Mood:
brightTopic: Apple Fritters
| http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/viewreplies.cgi?board=AAPL&reply=199250 |
By: danfl_11
27 Mar 2007, 01:00 PM EDT
Msg. 199250 of 199305
(This msg. is a reply to 199242 by lucky_limey.)
Jump to msg. #
lucky_lime that is interesting. Desktops are headed toward think clients (thin clients with access to intelligence) and that means there's a foreseeable end to operating systems like what Apple and Microsoft make.
Jobs sees this and is migrating and evolving toward the iphone concept with the Apple pcs becoming servers for interconnective interoperability for the user/owner.
Others will hook their iphones as they choose to web services and never need a computer at home have more power than what can fit on a pc and do it for less and is spent on the 'home server' concept.
Funny Apple is headed outward from the PC with the iPhone and Microsoft is headed in the closet. Could it be that somebody knew the day of reckoning would soon be upon them and they knew to flee early? The one who flees late gets fleas and has to scratch out in the open.
That would be a brilliant tactical move on the early guy's part would it not? In one swell foop you avoid being caught out in the open where all your products will be torn apart in the newspapers looking for the offending IP and you will have prepared yourself a cave in which to hide so you may use the offending IP beyond scrutiny as you apply a 'proprietary' tag. If you think about it it's the perfect setup.
Imagine if you will this scenario. Dates are given as a dipstick indicator to demonstrate the time scale inherent in this type of caper.
Let's just say:
1. Exhibit A owns intellectual property under development (circa 2001).
2. Exhibit B knows about Exhibit A methods and starts duplicating development.
3. Exhibit C sees the development effort by Exhibit B and 'reverse engineers' the methods.
4. Exhibit C searches
a. does not see any Exhibit B intellectual property material
b. does not know about Exhibit A
c. assumes property is out there for the taking due to prior art
5. Exhibit B competes with Exhibit A in development work required to build out the property assuming Exhibit A will not survive the climb to maturity inherent in any startup life-cycle.
6. Exhibit D (patents) are granted giving Exhibit A legal ownership of significant architectural segments of technology.
7. Exhibit B upon hearing the Exhibit D news halts production and proceeds to extract offending intellectual property.
8. Exhibit C does not see or regard the Exhibit D news and continues competition with Exhibit B using methods copied from now Exhibit D elements.
8. Time passes (circa 1 year)
9. Exhibit E (the market) matures and Exhibit C begins preparing product for sale unaware of Exhibit A's intellectual property ownership granted in Exhibit D.
10. Exhibit B is notified by Exhibit A Counsel and begins negotiations with Exhibit A.
11. Exhibit C is notified by Exhibit A Counsel and begins negotiations with Exhibit A.
12. Exhibit C upon being notified by Exhibit A Counsel halts production and proceeds to extract Exhibit D property if negotiations with Exhibit A are not successful.
14. What should be evident is that:
15. Exhibit A is not responsible for the lead regardless the length in time and knowledge advancement Exhibit B took over Exhibit C.
16. Exhibit A furthermore is not responsible for financial losses and business image losses incurred by Exhibit C due to Exhibit D involvement as the burden of due diligence in the discovery of like prior art or claimed property falls on Exhibit C and is not mitigated by:
a. the smallness of Exhibit A
b. the early petition for patent status by Exhibit A
c. the 'unknowable' natures of technology intellectual property development
17. Exhibit A expects Exhibit B and Exhibit C to find some means of circumventing the licensing process further expecting legal opinion to respect the competitive nature of business and the difficult nature of roof in 'intent'.
18. Exhibit A would thus be concerned by prior and continuing reported and recorded efforts at purloining intellectual properties within both Exhibit B and Exhibit C and would petition to have activities by both Exhibit B and Exhibit C examined for both intellectual property infringements and the levels of early knowledge evidenced.
19. Exhibit A would per proper governance petition to facilitate discovery toward civil and possible criminal events and natures concerning the parties and the properties.
20. Therefore a concerted effort to encourage Exhibit B and Exhibit C toward successful license negotiation regarding Exhibit D with Exhibit A would be to Exhibit B and Exhibit C benefit and could be considered an altruistic offer allowing Exhibit B and Exhibit C to avoid the possible 'absorption' level renderings in judgment possible and projected regarding indicated abusive intent against Exhibit A and Exhibit D per Exhibit E delays induced by unfair competition practices by Exhibit B against Exhibit A and Exhibit D.
21. Resolved: Knowing business mindsets these days in the technological industries we assume and expect a certain degree of hard contact competition. Prior events indicate small entities require various protections from much larger entities known to wait out or starve out competition. Increased diligence over Exhibit A and Exhibit D appears needed and Exhibit A would petition for various protections from various governmental and judicial agencies. As for the nature of early knowledge had by Exhibit B one can assume we're all adults and Exhibit B and Exhibit C can discuss amongst themselves how to resolve the early knowledge or 'skunking' issue.
Indications are they both need to get cleaned up and ready for the health inspector. Kind of like pickled pilfered property pork skins. Not necessarily a skins game. More like a never ending meal.
There's my twenty+ questions to Ray Ozzie and Steve Jobs both. I wonder how it will all get answered?
See how easy it is to 'sound' legal without actually 'being' legal? I know the law like I know jet engines. I don't. I can act like I do and sound like I do but like with every unfounded thing in this cold and getting colder Universe everything somebody like me says is classified in legal circles as a 'rumor'.
You guys know from 'rumor' right?
(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- No Position)
