• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The iOS Monopoly?

shadowninty said:
That's probably what units ship with, rather then what they run. Most servers run Unix/Linux
Click to expand...

Most web servers might, but the vast majority of servers used in the business world do not. Besides you can easily buy a server without an OS. In fact, many servers come with no OS on them. Why would you fork over $1500-2000 to MS for an OS that you're not going to use?
 
A.Nonymous said:
There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. The illegal part is in how you get to that monopoly or in how you use that monopoly. If there are 100 rental homes in town and I buy 80 of them, I've got a monopoly. Nothing about that is illegal. If I use that monopoly to jack up prices, then we start crossing the line.
Click to expand...


i am not sure if that is even an issue. i know what you are trying to say.
but something is nagging me about that. hhhmmm.....

there is the fundamental supply vs demand.. and gov tries to say out of it as much as possible.
 
The government sometimes tries to stop monopolies. At least if you want to merge / buy out a major company you need permission from the European Commission in the EU. The Commission also tries to break up monopolies as well.
 
Yeah, the feds try to stop monopolies in general because monopolies tend to stifle innovation and they also give one company the ability to manipulate the market which is also not good. Some monopolies are just natural monopolies though. Windows is a perfect example of that. MS is not really actively doing anything right now to kill off anyone who wants to start popping out an OS. They've just tied the market up for so long that no one else wants the hassle of competing with them in that space.
 
In the world of web servers, Microsoft isn't much of a player. In that respect, I'm not wrong. However since most businesses are under the marketed impression they need Microsoft Exchange to be productive, Microsoft has a pretty good foothold.

I'm not trying to spread anti-Microsoft propaganda, I got sick of that back in the late 90's well before our current Apple vs The World state of affairs. I'm just stating that while they have a very solid business model in place that has put them into a lot of homes and a lot of businesses, they do not command a monopoly.

They do command a ridiculous amount of power, and have raised the barrier to entry far beyond what it was early on in the game, but they haven't closed the doors by any means. The underdogs with the backing to compete have in many markets started to surpass Microsoft. In some markets, such as mobile, they're the only reason Microsoft is making money at all (patent trolling is fun for the whole family).
 
_mw_ said:
In the world of web servers, Microsoft isn't much of a player. In that respect, I'm not wrong. However since most businesses are under the marketed impression they need Microsoft Exchange to be productive, Microsoft has a pretty good foothold.

I'm not trying to spread anti-Microsoft propaganda, I got sick of that back in the late 90's well before our current Apple vs The World state of affairs. I'm just stating that while they have a very solid business model in place that has put them into a lot of homes and a lot of businesses, they do not command a monopoly.

They do command a ridiculous amount of power, and have raised the barrier to entry far beyond what it was early on in the game, but they haven't closed the doors by any means. The underdogs with the backing to compete have in many markets started to surpass Microsoft. In some markets, such as mobile, they're the only reason Microsoft is making money at all (patent trolling is fun for the whole family).
Click to expand...

If you are speaking of strictly web servers, then you're right, but that's only one segment of the server market. The vast majority of servers out there are in the hands of businesses who are not using them as web servers. Those servers are almost predominantly Microsoft. The do very much command a monopoly. Can you honestly say that Microsoft does not have the ability to significantly influence the server market if they chose to engage in blatantly anti-competitive practices?
 
I'm slightly confused as to how that would give iOS a monopoly. The last time I checked Android was on T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, as well as many of the smaller regional carriers and prepaid carriers.
 
ashykat said:
I'm slightly confused as to how that would give iOS a monopoly. The last time I checked Android was on T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, as well as many of the smaller regional carriers and prepaid carriers.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't. Regardless of how many carriers iOS is on, their market share right now is comparable to Android's. They don't have anything close to a monopoly right now. No one in mobile does.
 
I think where Apple is trying to play dirty is their patents. They are wanting to patent anything and everything under the sun to try and see what sticks. Just look at all of their lawsuites out there. Some of them may be justified, but some are just downright ridiculous. I'm sure they'd like to claim they were the inventor of the touch screen if enough people would believe them.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Sadly, they're not the only ones. The patent trolling is getting a little ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That is definitely the truth. Everyone has a patent portfolio and they all have a lot of lawsuits. The truth is so many companies try to sue Apple that they pretty much have to do what they're doing in a way. Microsoft has done the same thing. I saw an article that basically said they make more from licensing fees on each Android phone than they do on their own WP7 Handsets. Speaking of which, whatever happened to that whole Lodsys suit?
 
ashykat said:
That is definitely the truth. Everyone has a patent portfolio and they all have a lot of lawsuits. The truth is so many companies try to sue Apple that they pretty much have to do what they're doing in a way. Microsoft has done the same thing. I saw an article that basically said they make more from licensing fees on each Android phone than they do on their own WP7 Handsets. Speaking of which, whatever happened to that whole Lodsys suit?
Click to expand...

