Thermonuclear

Written by

I’ve seen a number of comments around the Internet about how Apple didn’t exactly go “Thermonuclear” in its win against Samsung. There’s an important point to remember — Steve Jobs wasn’t talking about Samsung, he was talking about Google.

In Walter Isaacson’s book Jobs recalled a meeting he had with then Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” Jobs said. “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

“I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.”

Because it was so blatant in its copying, Samsung was the most obvious target and allowed Apple to set precedent for its patents. That was the precursor to going thermonuclear.

Google says its not worried about the verdict because “most of these [patents] don’t relate to the core Android operating system.” However, as Seth Weintraub points out, some of the patents relate directly to Google, like the rubber band effect.

Google should be worried. Steve Jobs’ thermonuclear promise is coming.



  • def4

    That’s a hair-raising post. I got goosebumps reading the last sentence.

    Justice should be served as long as Apple remembers their purpose is to build great products for the living, not carry out revenge for the dead.

    • Steven Fisher

      Thankfully, Apple can continue to produce great products while simultaneously working the justice angle.

      • abugida

        At some point the justice angle only brings bad PR, with less and less to show for. I don’t think Apple should sue anyone else besides Samsung, HTC, and Moto. If one of these guys is scared into settling now, Apple should grab that chance.

        • Walt French

          I’m no expert on consumer psychology, but I’d think that inviting dozens of smaller companies to think it’s OK to rip off Apple’s IP would be a Bad Move. Make it look like the principle behind the suit was simply to trip up a major competitor, not to promote original work.

          Anyway, there are ALREADY suits against HTC and Motorola. Counter-suits, too, to settle, and in fact, Motorola has won an injunction that forced Apple to bowdlerize its push email in Germany; I can’t see why they’d suddenly smile and invite Google to continue its concerted assault on Apple IP right after they have won such a strong decision.

          • abugida

            Hi Walt, I’m aware of the running suits, that’s why I suggested Apple might leave at that. By “scaring” HTC and Motorola I was thinking of a settlement that was favorable to Apple, of course. I think Apple is having really bad publicity right now. Almost every news outlet is writing about the purported curbing of innovation and rising prices, which are exactly the talking points of Samsung’s lawyers. In that sense I think Samsung made the best out of that lawsuit: They couldn’t win, but now the public opinion is on their side. That’s just what I’m seeing in the mainstream news.

          • Walt French

            Definitely, there are a bunch of self-proclaimed Apple haters and they’re sounding off. . The Samsung case is an exception in that Apple will NEVER again face a courtroom opponent who has made himself so blatantly look like the Bad Guy. Google’s unheeded advice, and the 132-page proof of copying, made it clear. But especially by getting a jury verdict, Apple has gotten a lot of validation for its originality. Next time you hear of some Apple lawsuit, you’ll remember all the energy that Samsung expended in copying, and presume more of the same. . Apple might just think about the PR angle. But methinks their line will be more, “hey look what a nifty new iProduct we are introducing today!”

        • http://www.facebook.com/jim.hassinger Jim Hassinger

          Thanks for the kind of thinking that brought us the licensing of clones. Guess what? They brought out faster stuff, more up-to-the minute hardware, and drained off the upper end of the tech market. Nice if Apple’s a charity or an order of monks. Not a way for a company to run, volunteering to “grow the market” by losing money. Jobs closed them down. Apple runs its own foundry.

          • abugida

            Jim, I already said below that a settling would of course have to be favorable for Apple. A license on some patents is not the same as an iOS license. That would be insane. As for the 90s, the problem with the Mac OS licenses was that it was too little (Apple should have charged several hundreds per copy to reflect lost profits) and too late (There was nowhere to grow because Microsoft already had 90 % of the market). An OS license program doesn’t have to be bad per se. But that’s all water under the bridge now. I wasn’t suggesting that. Just look at the deal Apple offered Samsung in 2010 for reference. Something like that, and a do-not-clone agreement.

  • Gerry G

    This is getting like Game of Thrones, except instead of dragons, the various factions have touchscreen UI patents to roast one another’s asses.

    • http://twitter.com/jgpmolloy John Molloy

      There were Lawyers in Game of Thrones? I missed that bit. Must have been all the naked people distracting me. And the dragons.

    • spuy767

      In the Game of Phones, you win or you die.

