Will Apple be the next SCO or the next Microsoft?

Summary: If Apple can settle these suits under favorable terms it can also win patent peace with Microsoft. This would free it to create iPhones as the market directs, rather than within constraints of lawyers and patent rights.

Apple's suit against HTC could end one of two ways.

Either Apple becomes the next SCO, which ran itself aground claiming rights to Linux, or it becomes the next Microsoft, which is prospering while claiming to own Linux.

The answer depends on how hard Apple presses its case.

You can get a clue by looking at who Apple has sued. While the suit is actually about the Android operating system Google sponsors, the company has been careful to only go after one of its OEMs, a Taiwanese one at that.

That's a strike-at-the-weak strategy. You get the best deal you can with a weak player and then use that against the strong. The emphasis here is on the word weak.

On the other hand there is every indication Apple is willing to go to trial. As Larry Dignan noted last week, this could quickly put it into court against both Google and Microsoft. It would be a legal Vietnam.

Jason Perlow wrote last week about a technical cure for any problems caused by the suit -- virtualization. You can't sue what's common, and virtualization could make a fight against rivals like trying to grab clouds.

The real cost in going to trial and claiming to own the smartphone space is more subtle. Apple could become a laughing stock, as SCO did. The intent of our patent and copyright regimes is to encourage innovation, not discourage it, and seeking control of the whole smartphone market does not encourage innovation.

There are enormous public relations risks in becoming a public plaintiff in patent court. Many people will, as a result of such a suit, avoid the plaintiff's products as a way of weighing-in. This is what really happened to SCO -- its sales dried up.

Had Apple sued Google directly, I might give credence to this. SCO sued IBM. You go after the strong when you seek to run the patent table.

Could that happen to Apple? Yes, I do. At least one market researcher thinks Android sales could pass those of the iPhone in two years.

Which brings me back to Microsoft.

I have written here that the way Microsoft views its own patent efforts, like its recent agreement deal with Amazon, is as a way to take patents off the competitive table. Microsoft is using legal threats to create patent peace between it and its rivals, freeing its engineers to concentrate on creating things, not dealing with lawyers.

Apple doesn't really innovate. Apple doesn't really litigate. Apple markets.

If Apple can settle these suits under favorable terms it can also win patent peace with Microsoft. This would free it to create iPhones as the market directs, rather than within constraints of lawyers and patent rights.

That's the way I think it will play. Apple will settle. Apple is not stupid.

Topics: Microsoft, Apple, Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

138 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Tell that to Psystar

    [i]Apple doesn?t really litigate[/i]

    Oops, you can't, Psystar no longer exists. :(

    I'm very curious to see what will happen with
    these patent suits, not so much because it will
    mean the end of HTC and Apple will have used
    the courts to take away competition, but more
    what it means to OSs in general. Linux violates
    nearly every single patent that Apple is suing
    HTC for, as does Windows. And with a $50
    billion legal fund, Apple isn't SCO.
    NonZealot
    • 40 bn

      it is only 40 bn now but probably 50 bn in cash and short term
      investments by the end of the year.
      bannedfromzdnetagain
      • Apple = SCO

        Given time.. most likely.

        But unlike SCO, Apple does have a few fanatics who will keep fueling its survival.

        Is Apple worth the money you pay for it. NO WAY.
        Uralbas
    • Big Difference

      There is a big difference between suing Pystar and suing Microsoft or Linux (er, the companies behind Linux, that is). For every one of Apple's patents, Microsoft has two (maybe even three). And in the case of IBM, the ratio is probably four or five. (Good god, could you imagine if IBM or the Patent Alliance got dragged in? They could probably obliterate every one of Apple's business lines without even breaking a sweat.)

      What the Mac fanboys do not seem to grasp is just how much of a mess the software patent world is in. Last year, while filing for two software related patents, I got a bit of a taste. Everyone infringes everyone else. (It would make an interesting article to try and sort out by just how much.)

