Apple sues HTC for alleged infringement of 20 iPhone patents - Page 4

I do have

I'm not sure what your follow up would be, but if it's a comment about how he shouldn't make such a comment without knowing all other judicial systems in the world then I suggest you don't. He didn't say that the US is the best he simply made a comment that he'd rather be on trial in the US. If he's an American who understand the American legal system then that certainly makes sense. I'd choose Amazonia and death by snu-snu, but that's me.

yup, exactly. Nokia fired the first shot, and now it's open season. expect to see a lot more patent suits filed by just about everyone against everyone - all the big boys.

it had to happen. there is no other way to resolve the questions of who - if anyone - holds the genuinely valid patents on whatever. and what cannot be patented at all.

in 4 or 5 years we'll know.

immediate question is what will happen in the meantime. each OEM will perform a secret risk analysis to assess their products' patent infringement vulnerability vs. Apple and others. then they will avoid the highest risk items in future products, using some kind of modifications or work-arounds in their place. we should see the first "adjustments" in upcoming new HTC smartphones this summer or fall.

Steve Jobs: Good artists copy great artists steal.

Several patents are about the implementation of multi-touch gestures.

Just because it's been around awhile outside of the US doesn't mean squat. Apple has likely been preparing this suit for at least 6 months or most likely more. It takes time to investigate exactly what mechanisms are being used to implement certain functions on the phone, and to determine if it's using something that you've patented.

Apple may have decided to go forward with the suit since the Nexus One, but they certainly could not have prepared a lawsuit (in which they expect to win) in less than 60 days. Only simpletons think like that.

[CENTER]Personal Attack -

The last resort of those having absolutely no legitimate argument.

(NOTE: Very Common In Here)[/CENTER]

Please keep your posts on-topic and remember that there is a human being on the other end of the personal attacks that are being slung around. There are plenty of things to discuss here without getting into childish insults.

I'm going to assume that this is the only warning that grown-ups need and any further childish behaviour is a request by the user perpetrating it for a warning or a ban.

Thank you!

Sorry, but this is a retarded comment, as most of the patents in question seem to revolve around the hardware implementation to make certain UI or software functions happen; some involving multi-touch. Competition doesn't mean that one company can implement the exact same mechanism/process to generate some user functionality. But many like you need to brush up on patents and patent law.

Now if it was strictly a UI question (i.e., swipe left-to-right), then I'd agree with you that it is retarded, but it doesn't look that way from a quick perusing of the patents.

Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers". The only real one has been the iPod and the iPhone which isn't even the #1 selling smartphone.

Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best. Its not like they have been burning up the tech industry with everyone following for decades. Most of their products can bearly even make a dent in market share and the simple fact is they do well because they have a cult following that is willing to be over charged for hardware.

If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.

Lets jump back into reality when it come to how long Apple has truly been successful which by the way can change at anytime as it can with any company. Also note Apple has never put anyone out of business. It took them forever just to shutdown a company like Psystar which was pretty much run out of someones garage. Comparing them shutting down psystar compared to HTC backed by Google is freaking joke.

One cannot patent an idea (at least, that's the way it's supposed to be).

What a company like Apple is patenting is the hardware (and software) mechanism/process underlying the implementation of the idea. There are usually multiple ways to implement an idea, some are more efficient, some are less - but competitors should come up with another way.

For example, you cannot patent the idea of a "latch" or something that locks two or more things together. But you can patent a particular implementation of a latch - perhaps using springs or magnets or something else.

I never said that anyone here had no right to comment - that obviously is untrue given the LARGE number of comments and opinions - of varying degrees of inaccuracy or accuracy. But opinions are just that. These are not statements of fact, which is OK - this is a blog and no one here is required to validate their opinions with defensible facts, just like Engadget weighing in with that particular label is immaterial. Engadget is a tech news and blog site. Theirs is a reputation based on popularity and secondarily accuracy. Fact sites are relatively boring, and with the possible exception of Wikipedia, largely unpopular by web standards. However, when has Engadget EVER, in the course of its existence represented anything approaching a considerable fraction of tech opinion??

What the heck, let's deal directly with your comments to make sure we are on the same page:

I find it amusing that you find your attribution of me thinking everyone here is an idiot amusing. never stated nor implied that, and I think you are being disingenuous by saying you are amused - your statements indicate otherwise. My statement stands as previously written - a deep lack of understanding is not idiocy - uninformed, ignorant perhaps (where extreme) but not idiocy. I happen to respect the opinions expressed in here that have a fairly firm basis in fact, or are otherwise (if not factual) ardently or passionately expressed as a belief, but not presented as fact. That seems to me to reflect decent grasp of reality.

With extensive and long-term experience in corporate life, I completely disagree with your statement that corporations are like people. If you insist, they are so in completely superficial and unimportant ways. So we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I will weigh my education and experience in on this one against yours if push comes to shove and we will have to judge based on that. However no one I know who is involved in enterprise communication, business management or business theory will agree with your statement. There are advanced degrees and post-graduate programs devoted to understanding how corporations and the enterprise work, seems like an awful lot of people have gone to great effort for no purpose if understanding corporations was so easy and commonsense.

