Microsoft, Apple in iPod patent tussle

TalkBack 72 of 72:

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Patents

It is interesting to see such a row over patents. The patent process is obsolete. There is no need to castigate Apple for letting M$ jump them. There is no need for the business/engineering unit to bother with patents. The archaic nonsense exists solely for Legal to play with after the fact. At my company- we have thousands of patents in microwave communications- we do not bother with patents while innovating. The thrust is to get to market first and sell like crazy. We often no longer bother at all with patents. When we do, it is only so the buzzards can pick a few bones off the carcass.

As I write this, you cannot buy an iPod nano. No amount of licensing fees- whichever way the pennies flow- makes up for the high profit margins an innovative product in short supply can command. The only fault I find with Apple is that proper supply chain management could have put ten times as many new iPods on the street yet maintained the exorbidant prices. That's a big mistake- like when the IBM Thinkpad hit the streets. For innovative products, supply chains must be configured for flexibility, for ability to increase output exponentially on demand. Only mature products must be managed for optimum (low) cost.

As for Microsoft, I find fault only in that I no longer need any of their products. No matter how big they are, that is the face of demise. They'll find something to do, sure; they have a lot of mouths to feed. Think of GM; they forget that building cars is their real reason for existence. So they float on GMAC finance. Your grandchildren will never drive a GM product because there will not be any. They will also never borrow through GMAC finance. Microsoft will live without software worth selling, but not forever. We'll have to find someone else to throw stones at.

Technology companies rarely survive the founders. Look at DEC for instance. I chuckle that journalists cover patent disputes. It's like watching grass grow. Young people are designing the future in their studio apartments. Few journalists have the technological saavy to imagine what they might be working on. So we are served pablum.

Don't lament not investing in M$. You could have made more money than that investing in Qualcomm, for example, when they went public. You could have turned a five figure investment into millions in only two years. Such opportunities are almost always available, but you have to pay very close attention to everything to find them. Unfortunately, the broad view and ability to do detailed, laborious work rarely coexist in an individual. To find these opportunities requires a small team. If you are not spending most of your waking hours in such an arrangement, you are wasting your time. Interdependence is the key. Ego is for losers.

Posted by: merlion   Posted on: 12/13/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Trend Micro Email Encryption Trend Micro Take this tour of our Email Encryption demo, and learn: Why you ... Download Now
• IBM Smart Business Time Savings Test IBM If time is money - is your organization in need of a way to save both? ... Download Now
• Dell IT Cuts Energy Costs by Up to 40 Percent With a New Power Management Plan Dell Energy conservation is an increasingly important issue for organizations ... Download Now