or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple sues HTC for alleged infringement of 20 iPhone patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple sues HTC for alleged infringement of 20 iPhone patents - Page 5

post #161 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

Funny I don't see "They're trying to kill us!" anywhere up there.

THERE'S ANOTHER ONE - BURN HIM! stamping feet foley - rhubarb rampaging mob rhubarb

Also hard to miss that all three of those links include the exact same anonymous quote.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #162 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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.

Agreed. Most of the patents mentioned in this complaint appear to be technical and based on implementations of hardware and software technology.

The one that will probably get the least play in the media, and yet to me is the most interesting is the DSP one for WinMobile devices. If Apple is correct about HTC copying their implementation on that, it seems particularly blatant and it's disturbing to me that any large corporation would approve of that sort of thing.

I also agree that look and feel patent lawsuits are a bit dodgy at best, I just wanted to point out the popular misconception. Apple didn't actually "lose" the look and feel lawsuit, as so many people seem to think.

Look and feel is probably best dealt with as a trademark issue even though on the surface it doesn't appear to be trademark related. Apple was granted extensive trademark protection on the "look" of the iPhone just last week so maybe we will see something there as well.
post #163 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

My apologies.

What models and when did you get them?

Well, I am sure you are asking the question just to try and trash me. However, I guess I'll play along...

I bought a 2.66Ghz Macbook Pro back in June when they came out. I liked it so much, I bought a 2.0Ghz Mac mini to put in my entertainment center. I will say that due to my work, I would not have bought one if it was not capable of running MS Windows ( I use VMWare ). I point this out, because until recently, I would not have even considered the switch to Apple. I also though about trying my hand a developing software for the Apple for a change.

So, I am fairly new to the Mac world. I have been a software developer for about 30 years so I am not new to computers in general.

I was thinking about getting another Mac Mini to replace one of my PC based Web servers. I recently converted the Perl Script ( used on the site ) so that It runs well on Apache...

I will be honest and say that I find the Apple Fan base to be quite interesting. I never though people would take discussions of computers and phones so personal. To me it is just another interesting piece of technology...
post #164 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Here we go!

"We've patented the hell out of this thing"

Finally! Apple wakes up in sweaty fear and takes action.

Fixed.

It seems to me they are starting to be seriously worried. Unfortunately that might mean that iPhone OS4 is not going to be much different and Apple is expecting to loose more ground to competition, so they need other means to fight that competition.
post #165 of 279
Any Company making Phones has an Operating System on that phone. Any Company contractually joined with another Company violating Operating System patents is complicit in that knowledge ahead of time.

Going after HTC is a shot at Nokia, Symbian and Google via Android. Motorola is next.

Taligent Object-Oriented Operating System was used instead of NeXTSTEP because the Taligent Patents are older in a few cases.

People forget that NeXT and Apple patented the hell out of Object-Oriented Systems and it was just NeXT that actually sold an Object-Oriented OS in NeXTSTEP. Taligent IP is still part of Apple's overall portfolio.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/5,519,867

My favorite part that patent reference that people haven't realized is the 1988 article on Distributed Computing:

Quote:
Proc. of the Summer 1988 Usenix Conf. 20 Jun. 1988, San Francisco, US, pp. 1-13 "Using the X Toolkit or How to Write a Widget" by McCormack et al. .
New Directions for Unix. Proc. Autumn 1988 EUUG Conf. Oct. 3, 1988, Cascais, Portugal, pp. 25-37, Bernabeu-Auban et al. "Clouds--A Distributed Object-Based Operating System Architecture and Kernel Implementation"..

These patents deal directly with the OS on all levels working with the hardware. No OS means the Hardware is useless.

Steve figured it out at NeXT. The Software dictates the Hardware, not the other way around--the lesson he failed to learn at Apple when Microsoft laughed all the way to the bank.

All Smartphone Operating Systems today are Object-Oriented.
post #166 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

Personal attacks, nice!

People usually resort to that when they have no real arguments (or are too dumb to find any, which boils down to the same).