      • Gay Dude

        shut up, you virgin ass nigga

        • LelandHendrix

          OFFENSIVE

  • abugida

    And what about the licensing offer Apple made in 2010? $30 per phone and Samsung could have kept going with Android. That directly contradicts the Steve Jobs quote. And I don’t think Isaacson is a reliable source. No doubt Steve said that at some point, but did he mean it, and is it sure he never changed his mind? Isaacson didn’t learn anough about Steve to judge that. I believe that what Apple und Tim Cook now wants is to keep their USPs. They want Android to be visibly different (and inferior) to iOS. Google and even Samsung have anticipated that and moved away from some past infringing designs. This trend will continue.

    If Apple truly wants to beat Android, they cannot do that in court. What they would have to do is get off their 60 % iPhone margins. If the iPhone were $200 cheaper, Apple would have 50 % marketshare.

    • xynta_man
      If the iPhone were $200 cheaper, Apple would have 50 % marketshare.

      Nope, Apple would just have demand outpacing supply like crazy, with more unhappy (because they couldn’t buy it) potential consumers going to alternative vendors, mostly the Android manufacturers. We already see something like this at a smaller scale at the every new product launch. Don’t forget how the products roll out in US while the rest of the world is waiting sometimes up to six months after it. Apple will indeed lower their prices, but only when they see it viable and possible to meet the increased demand.

      Making iPhone $200 cheaper now would probably result in Apple needing to produce ~100 million iPhones a quarter, which isn’t currently possible for them, both from components supply side and from manufacturing/distribution.

      • spuy767

        Not to mention apple not being able to make money which in turn gets dumped into R&D, or make products of the same calibre. Apple could make a phone the quality of the phones the some OEM’s churn out for that kind of money, but they wouldn’t be close to the calibre of product that we’ve come to expect.

        • abugida

          That would be true if the iPhone margin wasn’t so ridiculously high, about $400 per phone. It’s by far the highest margin product Apple has ever sold, after the Mac around 1989/91.

      • abugida

        I was a big proponent of that theory, but only up to a point. It’s clear that they could have made 10 million more iPhones last quarter – if consumers had asked for them. Obviously the year 5 strategy for the iPhone line-up didn’t last for a full year. The launch last fall went well, too well in fact. Price drops would effect older models, so those would not block the same components and factory lines, and since they’ve already been on sale for a while, they would be in full supply from day zero before the price drop is announced. But I’m not even saying that changing the line-up only once per year, and only offering your old stuff to the mid market customers would be the best strategy. If Apple were serious about growth, they would have a fresh industrial design for their cheaper phones, and if production capacity was an issue, they would move the release 3-6 months away from the high-end iPhone. Incidentally, that’s exactly what will (supposedly) happen with the new low price iPad mini; new design, separate launch.

        • http://profiles.google.com/pmoeser Peter Moeser

          Boy, I hope you’ve sent your resume to Tim Cook.

          The way Apple have been going it sounds like they need your approach on how to run a successful phone business

          • abugida

            If yes men like you ran Apple… Past successes are not a guarantee for future successes. And besides, this whole subthread was hypothetical. What if Apple wanted to have 50 % marketshare, not just 20 %? I hope you got me now.

      • Walt French

        It’s worth noting that if other companies were not selling phones, there’d be more productive capacity available to Apple.

        I think you’re right that the iPhone has taken off faster than Apple expected, but by now they have to be making decisions based on what market share they get worldwide. No sense building new assembly lines for Foxconn workers to populate, if people are going to be buying other phones or waiting for Apple’s next.

        • xynta_man

          It’s not production capacity as in assembly per se (it’s relatively easy to get more when working with Foxconn), it’s mostly component deals with displays, SoCs, flash storage, aluminum enclosures, etc.

          It’s easier for other manufacturers just to shit out a new variant of the device if they don’t have enough components of some type, replacing them with another type of them (e.g. HTC replacing AMOLED screens with LCD screens midway for the HTC Desire). Apple “can’t” go like “We don’t have enough IPS panels for iPhones? We’ll just use TN panes from tomorrow on” or “We don’t have enough A5 processors? Ok, we’ll use some of TI’s or Nvidia’s processors for this batch of devices”.