You have waxed grandiloquent on things that you have in error attributed to me. And while I appreciate the common-man approach of "awe shucks you all are just one of them puffed up know-it-alls that kills all the fun in our blogs" you are simply wrong in this case. Just because I call out those who insist on building houses of cards on speculation when things get silly, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the silliness or admire the architecture, which is why I'm here. So lighten up a bit Francis.

I have written a software which supports development processes. (I'm no layer)
One of the first points is patent research.
So I did a short research at www.patents.com. The starting point was this link:

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...oth-documents/

The patents have been granted between 1995 and 2010 but often were filled years ago.

An example: http://www.patents.com/Unlocking-a-d...7657849/en-US/

Let's look at this example:
- granted February 02 2010
- filed December 23, 2005
- including 47 references to other patents which sometimes include other patent references

It's not so easy to judge the situation when You develop something new.
The common ways to deal with it are:

- modify your product in a way that you can avoid problems
- get a license from the patent holder
- cross license patents
- buy licensed parts
- ignore the patents and save some money for the lawsuit

I don't know why it took so long to get this patent, but even if a patent isn't granted you can do a research and read it.
hard to say if someone can claim "prior art" but if, HTC should have done a research.

From my point of view Apple is no patent troll. They did the research, invented the technique and made a product available for purchase.

Not sure if I'm right at this point, but I think the other facts from this post are valid for those who want to form their personal opinion.

Depends on what you mean by "game changer". Most people think it means that it significantly changes the game that was being played by the competitors prior to its arrival. Most people don't think it means "become dominant" or "#1 selling." Sometimes the game-changer can take advantage and become dominant for a long period; sometimes it isn't able to do so (lack of capital, lack of patentable innovations, lack of other market barriers, incompetent management).

The Mac UI was a game changer in user interfaces for computers. Windows OS was a game changer in software licensing. Dell was a game changer in computer assembly and sales. iPod was a game changer in music delivery and consumption. iPhone was a game changer in user interfaces for phones and in phone sales/distribution in the mobile industry (even mobile experts who are Nokia fans agree with that).

What the heck is "bearly"?

The GUI
Macintosh
The Mouse
iPod
iPod Touch
iPod Nano
iPhone
iTunes
OS X (Microsoft clearly loves it)
App Store
iMacs

and now . . .
The iPad


Try the past decade.


Let's see it. If it's anything like any of the other lists we've seen floating around the internets, Apple's done much better than even I expected.

You are correct in your Apple vs. MS history.

I think some "look and feel" lawsuits were lost (Lotus vs. MS) which makes people wary of suing. I don't believe Apple patents "look and feel"; they patent the hardware (and software) mechanism/process/technique underlying it. In other words, they do not patent the concept of "pinching" to make something smaller. But they do patent the multi-touch mechanism, consisting of hardware sensors and software interpretation, that they use to sense the pinching and compress the image sent to the display.

Others can implement pinching to make something smaller but they need to use a different mechanism to make it happen.

Apple does file for "design trademarks" which provides protection for a certain look of a device. That look can be hardware size/shape or a software-driven arrangement of an icon(s) on a display, or both.

Actually I own two macs......

My point is that the suit is more about Apply not wanting to have to compete with a phone like the Nexus One which seem to operate significantly different than the iPhone...

P.S. The look and feel issue was sorted out years ago with the Lotus vs Excel law suits.....

At least a window GUI and a computer mouse have NOT been invented by Apple

Nor did Apple invent a touchscreen on a smartphone, but they sure as hell perfected it.

Game. Changer.

Same with whatever came attached to the Macintosh in 1984.

Apple might still go after Palm, not for iTunes sync, but for using Apple's techniques in implementing its multi-touch, if Palm actually did so. After all, the Palm Pre only came to market in May 2009, which is way after the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1) that is mentioned in Apple's suit.

There is more than one way to implement multi-touch in hardware/software, and maybe Palm actually figured out another way to do it. In which case, Apple wouldn't sue.

In reality and not fantasy land (where so many live), it takes time and resources to break down your competitor's products to see what it is that they most likely did.

Eventually your argument will break down into "matter can't be destroyed or created so Apple have NOT invented anything." Seriously though, the way the GUI and mouse are implemented and utilized can be patented.

Game-changing does not equal invention.

Game-changing is bringing a product to market in such a way that it changes the game. It could include an invention, or a simple modification of someone else's invention, or no invention at all. It could have little to do with the actual product, and instead be a sales, marketing, legal, or business maneuver.

How do you know that Apple has a strong case against Palm?

Do you have insight into someone who has investigated and come to that conclusion?

Edit: Also, a company doesn't necessarily sue someone because they are a threat. It is equally likely that it sues a smaller company who has less resources with which to defend itself well. Once you win one patent lawsuit, it tips the bar a bit for the next one. So in this case, Apple COULD be suing HTC because it's small and overseas. Or it could be that they are the first to copy Apple's patent (the Dream/G1 being one of the oldest multi-touch phones in the market). Or it could be, like you imply, that they are a threat.

