Apple is losing money again after being sued for patents?

For a while, people criticized Apple for not having a strong sense of innovation, and its product design ability declined, and it no longer had the iconic personality that was originally maverick. Even in many innovative applications, Apple has not come to the forefront of the industry. We have seen that many technological and product innovations are advocated and first introduced by Samsung, Huawei, and more Chinese mobile phone manufacturers. Apple is just responding to it. After the design of the company has been verified by the market to a certain extent, it began to follow up gradually. This includes curved screens, large screens, folding screens, and 5G.

Of course, this is only one aspect, because what Cook cares about are marketing ability and market share. As for whether it can lead the technological breakthrough and development direction of an industry, it is not very concerned. In addition, we have seen that Apple may be a cause of the popularity of the tree, and it often encounters patent lawsuits.

Perhaps it is "there are more lice, not itchy." After experiencing many litigation disputes, Apple has also become more comfortable in the face of such litigation. At the beginning of the lawsuit, I did not respond, until the time when the court finally went to court, and then sought private, often lost money many times. It has no impact on the sales of Apple products. In most cases, the subject of the lawsuit also hopes to get compensation. Apple is wealthy, and it takes a bite of meat from its body. Why not do it?

Of course, the premise is that there is a solid patented technology in hand, in order to impose such a "routine" on Apple. There are some patent "rogue companies" that have always been the focus of revenue. The annual patent income of large patent owners is very high. Although technological breakthroughs are not easy to develop, the existence of "patent hooligans" also restricts the continued development and extension of technology within a certain range.

This time, Apple is facing a technology patent lawsuit, and the area involved is still relatively wide. Some companies have alleged that almost all Apple products that support Wi-Fi and mobile data connections infringe on Class 1 wireless communications patents. The lawsuit was conducted in Texas, the United States. Apple was accused of infringing on 13 wireless and voice traditional patents owned by the non-physical company Smart Mobiel, LLC, including products such as iPhone and iPad. The main purpose is to use these patents to increase the capacity of holding wireless and digital communication equipment.

The patent dispute is mainly aimed at iPhone mobile phones, iPad tablet computers, and Apple Watch smartwatches. The iPhone mobile phones involved start from the iPhone 5S to the latest iPhone 12 series. And the patent also mentions the wireless technology functions of some Apple products, including multi-path TCP and MIMO. The former is to support the simultaneous use of various wireless and cellular data, and the latter is to enhance the wireless connection performance through multiple antennas. However, it is worth noting that although there are 13 patent claims, almost all patents have one thing in common, and some of them belong to the extended continuation of related patent applications filed in 1999.

The lawsuit pointed out that since the second half of 2015, Apple has known at least 8 patents of Smart Mobile, LLC, and at that time the company tried to sell its intellectual property through a patent intermediary (Global Technology Transfer Group). The plaintiff asked the jury to judge. In addition to infringement compensation and other remedies, Smart Mobile, LLC also seeks to permanently prohibit Apple from continuing to manufacture or sell the products involved. It is estimated that the latter's request is basically difficult to support except for the loss of money. Banning the sale of Apple products is almost a fantasy. Apple is not "scared" either. For this kind of patent litigation, it has always been "one delay, two things, three losses", and the final result may still be lost.