          If I remember correctly, someone said that one of the most hard to rapidly ramp up components for Apple are those sexy aluminum enclosures, since to produce say twice as many of them they need to purchase many more new CNC mills for Catcher Technology (the company who will operate them to produce the enclosures) and manufacturers of those can’t really keep up with Apple’s orders.

    • Walt French

      Dunno if Apple wants to “beat Android” in any way that people think. Yes, they could’ve cut prices in half and still made money, making it very difficult to compete on price. But check out the very nice Nexus7 and the Kindle Fire; as the old saw goes, somebody can ALWAYS sell a product cheaper than you can.

      Now, if Android cannot use Apple UI features such as pinch-to-zoom or double-tap to align with borders, or rubber-banding or etc., I’d say the onus is on Google to come up with good UI of their own that can compete with Apple.

      Surfing on tiny screens was a miserable joke before the iOS interface, and Google has had 5 years to build their own. Surely something is in the wings, ready for the KastorOil release that will have unique, Google-invented UI that everybody loves?

      • abugida

        Totally agree with everything (Though, again: The iPhone has twice the margin of other Apple products.) The whole idea to “beat”, or rather “destroy” Android was brought up by Jim. My point was that in smartphones this is not possible through lawsuits, only through price drops. I don’t think 50 % marketshare is in Apple’s interests. Regulators would start to get in their way.

  • jfutral

    I have no doubt Jobs would have driven Apple into the ground fighting Android. Cook is not Jobs. But I do think the current Apple will be quite happy taking the hardware legs out from under Google/Android. If no one wants Android or remakes it to the point that it no longer resembles Android (ala Amazon and Kindle), Google’s investment in and with Android and Motorola is essentially nullified.

    Joe

    • twilightmoon

      There’s no evidence Jobs would have done anything to harm Apple by going after Android. I’m certain he did not like being ripped off by Android manufacturers cloning iPhone features, but the only evidence he had any intention of retaliating was an off the record quote in a book by Walter Isaacson, a man who had very little understanding of Jobs, who consistently got many of Jobs’ motivations wrong and many other critical things about Apple were never understood by Isaacson, so I do not really trust him as a credible source.

      I’m not saying that Jobs never said the quote, I’m doubting Isaacson’s understanding of the quote. Steve Jobs was famous for his misdirection and sleight of hand, he often said one thing and then not long after did the complete opposite.

      It can hardly be argued that Apple was greatly harmed by going after Samsung. It’s possible they could have lost the case, but they were already being copied so losing the case would not have made matters any worse for them. Winning means it will be clearly be costlier and riskier to copy Apple in the future. Regardless of any money paid out by Samsung or any appeals, that is a valuable precedent set by Apple.

  • Umbe

    I think it’s a bit premature to talk about Apple going after Google. We should keep in mind a number of facts: * Apple hasn’t won yet vs Samsung. The recent jury decision has been marred by several problems. It’s not out of the question for judge Koh to declare a mistrial yet. Even if she doesn’t, Samsung can still appeal. From what I understand about the US justice system, this is far from over. * In other countries where similar suits have been opened the decisions seemed to favor Samsung. * Google has recently defeated Oracle’s allegations on patent and copyright issues in Android. (Granted, a hypothetical Apple lawsuit would focus on different aspects of Android.)

    • Umbe

      Also: Google now owns Motorola Mobility, holder of some very important patents of their own. A suit from Apple could prompt a potentially unpleasant countersuit.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jungmark Alexander Jung

        yes but if they are FRAND patents, they’ve already been licensed or Moto’s not fulfilling the FRAND agreements.

        • xynta_man

          Well, not all of Motorola’s patents are FRAND, but most of the big one’s are.

      • Matt W

        Motorola filed their biggest and best shot last April. The ITC just tossed it and said go away.

      • xynta_man

        Motorola already had filed some cases against Apple. Your point?

      • abugida

        Moto and Samsung are being watched by US and European regulators now. Their strategy to use FRAND patents against Apple is very risky.

      • Walt French

        Apple and Moto have several suits going already. Motorola has forced Apple to disable push email in Germany. Apple is not quaking in anticipation of some nasty countersuit; they’re dealing with it today.

        I imagine the push email patent will take Apple a while to work around, but they are trying and probably prepared to pay damages when/if the suit lands in the US.