      A related problem is that many ideas have been doubly patented, and in some cases triply patented. And in those cases, the differences are so superficial as to be non-existent.

      This is why the whole HTC lawsuit was such a surprise. Apple is risking all-out patent war. And a 40 billion legal fund is of little use when up against the billions of the tech industry as a whole. It shows that Apple is either worried about their ability to remain on top through innovation, or that they're executive leadership is actually arrogant enough to believe their own bullshit. In either case, Apple fans should be worried.
      Rob Oakes
      • I totally agree with...

        your first paragraph. This is exactly why MS has not and will not start an all out patent war and Apple is treading on dangerous ground. IBM has a massive portfolio and it's the last company either Apple or MS wants to piss off. Piss off the big boys and someone will get torn a new one.

        As for HTC, it,s just too early to tell what will happen. Software patents are a bad idea and do nothing but stifle innovation and a win for Apple will hurt everyone.
        Dave32265
        • Yes but the distinction is hard

          Software patents should not be allowed, however,
          algorithms SHOULD be patented. Its takes a lot of
          money to do R&D on an algorithm, and without a
          patent anybody can just look into your software
          and copy it, which is NOT productive to
          innovation. The question is, whats the difference
          between a piece of code and an algorithm, its all
          just math anyway.
          shadfurman
    • "Linux violates nearly every single patent..."

      It is? And you know this for 100% sure how? Are you a lawyer or have inside info on the "infringing" code? What code in the kernel (which is Linux btw) is the culprit? It's what HTC put on top of Linux that is in dispute and frankly, I'd rather wait for the courts to decide than take your word for it.
      Dave32265
      • Oh get off it

        I'm an enormous Open source fan, but it is important to understand that Linux probably does infringe many patents. If not direct code violations, then certainly UI patents. This does not mean that ideas were stolen, but that the original patents were suspect.

        Microsoft probably could move against Linux vendors, if it so chose. But that would mean angering IBM and the OpenInnovation Network (or whatever it's called now). Linux vendors have prepared for just such a nuclear holocaust, and Microsoft knows it. They saber rattle and a business or two will occasionally toss them a bone.

        If their claims didn't have at least some merity, they would be ignored wholesale.
        Rob Oakes
        • Look at my...

          post above. I said just that.
          Dave32265
          • So you did, sorry about that

            Sorry, I find the "Linux doesn't violate anything" crowd to be tiresome. Software patents are such a mess that it is nearly impossible to build anything complicated without stepping on a land mine.

            When I wanted to file for a new MRI processing algorithm last year, we found out that Siemens had a patent from 1993 that apparently covered out method. Because we were working with Siemens, I contacted their legal office to inquire about it.

            Turns out that they submitted the patent application just in case they ever developed technology along that line of inquiry. At the time the patent application was submitted, they lacked the technology to actually make it a reality. They were happy to help us differentiate our claims so that the two didn't conflict. But it was still an interesting experience.
            Rob Oakes
          • this exemplifies the problem with patents

            People patent ideas for things they can't actually create. As Dana has stated in his article "The intent of our patent and copyright regimes is to encourage innovation, not discourage it......". This action by Siemens is a perfect example of a patent that hinders innovation as they came up with an idea but as they weren't able to follow through all they succeeded in doing was prevent people from actually creating this. Ironically right to the point where they have created a headache for one of their own partners.
            The whole system of patents is flawed as is demonstrated by these types of cases. Before the 19th century all knowledge was effectively open. Every invention created was shared and hence improved upon.. Someone invented the wheel as a solid block, everyone used it.. someone later on saw that it could be made later by using frames and spokes.. e.t.c..
            Even in the arts progression by appropriation and reworking was common.. Bach did it to the early Christian hymn writers, Mozart did it to Bach, Beethoven did to Mozart and so on...(this is a highly abridged version of music history but illustrates the point)

            While these capitalist tools of copyright and patent have made some people very rich cashwise it could be at the expense of the progression of society as whole.
            Aussie_linux_user
      • Did you read the patents Apple is suing over?