Last I heard the Lodsys suit was still pending and Apple was actually jumping into the fray and standing up for it's devs which I applaud it for. To be fair though it didn't have a lot of choice. If they start shutting down Apple's devs, their platform withers away.
 
lordofthereef said:
I think where Apple is trying to play dirty is their patents. They are wanting to patent anything and everything under the sun to try and see what sticks. Just look at all of their lawsuites out there. Some of them may be justified, but some are just downright ridiculous. I'm sure they'd like to claim they were the inventor of the touch screen if enough people would believe them.
Click to expand...

At our company, we had at least one or two patents that many of you would think quite silly, but it was worth a considerable sum of money because it provided a new way of manufacturing PCBs that was deemed impossible by the SMT machine manufacturers.

Sometimes, what some people think is silly thing to patent is in fact worth protecting. So can you point to one of Apple's patents and associated lawsuits that you think is silly, unjustified, or ridiculous?
 
A.Nonymous said:
Sadly, they're not the only ones. The patent trolling is getting a little ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Perhaps someone here has a link to this; the details are fuzzy.

Apparently, there is a company or perhaps more than ne, that purchase rights to sounds, art, graphics, copy, whatever. They then search for people using this material on their web sites and they threaten a suit. Apparently, they act quick and do not give the infringer the chance to remove the material. Their goal is cold hard cash.

Seems like I read of several legal firms doing this. Clarifications are most welcome.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Perhaps someone here has a link to this; the details are fuzzy.

Apparently, there is a company or perhaps more than ne, that purchase rights to sounds, art, graphics, copy, whatever. They then search for people using this material on their web sites and they threaten a suit. Apparently, they act quick and do not give the infringer the chance to remove the material. Their goal is cold hard cash.

Seems like I read of several legal firms doing this. Clarifications are most welcome.
Click to expand...

I've heard of something similar myself.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Sometimes, what some people think is silly thing to patent is in fact worth protecting. So can you point to one of Apple's patents and associated lawsuits that you think is silly, unjustified, or ridiculous?
Click to expand...

The shape of their phone. Which, to my knowledge, they lost the suite for.

They also stake claim on the idea of "touch screen scrolling".

Frankly, a lot of it is simply how a touch screen is used. IMO a touch screen is a touch screen and people should be free to use it as they will.

Regardless, read through here. All of the patents they are filing for that come to the public eye are there. http://www.patentlyapple.com/

Apparently they were granted the patent for a rotating screen, about 5 posts down.
 
lordofthereef said:
The shape of their phone. Which, to my knowledge, they lost the suite for.

They also stake claim on the idea of "touch screen scrolling".

Frankly, a lot of it is simply how a touch screen is used. IMO a touch screen is a touch screen and people should be free to use it as they will.

Regardless, read through here. All of the patents they are filing for that come to the public eye are there. Patently Apple

Apparently they were granted the patent for a rotating screen, about 5 posts down.
Click to expand...

As I said before, to be perfectly fair, Apple is not the only one doing this, nor are they one of the top offenders.

There are companies out there who's entire business model is buying patents and sueing the bejesus out of everyone on the theory that people will settle rather than mess with fighting them for years.
 
A.Nonymous said:
As I said before, to be perfectly fair, Apple is not the only one doing this, nor are they one of the top offenders.

There are companies out there who's entire business model is buying patents and sueing the bejesus out of everyone on the theory that people will settle rather than mess with fighting them for years.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I was responing to Bob specifically at his request. I read your comment initially, and completely agree with it. We are, after all, speaking in a thread titled "iOS Monopoly" though... and we are going to discuss business with questionable practices that we know about well. Apple happens to be a company name that everyone here should be familiar with.
 
here are two of Apple's patents that HTC was recently found guilty of infringing. Go ahead, give them a read, and check out their generic nature. I am interested to see how many other computer or smartphone manufacturers in total infringe upon these patents. My guess is "the ones that make lots of $$ and enter Apple's cross-hairs as a result"

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647
U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263

Odd that both patents were filed WELL before the iPhone came to be (and probably well before it was even being developed, although that latter statement is pure conjecture on my part). HTC was accused of infringing 10 sepparate patents, two of which stuck. If that isn't a blatent case of patenting generic ideas in hopes you can screw the competition down the road, I am not sure what is.
 
lordofthereef said:
here are two of Apple's patents that HTC was recently found guilty of infringing. Go ahead, give them a read, and check out their generic nature. I am interested to see how many other computer or smartphone manufacturers in total infringe upon these patents. My guess is "the ones that make lots of $$ and enter Apple's cross-hairs as a result"

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647
U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263

Odd that both patents were filed WELL before the iPhone came to be (and probably well before it was even being developed, although that latter statement is pure conjecture on my part). HTC was accused of infringing 10 sepparate patents, two of which stuck. If that isn't a blatent case of patenting generic ideas in hopes you can screw the competition down the road, I am not sure what is.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you know very little about patents and what must be done in order to patent something. Most people generally do not know much about the process, so I am not picking on you. Smiley.