        But it’s not a standards-essential patent; they can keep selling phones without the feature. Meanwhile, most of Moto’s patents ARE standards-essential and Motorola is forced to show that they are fulfilling their obligation to license the IP to Apple on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory basis. Those cases have instead raised the explicit concern of the EU Competition Commission and the US Dept of Justice; Google (Moto) is in a difficult spot in applying much leverage due to having made those promises.

    • http://twitter.com/jgpmolloy John Molloy

      The markets seem to disagree with your post.

    • Matt W

      There is no chance the judge will even consider overruling the jury. (Save the one point where she will be ruling against Samsung because the jury misunderstood an instruction).

      There was no criminal activity in the jury room, no threats or intimidation.

      • Walt French

        Nor anything called out that “no reasonable juror” could have found. That’s something she’s obligated to check for, in the interests of fairness. As you allude, the misunderstanding may result in her override, for that reason.

      • Umbe

        If Judge Koh doesn’t declare a mistrial it’s her problem, really. It’s very likely she will be overturned on appeal and she’s the one who would end up looking incompetent.

        Why am I so sure it will be overturned on appeal? Because when Apple asked for preliminary injunctions against several Samsung products, before this trial, the District Court and the Federal Circuit decided that the only product that could possibly be found to infringe is Galaxy Tab 10.1. But this jury has decided the complete opposite: Galaxy Tab 10.1 is the only one found ok, and several other products were not.

        I don’t like to predict trial outcomes, so all I’m saying is, let’s wait and see. This particular trial is not the end.

        • abugida

          There was an explanation for this on the news.

          The jury didn’t understand the concept of non-registered trade dress completely. Apple has a registered trade dress for the iPad (the infamous rounded square drawings), but the jury found that too generic and therefore not infringed upon by the Galaxy Tab.

          However, on top of that, there is a de-facto non-registered trade dress, because the iPad is so iconic Apple didn’t even have to get a patent on this. If something, anything is known for a distinctive look, then you are not allowed to copy it.

          Now the jury understood that there are both registered and non-registered trade dresses, they did however assume that Apple can only argue one or the other, not both. Which is false. The jury should have decided that the non-registered trade dress was infringed, as most observers agree.

          The judge might still overrule them in that case. She will possibly incriminate the Galaxy Tab as well in the coming weeks.

    • jfutral

      “* Apple hasn’t won yet vs Samsung. The recent jury decision has been marred by several problems. It’s not out of the question for judge Koh to declare a mistrial yet. Even if she doesn’t, Samsung can still appeal. From what I understand about the US justice system, this is far from over.”

      Which is still a win for Apple. How many companies have Samsung’s pockets to keep fighting like this? It will be easier and less expensive to actually create something different.

      Joe

      • Umbe

        All the relevant players have enough money to sustain a lawsuit from Apple.

        As for “something different”, it becomes impossible to do. Technology is convergent towards certain designs and ideas. Which Apple has not been the first to imagine. There’s prior art (which the jury in this trial completely ignored).

        And if you mean the moral high ground, here’s Steve Jobs in 1996: “We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” And he was also fond of and often used this quote from Picasso: “Good artists copy; great artists steal.”

        • jfutral

          Do you really think HTC or Motorola pre-Google could afford a $1billion dollar fine plus the millions for expert witnesses plus the cost of years of appeals? They would need to actually be making a profit to do that.

          Do you even know what Picasso meant? Yes, steal the idea, but don’t duplicate the product. The only reason why an industry converges on a design is because they lack the imagination to come up with something different. An aesthetic is not the function. You can develop a minimalist aesthetic without duplicating someone else’s minimalist aesthetic. Or come up with an aesthetic that is not minimalist. We are in a post-modern world. You don’t have to get stuck in Modernity. You should study art to really understand what that quote means.

          Joe

          • abugida

            HTC is a profitable company.

          • jfutral

            Profitable, but not by much and on a continued steep trend downward. A $1billion dollar hit would hurt. Samsung, not so much.

            Joe

        • abugida

          I think many people don’t understand this Picasso quote. What stealing means in this case is not being an especially crass copyist, but being different from a copyist. It’s about making something your own, ripping it out of its familiar context and applying it to something new that nobody else had thought of. Like taking multitouch and applying it to phones.

          • jfutral

            People seem to want to understand that quote about as much as they want to understand the trial or the patents in question, or the patent system in general. Much like Samsung choosing to copy instead of “steal”, they would rather ride the tails of other commenters and pundits who have done no research either. Always easier to just regurgitate someone else’s thoughts than to be thoughtful oneself.