Don't take it personal
post #167 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Fixed.

It seems to me they are starting to be seriously worried. Unfortunately that might mean that iPhone OS4 is not going to be much different and Apple is expecting to loose more ground to competition, so they need other means to fight that competition.

Yeah, because iPhone sales are really starting to tank and Apple doesn't seem to be very interested in extending the platform.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #168 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

I never though people would take discussions of computers and phones so personal. To me it is just another interesting piece of technology...

Oh come the freak-on. You've never - ever - seen a nerd discussion on any tech product ever devolve into a fever-pitched ego battle of playground proportions? Google Xbox vs PS3, Wii vs anyting, Mac vs PC, Windows vs Linux....

You're magical sir. I want a unicorn.

BTW - good catch on NeXT from myer earlier. I still own mine even though the clock battery is dead and it thinks it's 1979.
post #169 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

Another personal attack! I don't think i'm stupid. I think my opinions are different obviously.

I think most of the people on here are hypocrites. I didn't see you people so happy when Nokia filled suit for their innovations.

Of course you didn't - this is AppleInsider, after all, not NokiaInsider.

That being said - many opinions here sound as if they were observed written on inner wall of Steve's colon. Which makes sense, since Steve is Apple. SteveInsider..?
post #170 of 279
Para 9 of complaint:

"Defendant has also committed tortuous acts of patent infringement in Delaware."

Might be a typo but somehow still relevant, some might say.
post #171 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


It seems to me they are starting to be seriously worried. Unfortunately that might mean that iPhone OS4 is not going to be much different and Apple is expecting to loose more ground to competition, so they need other means to fight that competition.

Could be that Apple is just serious about defending its patents. See post #157 in this thread, a brief assessment that I agree with.
post #172 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

As a shareholder, I am glad Apple is doing something...
It sucks that a few companies like Apple strive to innovate while others just sit by and copy them...

The only problem here is that Apple has liberally copied others. Of course, they have done so by wrapping it into a beautiful package, but the fact remains: Apple copies others all the time.

This move clearly shows that Apple is scared to death about Android. HTC is one of Google's best mobile buddies, after all.
post #173 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

Oh come the freak-on. You've never - ever - seen a nerd discussion on any tech product ever devolve into a fever-pitched ego battle of playground proportions? Google Xbox vs PS3, Wii vs anyting, Mac vs PC, Windows vs Linux....

You're magical sir. I want a unicorn.

BTW - good catch on NeXT from myer earlier. I still own mine even though the clock battery is dead and it thinks it's 1979.

That did not seem to make any sense....
post #174 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobringer View Post

By the same logic, RCA should be suing like crazy.

Only if they are lawsuit-happy morons.
post #175 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Note that Apple did nothing against Palm, even though that was a similar situation. Apple *has* decided to go after HTC, though. Seems Apple has a strong position this time.

They didn't go after Palm because Palm bombed. The Palm Pre never became a threat to the iPhone. Android, on the other hand, is a real threat. Even if it can't compete with the iPhone experience today, it's quickly catching up. And HTC is one of Google's best buddies in the mobile world.

Apple is scared shitless.
post #176 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

They didn't go after Palm because Palm bombed. The Palm Pre never became a threat to the iPhone. Android, on the other hand, is a real threat. Even if it can't compete with the iPhone experience today, it's quickly catching up. And HTC is one of Google's best buddies in the mobile world.

Apple is scared shitless.

iPhone and iPod Touch sales are showing massive growth. Whatever anyone might think, the iPad is poised to be another huge win for the platform.

My guess is that Apple is anything but "scared shitless", although I'm sure you take satisfaction in imagining so.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #177 of 279
Seeing as how this patent lawsuit wasn't filed in Marshall, Texas it's an automatic point for Apple (and for Nokia, respectively).


Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

And HTC is one of Google's best buddies in the mobile world.

Apple is scared shitless.

