We often discuss platform developments. The APPLE iPod and iTunes platform are a great discussion topic because of the may dimensions of product/service development we can approach.
One of the areas to discuss is protecting innovation. In the article "Apple Fails in Patenting iPod Technology", we can see the hyper-competitive arena these titans are competing in, and how difficult it may be to protect innovation.
What are your thoughts on protecting innovation? What should APPLE have done? Why was MICROSOFT successful? Did APPLE actually "fail"?
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Gene A. Wright
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In reading this article, the question that comes to mind is: Why did Apple wait so long in filing the patent application?
For something that differentiates its MP3 player from a competitor's product, I would believe that a company such as Apple would want to have their patent application submitted before going to market in order to protect their innovative design. In an electronic technology field there seems to be such a short product life cycle. Before you know it, every competitor would have something similar to compete against Apple’s IPod. By establishing a stronghold on the patent, the profitability on the idea could be ensured. Now as a result to Apple’s tardiness in submitting their patent application, it could cost them a significant amount in profits and a reduction of shareholder value in the company.
I believe that Apple was more concerned with getting their product to market first than the product patent. By having their product in the consumer’s hands they have the ability to "direct" them to there I-Tunes web site and sell music. The problem now for Apple is to win their case so they do not have to pay Microsoft royalties on ever I-Pod device sold.
In the end, the question will be if Apple made more money having the I-pod on the market first or if they would have had a patent on the I-Pod? My guess is they will gain more by getting their product to the market first.
The timing of patent applications, as well as challenges to patents is often a legal strategy as well as a business strategy. Apple was not likely negligent in its filing. Rather MicroSoft chose to file a very broad patent to potentially gain royalties from Apple. MiroSoft’s motivation may also be force Apple to accept some of its software in further developments of the iPod (or even some other unrelated technology under development).
Apple’s subsequent filing was not likely coincidental, but more likely to force a ruling or to tie up the issue in court. As Joe mentioned, “Today’s product lifecycles are rather short.” Apple’s tactic may be sufficient for the planned iPod Life.
I thought Kaefer's quote, "Our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products," was a nice shot at Apple. I have to think that with as much product in the market as Apple and its ipod, they would have some legal claim.
-CTS
With regards to patents on software, it is my understanding that companies shy away from patents. When a patent is granted, the technology becomes public knowledge. This gives your competitors inside information on your technology. In the legal realm, incremental innovations can create completely new wording, which leads to totally new patents. Perhaps, it was Apple's strategy to not patent and it backfired.
Does anyone know why the application was rejected?
Apple certainly has the market share and mind share for digital players. That along the the fact that Microsoft has very little in this market should count for something.
As Professor Wright points out how much of the iPod is product and how much is service? There is tremendous value in the iTunes store and user base so even if they lose some on the player they still hold that as a valuable asset. Are there any patents in question on that?
My first thought coincides with Joe's question regarding the delayed application filing. Even if Apple was focusing on the design and manufacturing, why did they wait a year after releasing the iPod before filing? Should they have minimally applied for a provisional patent? In attempting to locate the patents discussed, I noticed how generalized and broad the wording and descriptions can be and how easily applications submitted can overlap.
Post a Comment