            Joe

    • abugida

      You said that internationals lawsuits largely went in favor of Samsung. I don’t agree with that, unless you consider it a win that only some of Samsung’s products were banned, and not all of them. The way I would describe it is that Apple’s lawsuits were partly successful while Samsung’s counter suits were largely unsuccessful.

      And I think there is an element of time. Samsung cannot wait for Apple to lose somewhere else or against Moto in 6, 12, or 18 months, while half their line-up is banned in the US.

      • Umbe

        Look up “Apple litigations” on Wikipedia. There are a lot of ongoing cases in many countries v Samsung, but so far no Samsung product was “banned” as such. There were some temporary injunctions pending trial verdicts, most of which have been lifted already or are awaiting verdict.

        I guess it depends on what you call successful. Apple did manage to hinder Samsung in their entry to markets and caused them big losses. But these trials come at some costs to Apple as well: the outright cost of the trials, plus the risk of having patents invalidated and/or predecents established.

  • drew_reece

    Soon Apple will become death, the destroyer of worlds.

    I think we will find out if money can corrupt a company that was once focused on making great things, not war with competitors.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jungmark Alexander Jung

      Apple is still focused on great things. They just don’t want people copying their R&D on the cheap.

    • Steven Fisher

      That Samsung was so eager to copy their work should show you they’re still making great things.

      You want a revolution every year? Grow up.

      • drew_reece

        I just hope they don’t get into a quagmire of litigation that starts to impinge on what Apple and others can make.

        Stealing trade dress is clearly wrong, but the US legal and patent system seems to stifle young technologies that end up having lasting impact for users. As an example see to how DRM is still making purchasing video a poor user experience.

        Does Apple now own a grid of square Application icons?

        • xynta_man
          Does Apple now own a grid of square Application icons?

          No, they own a grid of apple-styled icons with rounded corners. Nobody said icons should look like that – Nokia’s Meego icons don’t look like that, no do Palm’s webOS icons look like that.

          • drew_reece

            Meego & Web OS, are they still in production? I thought Nokia jumped ship to Windows phone. I guess Microsoft’s 90 degree corners for Metro are a workaround?

            So it’s just a grid of round-rects Apple own, how about the actual grid?

            Does it count if the grid & round rects are physical & not on an electronic display, like a Scrabble board? There is an awful lot of prior art with grids, icons and rounded corners, are Apple truly being innovators, or just have enough lawyers to get patents approved?

          • abugida

            A scrabble board is not a handheld electronic device, and it doesn’t have a separate bottom row of icons. It’s also not covered with glass from edge to edge and doesn’t have a metal rim. You see, it’s not prior art. There is no prior art to the iPhone trade dress.

          • drew_reece

            My Sony Clie NX70 had a grid of colourful icons with static icons on the bottom left of the screen (below the collapsible handwriting area). The icons selected with blue round corner rectangles too. It also had a metal case & with rounded corners. It was also a touch based screen (probably glass under the sensitiser).

            Sure it was a heavy slow device by todays standards & Sony/ Palm also borrowed from the Newton and the work of others. That was back in 2002.

            Apple also build on other peoples work but don’t expect others to do the same. I do think Samsung were wrong to steal the overall design, but some of Apple’s patent and trade dress claims are a little far reaching.

    • xynta_man
      Soon Apple will become death to clone manufacturers, the destroyer of copy-cats.

      Fixed for great justice

    • colormedisappointed

      You mean making great things like the Mac OS, and then watching Microsoft bring out a cheap copy, calling it Windows and then dominating the market? The great thing that almost bankrupted Apple the last time? Apple now knows better.

    • David

      You mean war with thieves who havent innovated squat without following Apple’s lead. I don’t think Apple has anything to worry about. It’s the thieves who need to learn how to make great things without stealing.

  • Mel

    Google I/O a few (4?) years ago Vic Gundotra was asked why Android and his reply was “we had to stop Apple”. Make no mistake is this is not about UI patents, rounded corners etc. This is about Google coldly calculating to poison Apple’s iPhone business with Android.

    • https://twitter.com/#!/azulum azulum

      It couldn’t have been 4 years ago. Maybe in 2010. But the real reason for Android was to prevent any vendor from blocking Google’s unfettered access to the web. Android and Chrome, mobile and desktop.