That makes little sense since Android is not tied to any one vendor and Android is open, which means that any win for Apple against HTC means that any other vendor can change up any implementation of Android to deal with patent infringement.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #178 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

It seems to me they are starting to be seriously worried. Unfortunately that might mean that iPhone OS4 is not going to be much different and Apple is expecting to loose more ground to competition, so they need other means to fight that competition.

I thought it was dumb when people said Nokia sued because they were scared, and it's just as dumb now when it's the other way around.

If you plan to win a lawsuit, you research the hell out of it before you even sue. There's no prize for suing quickly. You research the potentially infringing products; you tear them apart, run them through all sorts of tests to see what was actually implemented. When there's lots of potential infringement, you research legal precedents and case history to find the best courses of action, so you can pick the very best items to contest. This takes time.

In the case of Nokia, there was the additional step of negotiating with Apple over licenses, so from start to suit, it took 2.5 years since Nokia could get their hands on an iPhone. Why does anyone think that the 1.5 years since the Dream/G1 came out is that long?
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #179 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

iPhone and iPod Touch sales are showing massive growth. Whatever anyone might think, the iPad is poised to be another huge win for the platform.

My guess is that Apple is anything but "scared shitless", although I'm sure you take satisfaction in imagining so.

Again: "Google's don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit! They're trying to kill us!" - Steve Jobs on the Google phone platform.
lmao internet
Reply
lmao internet
Reply
post #180 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

The only problem here is that Apple has liberally copied others. Of course, they have done so by wrapping it into a beautiful package, but the fact remains: Apple copies others all the time.

This move clearly shows that Apple is scared to death about Android. HTC is one of Google's best mobile buddies, after all.

What it clearly shows is that Apple thinks it can convince the court that HTC has violated its patents. Attributing it to 'fear' might make for amusing conversation, but isn't something that is relevant in the legal sense.

As for the notion that Apple has "liberally copied others", if they have violated existing patents, then they are subject to the same. It's one thing to make a generic claim that they have copied other's ideas, but it's another matter to prove it specifically.

I would be very surprised if Apple were just shooting from the hip in this case. Steve Jobs said at the iPhone introduction that it was heavily patented and that they would defend them vigorously.
post #181 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by erac3rx View Post

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.

The patents in the lawsuit aren't about "look and feel" or design trademarks so just looking for similarities in the UI will get you nowhere. It's about the hardware and software implementations underlying the system.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #182 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous guy View Post

Again: "Google's don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit! They're trying to kill us!" - Steve Jobs on the Google phone platform.

Is that what one says when they're "scared sh*tless"?

I doubt it.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #183 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Seeing as how this patent lawsuit wasn't filed in Marshall, Texas it's an automatic point for Apple (and for Nokia, respectively).

One thing I find interesting is that a jury trial is requested (or demanded) by Apple. There's a strange disconnect between those judging the facts of the case as it comes to trial (the jury) and the class of people to whom the instructions for building the invention are targeted (persons skilled in the relevant art). It is up to counsel to have these things explained in appropriate terms but I can't help but wonder whether a similarly composed jury would be better able to measure the merits of the case.

This of course it not relevant to the Apple good, everyone else bad theme and quite apart from the merits of whether patents of the kind contemplated should be awarded but it is another point to be made in the broader patent discussion.
post #184 of 279
When you can't compete you sue!

First Nokia and now Apple. No respect for Apple on this move. Compete on the market instead of the courtroom!

The counter-suit is going to get interesting too, when it comes, given that HTC has been making phones for a lot longer and probably has tons of its own patents that it can sue for. Why can't they just stick to making phones? Or is Jobs out of ideas for iPhone 4.0?
post #185 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Are you trying to say the mouse was invented by Apple? Are you serious? The mouse was invented in 1963 by Douglas Engelbart.

Apple also did not invent the Apps Store. While they made iTunes, music libraries has already been around for some time.


For something to be a "game changer" the best you are going to get is the iPod that was a true game changer. The iPhone is a great product but even that isn't a game changer.

