This is one of the many things that I (and probably many others) find fundamentally broken with the patent system. If I'm creating my own mobile operating system from the ground up, I shouldn't have to patent anything if I don't want to. Actual innovation comes in the form of lines of code, not numbers of patents. "IP" as you put it is orthogonal to the actual productive work of a company.
Patents, in my view, should be used strictly to prevent a competitor from producing a direct ripoff of a highly specific invention.
Most important is visually indicating in some fashion what text you are quoting and which text you have written yourself.
True to a point. But isn't it telling that Apple had to resort to buying IP it didn't create? What does that tell you?
I am tired of this straight out lie. See this article:
http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
Lets look at what Apple is using against Samsung:
Trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and Federal trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 -- both of these are directly related to the physical design of the iPhone and iPad.
Trademare infringement on logos: •No. 3,886,196 is the iOS phone app icon. •No. 3,889,642 is the iOS messaging app icon. •No. 3,886,200 is the iOS photos app icon. •No. 3,889,685 is the iOS settings app icon. •No. 3,886,169 is the iOS notes app icon. • No. 3,886,197 is the iOS contacts icon. •Pending No. 85/041,463 is the iTunes icon, which is a riff on U.S. Registration No. 2,935,038, the desktop iTunes logo.
All of those are iOS logos, except an iTunes logo.
Now you might be saying, those aren't patents. True. So lets look at the patents:
D627,790: Graphical User Interface For a Display Screen or Portion Thereof -- filing date: 2007. It's a design patent for their home screen on iOS
D602,016: Electronic Device -- filing date: 2010. This is the design of the shell of the 3g/3gs.
#D618,677: Electronic Device -- filing date: 2008. This is the design of screen and buttons of the 3g/3gs.
Patent #6,493,002: Method and Apparatus for Displaying and Accessing Control and Status Information in a Computer System -- filed 1997. This is really the only patent used against Samsung that is a direct result of their work on MacOS, rather than iOS. I'd argue that this is the only patent in support of your thesis.
Patent #7,469,381: List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display -- filing date: 2003. One of the first patents presumed to be part of their iOS portfolio.
Patent #7,669,134: Method and Apparatus For Displaying Information During An Instant Messaging Session -- filed 2003, although not strictly an iOS patent.
Patent #7,812,828: Ellipse Fitting For Multi-Touch Surfaces -- filed 2007. A very iPhone focused patent.
Patent #7,844,915: Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations -- filed 2007. This is about user feedback during gesture based scrolling operations.
Patent #7,853,891: Method and apparatus for displaying a window for a user interface -- filed 2008. This is related to their iOS window management.
Patent #7,863,533: Cantilevered push button having multiple contacts and fulcrums -- filed in 2008. This is a utility patent on their volume rocker in the 3g/3gs.
My point? The VAST majority of the claims against Samsung are directly smartphone related. The VAST majority a direct result of their work on the iPhone.
As I've noted in other posts, Jobs telegraphed his intention back in 2007 at the iPhone unveiling. See http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-s.... Quoted from Engadget, but I'm sure paraphrased from Jobs, "So let's not use a stylus, we're going to use the best pointing device in the world -- our fingers. We have invented a new technology called multi-touch. It works like magic, you don't need a stylus, far more accurate than any interface ever shipped, it ignores touches, mutli-finger gestures, and BOY have we patented it!"
There's no reason why Android shouldn't have built up similar IP protection in this time. This is why I say whoever ran their IP strategy should be shown the door. This is a firing offense to find yourself in a position where the only way to protect yourself is not to assert your own IP, but to have to resort to buying IP you didn't create.