      Google changed targets (the previous ones being the BB/PocketPC/Palm/Symbian phones) because they felt like Apple wielded too much power, and should the relationship sour, their money-making business would be at risk. And so, as all self-fulfilling prophecies go, the relationship did go sour, Apple has nearly scrubbed Google from iOS, Microsoft is now a good guy, and Google’s monster that they unleashed to give them access is turning against them (hello Kindle).

      I think that Google took a chance at controlling their destiny versus just being nice. That may turn out to be a mistake, but that’s only because we won’t ever see the version of history where Google’s growth is capped because of traffic acquisition costs.

      Honestly, the thermonuclear option, if they do go that route, is the most bullheaded and idiotic thing Apple could do. It becomes wholly spiteful at the point, and everybody suffers. Tit-for-tat with forgiveness has been proven as the best strategy. Here’s hoping that Apple does actually set up a cross-licensing agreement.

    • abugida

      Yeah, 2010. That speech was vile.

  • Vengeur

    I agree that Apple’s ultimate goal is probably Android (if not Google itself). From talking with Apple employee’s, I get the feeling that a lot of consumers and writers in the tech industry do not have a real understanding of Apple’s motivations: these writers and consumers think that Apple is using their patents to try to buy themselves a competitive advantage in the market. They seem to buy into the rhetoric that it’s just another business strategy, and once Apple’s lawsuits hit a setback they will stop.

    If you take the time to listen to what people at Apple are saying, you will quickly realize that it’s not just rhetoric. Apple feels like Eric Schmidt sat on their board of directors, was privy to a sneak preview of the upcoming iPhone, then went back to Google and told the Android team “Stop your current design and copy this instead.” You can disagree with this assessment, but this is how Apple FEELS, and if you don’t understand that this fundamental point of view is what is driving them, you are going to be surprised at the energy and money Apple is willing to throw at fighting Android.

    Samsung was the low-hanging fruit: their hardware was so similar to Apple’s that they were the obvious first target. Now that Apple has some legal precedents and settlement money to fuel their legal team, they are only going to become more aggressive in going after companies that they (genuinely) feel stole from them. People rarely think of themselves as the bad guy: anyone who thinks that Apple is suing their competitors to stifle innovation or compete outside of the marketplace is failing to see the situation from Apple’s point of view. And as the largest company in the world, it would be foolish to think their point of view doesn’t matter.

  • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

    Wouldn’t it be funny if, five years from now, Android had been redesigned to work more like Metro and was still selling more mobile devices than anything Microsoft could offer?

    • xynta_man

      Well, Google already started to move the new vanilla versions of Android to a more of a “Metro UI” look, just look at their Play Store UI for example.

      • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

        If that’s true, it sounds a bit like watching a potted plant turn towards a new light source.

    • abugida

      I honestly think that Metro will flop very hard over the next 12 months, and Microsoft will dial it down until in 5 years it looks like all the icon-based UIs we’ve been familiar with since forever.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jim.hassinger Jim Hassinger

        I think the flop won’t be Metro. It will be in trying to merge WP8 with Windows 8. Looks a lot like the medieval gryphon: a product flawed from its first motivation, to put Metro on computers but Windows on phones and call it “Windows Everywhere.”

  • MarkGoldmd

    Totally Agree!

    It is interesting that so many commentators state that this ruling will stifle innovation. It will only stifle flat out copying! It will spur innovation! Before 2007 all new phones looked like Blackberries and after like iPhones. Great artists gain inspiration (steal ideas) from nature, the universe or other Artists. They then distill that inspiration to create something new, unique. It would be shame to devalue that creatative process as being trivial and “stealing ideas”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.hassinger Jim Hassinger

    I really love all the people crying over Apple becoming “Microsoft,” and losing their mojo somehow by protecting their patents and trade dress. As though that’s the choice. Was it okay for you when Apple created the Mac, then saw their work stolen by Microsoft? And when they were within 6 weeks of bankruptcy when Jobs came back? The peaceful hippie company did some great design, and then the big rough bullies moved in and took everything. The law gives innovators a way to protect their creations. Apple is taking advantage of it. And what do you know, their team of lawyers told a clear narrative to the jury, and they won.