The patents you cite above are not at all unusual. And the fact that these patents were issued before the iPhone arrived means very little. You should have a look at some of the patents owned by Microsoft. Or 3M, for that matter. Sometimes a great idea is realized and patented and it might never be offered or it might be incorporated into a product ten years later.

Sometimes, a patent is easy for laypersons to understand and in some cases, a patent is very complicated and seems vague despite the vast verbiage. And sometimes a patent is issued that should never have been issued. I recall a patent granted to a company that gave them exclusive rights to all forms of selling electronically. There is no shortage of patents that protect the holder's right to sell electronically.

Have you ever participated in the patent process? Until you do, you will not understand how patents are researched and drafted and prepared. And remember, a patent grants certain protections and anyone has the right to patent anything they design up to a point. Patents require copious research to ensure that it does not infringe on an existing patent.

Sometimes, a developer will create something he or she thinks is unique but it actually infringes on existing patents that might be a decade old. And once patented, you have an right to protect your intellectual property. I have the right to sue you to protect what is mine and by the way, is Constitutionally protected.

Patent law is complex and it is very hard to patent something new in many cases. Not to mention, often costly, too.

Consider this: http://www.wavepointinc.com/site/available-patents/hp-corp-xjack/

HP had nothing to do with the development, testing, or manufacturing (at the time) of the X-Jack. Megahertz developed it and it solved many issues with PCMCIA packages. I know this because I was involved with the X-Jack.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Sometimes, a developer will create something he or she thinks is unique but it actually infringes on existing patents that might be a decade old. And once patented, you have an right to protect your intellectual property. I have the right to sue you to protect what is mine and by the way, is Constitutionally protected.
Click to expand...

I think this is the issue here, and where people disagree with patent law (or I do). I don't actually have to have a working product, as far as I know, to be able to patent something. This, is what I mean, about blanket patents.

I have never patented anything, but just read the patent. Forget how hard (or easy) it might be to patent something and simply read the patents I posted. I don't think the vocabulary is too difficult for most any English speaking person to pick up. The second one listed, especially, is very generic in nature. If there is an argument against that, by all means present it.

I made the iPhone comment because it is IRONIC that they are now worrying about this patent being infringed. How many other companies/products might be infringing their patents.

The fact that they accused HTC of 10 infringement and two of them stuck also seems like they are grasping for a few straws here.

I could be wrong, I am certainly not a patent expert, so I can only say it like I see it.
 
lordofthereef said:
I think this is the issue here, and where people disagree with patent law (or I do). I don't actually have to have a working product, as far as I know, to be able to patent something. This, is what I mean, about blanket patents.

I have never patented anything, but just read the patent. Forget how hard (or easy) it might be to patent something and simply read the patents I posted. I don't think the vocabulary is too difficult for most any English speaking person to pick up. The second one listed, especially, is very generic in nature. If there is an argument against that, by all means present it.

I made the iPhone comment because it is IRONIC that they are now worrying about this patent being infringed. How many other companies/products might be infringing their patents.

The fact that they accused HTC of 10 infringement and two of them stuck also seems like they are grasping for a few straws here.

I could be wrong, I am certainly not a patent expert, so I can only say it like I see it.
Click to expand...


Many patent attorneys and others also believe that the process should be changed and streamlined. The idea that bad patents are routinely issued comes as no surprise to me or patent experts. Some down right silly things are patented and in some cases, their vague nature creates a problem for many people.

I know of one eBay seller that had an auction stopped by a famous manufacturer of tools. The tool manufacturer made this assertions: they claimed to own the right to use the color yellow in auctions and on-line sales venues. Not making this up, that was their claim. So eBay capitulated because a DMCA Takedown Order was issued by this company charging a violation.

Sad that eBay bent over and cost the seller time and effort.

As for patents, We need then but they need to be reasonable. But unreasonable or not, the rights must be protected until the patent is scrutinized by people that have the ability to know if someone's patent is valid or just silly.

Look at this one and tell me if you can begin to get a handle at who owns what because there are many cited references:

http://tinyurl.com/64lvv93
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom