A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by confluence on Sunday August 26, 2012 @06:42PM (#4436522)

It's quite simple. If you sue your competition to win - you will lose because the reason for your success is not protecting your IP rights (which can and will be abused as soon as you succeed - relentlessly) - but by making new IP.

Disney rocks not because of Mickey Mouse - it rocks because of Pixar.

Google rocks not because of PageRank - but because of pushing the edge of search and AI.

Tesla rocks not because of the Roadster - but because of the cars yet to come.

What you've done in the past means nothing in intellectual pursuits - it's what you are going to do that matters.

The only places Apple can enter now are to continue trying to grow PC market share and Virtual Reality. Google does both better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by mcclux on Sunday August 26, 2012 @07:52PM (#4436716)

So how does this philosophy square with Google's recently filed lawsuit against Apple via Motorola's patents?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by confluence on Sunday August 26, 2012 @07:59PM (#4436737)

Apple started it - Google is defending both Samsung and it's Android product from the litigiousness of the new Apple.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by sbuk on Sunday August 26, 2012 @08:56PM (#4436890)

No. Nokia and Motorola did. If you are going to pontificate, get your facts right.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by confluence on Sunday August 26, 2012 @09:06PM (#4436919)

Go back far enough and someone's father started it - what's your point?

I didn't actively buy Nokia or Motorola for this very reason.

Google acquired Motorola to defend against Apple and Microsoft. They are doing so admirably.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by sbuk on Monday August 27, 2012 @03:04AM (#4437754)

My point is that you are trying, constantly to have the final word in a construct of your making that is based entirely on a fallacy and doing so in an extremely smug manner. To follow your line of thought, with your hubris continuing to grow you will eventually become too cocky and get you next investment increadibly wrong and lose everything in the process.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by confluence on Monday August 27, 2012 @03:07AM (#4437762)

I disagree with what you say unfortunately - so I guess we should just agree to disagree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by mcclux on Monday August 27, 2012 @11:25AM (#4439237)

Judging by the bump in AAPL today, I think you sold too soon.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by pazimzadeh on Monday August 27, 2012 @10:56AM (#4439065)

Let's come back to this thread in a few months, shall we?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious by arn on Sunday August 26, 2012 @07:39PM (#4436682)

Yes, if you stop innovating, then another company can innovate their way to your marketshare.

No argument there. The argument is that you see initiating a lawsuit as a sign that a company is not innovating.

A lawsuit and a company's ability to innovate are independent variables.

[ Parent | on HN ]