I don't really know since I wasn't a fly in Apple's boardroom last week; I'm just pointing out that there are lots of legal strategies to choose from.

Steve... pay up what you owe Nokia and Kodak

..and then we'll look at this.

Go HTC

Down...

down...

down...

Hey, I remember that ad.

The iPad is the Mac, take two. The computer for the bemused, confused, and intimidated.

You don't need to license any sort of "key" to access iTunes, you just need to make the software like RIM did.

Palm was too lazy to even do that, instead they forged USB identification keys.

actually that's so wrong exactly the opposite is true. It's the niddling details like UP doesn't mean DOWN that makes me post.

Xerox was allowed to invest in Apple prior to Apple's first stock-offering. Intellectual Property share was included in the agreement. In effect, Xerox PAID Apple, but since Xerox was investing heavily in a yet-to-be public company why WOULDN'T they want them to succeed ("here's 20 million - now would you go out of business so we can fire everyone in accounting who suggested this idea").

This of course has been noted in at least 10 books in 30 years. Naturally it's a big secret to everyone who doesn't read books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(c...ption_by_Apple

"they are selecting enforcing their patents" - that is not a legal defense.

Have you tried that in court when you get a speeding ticket when others did not? It's useless; you need to have an affirmative argument as well (the cop was prejudiced against my race/ethnicity/sexual orientation/blah/blah/blah).

There is no law that says you have to sue everyone who is using your patented technology. Plus, maybe Palm isn't even using Apple's patented technology.

Exactly.

I'm trying to figure out if this is sarcasm or not... Either way, it was just an example.

[CENTER]Oh... The Humanity!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DU...layer_embedded


[/CENTER]

Let's jump back to the Apple Newton, which was around before HTC even existed.

Arguably it was put on the backburner for a while, updated and re-released as the iPhone.

It's nice that we finally got the details of the patents referenced in the suit. Doesn't change the fact that it's pretty clear this is Apple trying to see how much success they have here before going after Android directly.

One of my frustrations here is that quite honestly, HTCs interface is just not that similar to the iPhone interface, and certainly runs on different architecture. Sense UI has features that I wish my (and my wife's) iPhone 3GS' had -- swiping left and right to switch between apps instead of just the grid of icons and search being one of them. Yes you can see a grid of applications, yes the art style is similar... but the experience of using Sense UI is quite different. I actually wish I could have Sense UI my iPhone as it's-- to me-- a nice hybrid between the overly app-based implementation Apple has and the overly information-based implementation Windows Phone 7 is going for.

My point-- there may be some merit here based on the specific patents that Apple holds, but the statements people are making that HTC's UI is a 'copycat' are just false. And lets be frank, Apple takes inspiration from others just as much as everybody else.

My apologies.

What models and when did you get them?

Nice quote - pity it's bullshit you filthy troll. Kill it! Kill the filthy troll! Burn HIM!

Not the exact quote as he posted, but:

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...#ixzz0h3FqQCNR

On Google: We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We wont let them, he says. Someone else asks something on a different topic, but theres no getting Jobs off this rant. I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing, he says. This dont be evil mantra: Its bullshit.

Like someone else said, this is a very loaded quote.

[CENTER]Really?

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...es-steve-jobs/

http://seoblackhat.com/2010/01/31/jo...a-is-bullshit/

http://mac.blorge.com/2010/01/31/job...n-is-bullshit/

Apparently not to those who were there.
[/CENTER]

The HTC phone's have been pushing Apples IP boundaries for a while now, functions released in European models then implemented as updates in the US models.

HTC (and Google?) have been testing just how far they can go in imitating the iPhone, obviously they overstepped the mark.

Sanity. Extremely well said, and thank you. I wish we could make this point a sticky at the top of every thread concerning patents and infringement lawsuits.

And I find it merely depressing that you're so put off by simple clarity and truth. Corporations aren't people (and those that behave as such will shortly fail); patent lawsuits are based on specific implementations, not broad categories.

It follows that:

--Statements about how Apple must be "scared" or "vindictive" or "hypocritical" are simply misplaced anthropomorphizing and do more to muddy the waters than explain, and

--A lot of hand waving about how Apple must not have a valid case because touch screens, or phones, or UIs, or electronic devices, or objects in general have already existed are based on a basic misunderstanding about how patent law works. Moreover, without knowing the particulars of each alleged infringement, no one here is in any position to pass judgement on their validity. Each and every one them could be a blatant appropriation of a very specific implementation of a particular functionality, they could all be overreaching "see if it sticks" stuff, or (as seems most likely to me) they could be a mix of the two, with the shakier stuff included to give Apple's legal team some wiggle room on their way to getting what they really want. OTOH, IANAL so I have no idea.

Given that that about 75% of this thread centers on variants of those two fallacies, it seems perfectly fair to take the thread to task a bit. It might be amusing to argue from ignorance but it's not very interesting.