters and are seeking a deeper analysis of the legal aspects of the situation, hit the source link below.The capabilities of an iPhone are categorically different from a conventional phone, and result from Apple’s ability to bring its traditional innovation in computing to the mobile market. Using an iPhone to take photos, manage a home-finance spreadsheet, play video games, or run countless other applications has nothing to do with standardized protocols. Apple spent billions in research and development to create the iPhone, and third party software developers have spent billions more to develop applications that run on it.
Source: All Things D
Reply