Every company sees dark times and some never make it out of those dark times. Apple has had its share of dark times and right now they are doing very well. Its not like they can never see dark times again. Also the iPad isn't even on sale for all we know it could be the next Apple TV, Mac Mini, Apple II or G4 Cube.

Also you mentioned OSX how about we talk about Apple operating systems before OSX they didn't exactly burn up the tech industry in fact most of them outright sucked.

As I said before, you've got a strange understanding of the words "game changer".
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #186 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous guy View Post

Again: "Google's don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit! They're trying to kill us!" - Steve Jobs on the Google phone platform.

It's already been pointed out on this thread that this is not a quote. Stop posting bullshit.
post #187 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

If you include computers, software, ipods, peripherals, songs, etc. etc.

Not if you compare profit made on telephones vs. profits made my nokia or ericsson or motorola or HTC or etc. etc. on telephones.

That statement by Stevie was pretty loaded. But I guess you went for it....

Bzzt. Wrong. Jobs' comment with laptops and iPods included was about revenue.

The discussion here was about profit. Apple profit on just its phones exceeds the profits of any company from selling just their phones.

Do you understand the difference?
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #188 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That makes little sense since Android is not tied to any one vendor and Android is open, which means that any win for Apple against HTC means that any other vendor can change up any implementation of Android to deal with patent infringement.

Yeah, exactly. Apple wants to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to use Android.
post #189 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

What it clearly shows is that Apple thinks it can convince the court that HTC has violated its patents. Attributing it to 'fear' might make for amusing conversation, but isn't something that is relevant in the legal sense.

Call it fear or whatever you want to. The fact that Apple is doing this shows that they are seeing Android as a real, and a really big, threat.

Quote:
It's one thing to make a generic claim that they have copied other's ideas, but it's another matter to prove it specifically.

The point is that they are copying like crazy themselves. If it's wrong to copy, they shouldn't be doing it themselves (regardless of whether the companies Apple is stealing from will sue them or not).

Quote:
I would be very surprised if Apple were just shooting from the hip in this case. Steve Jobs said at the iPhone introduction that it was heavily patented and that they would defend them vigorously.

Of course this is not shooting from the hip. It's a calculated move to destroy or delay Android. They must be pretty sure that they can pull it off.
post #190 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

One thing I find interesting is that a jury trial is requested (or demanded) by Apple.

Is that and atypical initial request or these lawsuits? If so, that seems to support my hypothesis that Apple isn't going to settle on this one, that they have something to prove. I just hope they don't go back to the spoken motto of "litigate, not innovate" of the early 1990s.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

It's already been pointed out on this thread that this is THE EXACT quote. PLEASE POST MORE OFTEN.

That is how quotations work on message boards, though usually not as quickly as that.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #191 of 279
[QUOTE=extremeskater;1582733][QUOTE=mark2005;1582565]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.
Quote:

And that is exactly what Quadra means. This is the same guy that was saying the iPad was going to totally replace notebooks it was going to be a game changer on the entire notebook industry and "Slate" computing was going to take over the world.

Wish I was joking about that but I'm not. Then after it was released he was happy to try it call it a Kindle killer. Talk about downgrading your expectations.

I fully expect the iPad to be a game changer in the market segments for tablets, e-readers and netbooks. But we'll see in a couple of months how it's going.

I kinda doubt it will "totally replace notebooks" but I don't know if that's exactly what Quadra said.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #192 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

That did not seem to make any sense....

Not seeing a single geek argument on the whole of the internet IS incredible. If he's incapable of seeing it - he's fucking magical. I'm still waiting for my unicorn.

Someone earlier cited NeXTstep and object oriented programing - in which I say - good point. It also so happens NeXT computers - like most - have things called batteries. They provide power to things called onboard clocks. These batteries can eventually die and the clocks reset their dates - like mine did. Computers are magical devices that can display words like "unicorn".

And now - David Blaine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYxu_MQSTTY

And By-the-fuck-way, didn't everyone get the memo from Apple.com's homepage? Magical is now a documented feature.
post #193 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Is that and atypical initial request or these lawsuits? If so, that seems to support my hypothesis that Apple isn't going to settle on this one, that they have something to prove. I just hope they don't go back to the spoken motto of "litigate, not innovate" of the early 1990s.