        [b]Every[/b] OS out there infringes on most of them, that is how broad they are. I'm not singling out Linux because I like the fact that
        Linux violates these patents, I'm singling out Linux because you need to understand that Apple, being the enemy of MS, does not make them
        your friend. Apple is [b]worse[/b] than MS when it comes to this sort of stuff. I'm also trying to drive home the point that these patents
        are so ridiculously broad that it would be nearly impossible not to infringe.

        http://gizmodo.com/5483689/the-apple-patents-cockpunching-all-smart-phones-an-illustrated-guide/gallery/

        Take a look at all of the later ones which are so broad that it would be impossible to release an OS that didn't infringe.
        NonZealot
      • If Linux violates all patents.. Apple is in Trouble

        as OS X is Linux underneath!
        Uralbas
        • Er, no.

          OS/X is based on BSD; but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
          rahbm
    • Jobs said Apple shamelessly steals great ideas. He left out, then patents..

      them too!!

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/steve-jobs-weve-always-be_n_482791.html
      xuniL_z
      • Did you even read your link?

        Read where it says, [b]Update: To clarify, and as is clear in the video, Jobs was quoting Pablo Picasso in the headlined quote.[/b]

        Here's a better link:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

        ;-)
        Arm A. Geddon
        • Doesn't matter who he's quoting

          He agrees with the philosophy and embraces it in his corporate actions, at
          least on the face of it.
          PacoBell
          • Can you imagine if Bill Gates had said that? Here's what may have occurred

            several zdnet bloggers would have written headline blogs about it seperately, from different angles and taks you know, but all negative.
            The number of hits on each blog would have hit 800 at least, being a field day for ABMers across this site.

            It would run for weeks, slowly tailing off into small blogs toward the end.
            xuniL_z
          • Actually...

            Bill Gates said, Quote:

            "Imagine the disincentive to software development if after
            months of work another company could come along and copy
            your work and market it under its own name...without legal
            restraints to such copying, companies like Apple could not
            afford to advance the state of the art." -- Bill Gates, 1983 (New
            York Times, 25 Sep 1983, p. F2

            Ironic, isn't it?
            Jkirk3279
          • No, it's not ironic. It's a great stance and I back him 100%

            I'm not saying Apple doesn't have any legitimate patents. I'm sure they do.

            But many feel that Apple has patented work that open source has done for him, or ideas Apple took from other vendors or people and with small changes patented those very ideas simply because it never occurred to the actual and humble inventor to do so. And not because of ignorance, but because they practice ethical living and never thought for a second a bottom feeding troll led company would siphon it off, add a small twist and patent it.
            Patents are good things and large companies have to file for them on their on innovations.
            But the Apple legal army has been working overtime patenting everything in sight, whether it belonged to them in the first place or not.
            Dirty dirty Apple and it's megalomaniacal leader who has a history of criminal behavior and cheating others out of what is theirs. He did it to the very group he supposedly formed out of support and goodness of heart with open source, but we know how that works. He uses and uses then shuts the door in their face when they want more code and specifics for what was *supposed* to be a *working* open source implementation of the OS
            And yes, they do feed code to freeBSD regularly, but freeBSD is of no threat to Mr. Jobs and he gets a big return from their freely avaliable code, which he then has implemented and patented.

            Jobs is still the dirty crook he was when he was selling illegal long distance stealing devices. He is actually much much worse of a human being that he was then, he has gotten much more abusive and a user of others than ever before.
            That is what I see so it's my opinion and it's based on things I've read and things I've put together on my own, and I am sticking with it.

            I'm sure those of you on this site that can't stand Microsoft and spend all of your time ripping on them will completely understand.
            Wait, I take that back, no you won't. You don't realize what exactly it is your are doing and you are so jaded it is just part of your existence at this point.
            JimGodofBiscuits