Would 2010 Steve Jobs Sue 1996 (Or 1984) Steve Jobs Over Patents?

from the innovation-vs.-litigation dept

One of the things you discover in studying the history of patent use among many companies is that when they're young, they innovate. When they're old, they litigate. That is when they're growing and building cool stuff, they don't worry much about patents, but focus on building the coolest products they can to best serve the market. But when they get older, and entrenched, they don't innovate quite as much, but focus instead on trying to keep competitors out of the market. We highlighted this by showing Microsoft's changing views on patents, from Bill Gates' claim in 1991 that "the industry would be at a complete standstill" if companies had used patents in the PC software space early on, to Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith saying in 1997 that "software patents and other intellectual property is essential to maintaining the incentives that encourage and underwrite technological breakthroughs."

Similarly, a year ago, we highlighted how Apple appeared to be going through a similar shift, quoting Steve Wozniak's claim about how the Apple II was "one of the most successful products of all time," in part because they didn't think about patents or copyright, and shared their ideas freely with everyone -- to Apple's Tim Cook's claims that "We will not stand for having our IP ripped off, and we will use every weapon at our disposal."

With Apple now going on the offensive against HTC (and, by proxy, Google's Android), it seems others are noticing not just an overall corporate shift, but the change in viewpoints of Steve Jobs. william points us to a Gizmodo post highlighting how Steve Jobs noted how Apple was "shameless about stealing great ideas." But in the announcement about the HTC lawsuit, he has a different perspective: "competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

Strong words coming from the guy who admits he blatantly copied the graphical user interface he saw at Xerox PARC many years ago. Now, no one's going to claim that Apple and Jobs haven't been incredibly innovative over the past decade (or more). In fact, they've been amazingly innovative. But during that time, the company has mostly focused on continually innovating, rather than going on the offensive over patents. It seems like this new offensive move might be an early warning sign that the company no longer believes it can keep up its innovative pace.

Filed Under: patents, steve jobs
Companies: apple


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2010 @ 7:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents probably should be gotten rid of at this point.

    "Question: How often is it not followed?

    In the software world? Almost 100% of the time. Ask any programmer and they will tell you that a patent is useless in writing new software. The disclosure is meaningless."

    Good technique. Totally ignore the question and answer with an irrelevancy. I was talking about all patents, not patents on underwear, tires, or any other specialty. You have not answered the question. Don't bother. You do not have an answer.

    "Again, how much are we talking about? There are tons of companies that essentially say, "sue me." The number of law suits appears to have gone down. If they have been replaced with other things, how about some evidence of just how often this is happening?

    According to Eric von Hippel, MIT prof. who has studied these things, lawsuits represent *less than 5%* of patent disputes. The other 95% plus are settled before they go to court."

    I have no idea about Eric von Hippel's study, but other studies indicate that plaintiffs lose the vast majority of time until an actual trial. Lose may mean "settle," but it also means that the plaintiff does not get money.

    "Ummm...it appears that the "huge awards" are getting slashed, and significantly. I think I saw somewhere (no need to provide a link because no one else here is bothering to provide any actual numbers) that the average award, when a case gets to trial, is somewhere around $3.4 million.

    Bullshit. Research released just a month ago suggested exactly the opposite. Lying will get you nowhere:

    http://271patent.blogspot.com/2010/01/pwc-releases-2009-patent-litigation.html

    Awards are increasing, not decreasing. Especially from trolls.

    Also consider that the average award has been decreasing steadily.

    Bullshit. It's been increasing.

    Lies will get you nowhere."

    Ad hominem attacks do not become you, and your lies will get you no where. I counter with my study, which, interestingly enough, IS YOUR STUDY AND IT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT; I ask you to look at the chart on page 6 of the STUDY YOU CITED. You will note that the two peak years for average awards was 2001 and 2005. The average award has decreased, with ups and downs, but in 2008 was about $3 million average, significantly less than the cost of litigation and significantly less than the 2001 peak of more than $10 million per suit.

    http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2009-patent-litigation-study .pdf

    Come on back when you have some facts now, 'k?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.