I have no idea whether it is typical or not. I really meant to comment on what I perceive as an inadequacy in the judicial process as technology progresses far more quickly than many people can be expected to understand. I'm not from the US, as it happens.
post #194 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

The point is that they are copying like crazy themselves. If it's wrong to copy, they shouldn't be doing it themselves (regardless of whether the companies Apple is stealing from will sue them or not).

Exactly what is it that Apple is copying? If it's happening "like crazy", it should be easy to give lots of examples with info to back it up.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #195 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

yes but did they patent it?

Sometimes something that seems like common sense, especially in software development, gets overlooked as a patentable feature. If Apple came in, saw there was no patent, and got one of their own, they CAN turn around and make rim pay up, even if they were doing it before Apple.

At least, that's how it was explained to me a while back.

You are correct only to an extent.

If a discovery or an invention has not been patented, and has been made public for more than a year, then it becomes public property.

If someone or some company decided to patent an identical discovery or invention, subseqquent grant of a patent to the second company, does not negate the proviso stated in the previous paragraph -- simply because the patent officer who approved the application did not exercise due diligence to discover all prior patented and "public" discoveries and inventions.

What I find silly (if not stupid) in the arguments -- on both sides -- in this board is the tendency to confuse our bias or opinion to be the basis of deciding the legality or falsehood, of what really are very complex matters to resolve.

That is what the courts are meant to untangle.

It is a lack of proper education and understanding of the law to suggest that there is a need for patent reform therefore Apple or whatever company who plan to protect their patents is wrong or is afraid of the competition.

What is right and wrong are not equivalent to legal or illegal. Nor are these terms synonymous with true or false.

All the court can decide really is what is legal or not.

It is very costly process on all parties involved -- that is why being a lawyer could be a very lucrative position, especially if frivolous suits have no penalty. Like any other company, usually they tend to settle the matter. For example, the use of Apple with the terms "Apple", "iPhone", etc. Perhaps even "iPad"; the same reason, Microsoft was forced to make a deal with Apple, when it got caught using some of the inventions of Apple in its system and products.

What is true also is that if you do not protect your registered trademark or discoveries and inventions, you also lose your legal right to such properties. It becomes generic. A very good example is the "term" -- Aspirin. That trademark was owned by the company "Bayer". But, the company never sued others early, so that when they finally realized their error, it was too late. Note that this must not be confused with the invention for the manufacture of the compound aspirin itself. That patent has a time limit. After that, the manufacture of the compound "aspirin" can be done by any generic pharmaceutical company as it is done now, like many drugs, after a patent expiration, On the other hand, a trademark can be protected for a much longer time.


CGC
post #196 of 279
This doesn't look like an attempt to protect intellectual properties. It's a tactic to slow down development from competitors using vague patenting language.
lmao internet
Reply
lmao internet
Reply
post #197 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

If you look at Apple's recent history, they have lost as many lawsuits as they have won because they do take tech that is patented by other small companies. The individual inventor is handicapped no matter what you say. It is always better to have a team of high paid lawyers.

Fanboys may not admit but Apple is not always innocent in these situation. Don't think I dislike Apple. For the most part, I only buy their products because they are the best at what they do. Their needs to be some honesty on this thread.

And when Apple has lost, they've paid up. Just the way it is supposed to work. Let's look at the process.

Company A builds gadget X. As they do it, they research if anyone else has relevant patents that they might infringe upon. They may conclude that none do (whether they are deceiving themselves or it was an oversight/misunderstanding or they have incompetent patent researchers, it doesn't matter.) So Company A releases gadget X. Over a period of time, Company B researches gadget X and concludes it has patented technology that was used in gadget X. They notify Company A. Company A researches the complaint.