  • Greg Lomow

    I believe that Apple would be happy with a settlement with Google and its OEMs along the lines of “No Copying Agreement plus a payment for all of the patent infringements to date” (can’t guess whether the payment would be ‘reasonable’ or ‘punitive’). Apple believes that as long as everyone has to create their own innovations and do their own design, then it can easily beat the competition because of its superior design and innovation capabilities.

  • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

    There isn’t a rubber band effect in Android. The over scroll shows a blue highlight on the edge.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/NNCLT2LJS7LBFWTZ45H2LGI7HU mmontferd

      There was a rubber band effect not in the browser but in the app drawer and the Gallery app pre-Android 3.0. That’s why the Nexus S was found to infringe (running Android 2.2 – 2.3) but Google was truthful when saying that the patents in the trial did not relate to core Android. The core Android of today, anyway.

      • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

        It has no effect on current day so Apple can only look back and sue based on old stock devices. Android is safe.

  • Walt French

    “Google says its not worried about the verdict because ‘most of these [patents] don’t relate to the core Android operating system.’ ”

    Hah, this is funny. It was Google’s lawyers, just a few weeks ago, who noted in their suit against Microsoft, that it only takes one bullet to kill as they laid out their multiple patent claims.

    Funnier yet: the rubber-banding is no longer core Android; already removed from new products because Google knew this loss was coming sooner or later.

    And more: Apple has dozens more patents, many of which ALSO strike right to the core of the Android User Experience. Google has now had 5 years since the iPhone came out, but still relies heavily on features that Jobs claimed were heavily patented when he introduced the iPhone in January ’07. Either Google’s genius engineers are far from what they’re cracked up to be, or Google management somehow thought the lawsuits were a joke and that they were protected ‘cuz their PR Department said so.

    OK, Stage 1, Denial, is over except for some dead-enders off in the scrub brush. Stage 2 Anger, full force but that won’t last long as Google is already into Stage 3 Bargaining, somehow thinking that they can license the Apple UI despite having about the weakest hand possible for negotiations.

    Let’s see how long 4.Depression and 5.Acceptance take. Sooner or later, Google’s fast-following strategy, which has so far failed to create a compelling, Google-owned UI, is going to come to a crashing halt.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jim.hassinger Jim Hassinger

      Note that the big, “we will sue you with the Moto patents we bought” didn’t work at the federal agency level. It’s not determinative of what a judge would find, but it bodes poorly for that strategy. Google’s engineers are brilliant. Their managers and owners are… spotty.

  • satcomer

    Apple will now ask money to license it to Google for things like the rubber band affect.

    • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

      Google will never do that. They are already working around Apple patents so why license an effect? They just created their own.

  • xynta_man

    Metro UI already flopped on WP7. The problem is that a company the size of Microsoft can brute-force it onto people with Windows on PCs, i.e. it can’t flop since there’s no way to get away from Windows. After that, regular people will view WP8 as a more familiar experience, since they would get to know from the desktop.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1368032580 James E. Burkett

    Hey you guys… Motorola is about to go “Thermonuclear” on Apple. You see, being a patent troll and asserting invalid patents will eventually end you up nowhere. You cannot name one patent that Apple asserts that they actually invented… They didn’t even Buy the patents. They just stole existing technology and patented it… That by itself renders a patent invalid… Prior art. Sooooo wha Motorola is asserting are patents by the Real innovators of mobile technology- Not rectangles with rounded corners, the color black, or colorful icons. Without Motorola’s technology, there would be no iPhone, or ANY mobile phone for that matter (Motorola pioneered cellular technology). Anyway, the patents Motorola is asserting are not standard essential, and they are not forced to license them. What that means for you boys who defend patent trolls, is that all those “wonderful, magical” products you speak of are about to go… Offline. Out of the USA. BYE. SEE YA. Samsung can easily absorb a billion dollars if it’s actually made to pay, but the patents that Apple asserted will be overturned when the court isn’t in it’s back yard. (Washington) Talk it up now. I can’t wait to see the look on your faces when nearly all of the patents you speak of are invalidated. Apple doesn’t own the black rounded rectangle, nor do they own the colorful icon, nor do they own multitouch, or the grid, or any other patent they are trying to assert- They stole it all, including the seven patents they are infringing on from Motorola and refusing to pay royalties for.. All they did was make a nice case to put all their stolen technology into. Motorola will make sure they won’t have much longer a chance to sell their stolen products in America.