If it was an oversight/mistake and its clear infringement, Company A can pay up (if there's licensing or cross-patenting options) or redesign using a different non-infringing implementation. If Company A thinks Company B's complaint is debatable, or worse, they just want to prolong the battle as long as they can, they can refuse and wait until they get sued, and the courts can settle it. Doesn't matter what the motivation is, the process works out just the same - go to court.

Note HTC (Company A) said they hadn't heard of/were surprised by the lawsuit, and not that Apple has never contacted them about the patented technology. HTC may believe it's contestable and is just waiting for Apple to sue.

I don't understand why anyone is so worked up over this part of the process. It's the way it was meant to be.

Now, one could be worked up over how patents get issued. But that's another story.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #198 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Yeah, exactly. Apple wants to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to use Android.

So the only reason to protect one's IP is to make life difficult for competitors? And by going after HTC, Apple is really going after other manufacturers is some odd, circuitous fashion that has nothing to do with actually protecting one's property, selling products or HTC? By that logic then you could say the creation of the iPhone was because Apple wanted to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to sell phones. It's silly.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #199 of 279
If a discovery or an invention has not been patented, and has been made public for more than a year, then it becomes public property.

There are more caveats to the above statement.

You may be the first to have thought of the idea and made a discovery. If you did not record it properly, without witnesses, and was never submitted to the patent office and not made public, another individual or company can submit a patent for an "identical" discovery or invention, even If they started their discovery or invention much later.

There are also primary and derivative "discoveries and inventions". For example, in the drug industry, the discovery of a synthesis of a compound (more generic) does not prevent others from other (derivative) discoveries or inventions on furhter uses of that compound. The pharceutical industry has found this loophole to extent the lifespan of their drug patents.
post #200 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

You are correct only to an extent.

If a discovery or an invention has not been patented, and has been made public for more than a year, then it becomes public property.

If someone or some company decided to patent an identical discovery or invention, subseqquent grant of a patent to the second company, does not negate the proviso stated in the previous paragraph -- simply because the patent officer who approved the application did not exercise due diligence to discover all prior patented and "public" discoveries and inventions.

What I find silly (if not stupid) in the arguments -- on both sides -- in this board is the tendency to confuse our bias or opinion to be the basis of deciding the legality or falsehood, of what really are very complex matters to resolve.

That is what the courts are meant to untangle.

It is a lack of proper education and understanding of the law to suggest that there is a need for patent reform therefore Apple or whatever company who plan to protect their patents is wrong or is afraid of the competition.

What is right and wrong are not equivalent to legal or illegal. Nor are these terms synonymous with true or false.

All the court can decide really is what is legal or not.

It is very costly process on all parties involved -- that is why being a lawyer could be a very lucrative position, especially if frivolous suits have no penalty. Like any other company, usually they tend to settle the matter. For example, the use of Apple with the terms "Apple", "iPhone", etc. Perhaps even "iPad"; the same reason, Microsoft was forced to make a deal with Apple, when it got caught using some of the inventions of Apple in its system and products.

What is true also is that if you do not protect your registered trademark or discoveries and inventions, you also lose your legal right to such properties. It becomes generic. A very good example is the "term" -- Aspirin. That trademark was owned by the company "Bayer". But, the company never sued others early, so that when they finally realized their error, it was too late. Note that this must not be confused with the invention for the manufacture of the compound aspirin itself. That patent has a time limit. After that, the manufacture of the compound "aspirin" can be done by any generic pharmaceutical company as it is done now, like many drugs, after a patent expiration, On the other hand, a trademark can be protected for a much longer time.

CGC

Good post. Beat me to it. But I think the first sentence of the last paragraph is only true about trademarks, and not patents. As the rest of your paragraph points out, only the trademark aspirin was lost; the patent on the aspirin product itself was not. Patents, I believe, last 17 years. Trademarks, I believe, are forever (or as long as you defend it).

If you are trained/degreed as an engineer and you want to make lots of money but aren't really that interested in building insanely, great products and don't mind doing tedious research and arguing about minute details, the best thing to do is go to law school and become a patent engineer.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple sues HTC for alleged infringement of 20 iPhone patents