or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers - Page 2

post #41 of 210
Quote:
For their part, HTC and Samsung have accused Apple of resorting to litigation instead of competing fairly in the market.

Ah, nice to see HTC and Samsung being so innovative when it comes to irony.
post #42 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

It's the bad luck scenario, much like the process where Microsoft was able to develop Windows using exactly the same Xerox PARC technologies and ideas that Apple 'stole'.

Cheers

Check your facts as you and they are wrong.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #43 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

Why would this put HTC 'Out of business'?? For the first patent we're talking about 'data detectors' creating links contextually on information in a text stream. If Apple would be successful, and decide NOT to license, which is their right, HTC would just have to remove this feature - hardly out of business. It would put them at a competitive disadvantage but that's what R&D is all about.

And for those that say 'This is obvious'. First, its the use of this in the UI which, I believe in 1996 (the priority date of the patent) was NOT obvious. It is now because its 15 years old!!!! but still under patent.

This is what IP is all about and it is NOT anti-competitive. Google/HTC knew well about this patent and chose NOT to work around it and NOT to license it. Their bad.

First of all these are not HTC features... these are core Android features and by core i mean even third party apps use them through the Android API.
Regarding obvious... please... if you display text that contains a phone number how it is not obvious that selecting that phone number should enable a call.
Software should be excluded from the patent system altogether.
post #44 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

First of all these are not HTC features... these are core Android features and by core i mean even third party apps use them through the Android API.
Regarding obvious... please... if you display text that contains a phone number how it is not obvious that selecting that phone number should enable a call.
Software should be excluded from the patent system altogether.

If the ruling in Apples favor stands then indeed they are not HTC features. They would be Apple features. Ones that HTC would be responsible for removing. Or licensing or cross licensing etc.
post #45 of 210
There is nothing new to see here, ALL companies sue each other and negotiate licensing deals ALL OF THE TIME. It is just that Apple is such a high profile company that this actually becomes newsworthy.

It is also worthwhile for companies like Nokia and HTC to publicise these cases as Apple has a very public image and these cases tarnish that image. HTC etc hope that Apple will want a quick settlement to avoid further possible bad press.

Patent cases are a part of business, just get over it. Again, nothing to see here.
post #46 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

There is nothing new to see here, ALL companies sue each other and negotiate licensing deals ALL OF THE TIME. It is just that Apple is such a high profile company that this actually becomes newsworthy.

When was the last time Google sued for one of it's ~700 patents? Exactly... never.
post #47 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

When was the last time Google sued for one of it's ~700 patents? Exactly... never.

Perhaps you should launch a search engine using their software patents and try out your theory.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #48 of 210
I have been trying to google Steve's statements regarding how well patented the iPhone technology was back at the original launch of the iPhone as it seems to to ring very true now. I've had no luck so far as all this new stuff swamps the results. However, I seem to recall Steve made a pretty pointed comment about the fact Apple had patents and would defend them regarding iOS. This was back when a Blackberry was considered leading edge and Schmidt was still trusted by Jobs and Google and Apple were friends.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #49 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I have been trying to google Steve's statements regarding how well patented the iPhone technology was back at the original launch of the iPhone as it seems to to ring very true now. I've had no luck so far as all this new stuff swamps the results. However, I seem to recall Steve made a pretty pointed comment about the fact Apple had patents and would defend them regarding iOS. This was back when a Blackberry was considered leading edge and Schmidt was still trusted by Jobs and Google and Apple were friends.

You can find Steve's introduction of iPhone on YouTube. There he mentions about those patents.
post #50 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I have been trying to google Steve's statements regarding how well patented the iPhone technology was back at the original launch of the iPhone as it seems to to ring very true now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VLb5XdxRm8&NR=1
Around 2 min 30 sec

For some Steve Jobs drama (plus humour) part one is worth another look also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZYlhShD2oQ
post #51 of 210
Yeah the patent system is messed up and very arcane, and it is quite a legitimate complaint that, much of what is patented seems to be obvious to those us programmers who have been in the business and read some of seminal research over the years.

However, one must admit that Apple has created what seems to be some of the most innovative products, innovative functionality, innovative business practices. Proof is that the iPod, ipodtouch, iPhone, iPad, Apple Stores, AppStore, iTunes have created whole new areas, and that those trying to compete have been doing so by producing products that are as close to Apple products as possible. It should be clear that IP law must protect Apple and the very few other innovative companies (and people) as a matter of critical public policy -- actually it's constitutionally required.

Apple's success is an emergent property of their internal practices, their leadership, the quality of the people they hire. Apple is a forest which has created and maintains it's own ecosystem, each tree being a patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and secrecy in general. As the most sued company on the planet, others are trying to destroy the forest one tree at a time, where each tree alone seems unimportant.
post #52 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadGoat View Post

As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

Sorry, but defending your patents does not make one a patent troll.


More importantly, everyone has missed the major issue here. ITC has been dropping patent infringement cases left and right. For the past few years, it appeared that no matter what you did, ITC would rule that there was no infringement - regardless of how strong the patent. This is the first time for quite a while that ITC said that there was infringement. If ITC says there's infringement, you can take it to the bank.


Quote:
Originally Posted by robbydek View Post

It's sort of obvious that Apple had stuff taken, but I wonder if it would be such as big deal if it was another company? The question that remains is will Apple allow a reasonable settlement or is the Federal government going to have to step in because they force their competitors out of business. Hopefully, not the latter. If a company steals another's patent, they should have to pay, but in the same way, a company who holds all the patents for the ideal device, shouldn't be able to keep patents away their competition and hence have no competition. Apple is already huge and we really don't want them being the only major mobile device maker and operating system.

Why should Apple do that? Apple has no obligation to license their technology, nor should they. You see, we live in a free market economy. It is up to APPLE to decide what to do with their inventions, not a bunch of people whining on AI.

[QUOTE=macologist;1901838]Ideally, Android should have offered a very Unique Thing of it's own, not a Me Too Imitation!!! /QUOTE]

Android's entire business is based on "FREE" rather than innovation. Why are you surprised that there's no innovation there?

Not to mention, of course, Google's years of disregard for anyone else's intellectual property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Actually he's closer to being right than you think. The supreme court recently changed the game here and made it far harder to get an injunction from the court system, because courts were required to consider public interest as well as the patent holders rights. Absent an injunction the best a patent holder can do is extract court awarded damages and license fees going forwards.

That applies mostly to preliminary injunctions and very unusual cases. The Supreme Court has allowed companies to refuse to license their technologies.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #53 of 210
mailto: links were around a LONG time before Apple filed that patent. I hope this was taken into account.
post #54 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadGoat View Post

As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.

To paraphrase Wikipedia:
A patent troll is a company that enforces its patents in an unduly aggressive or opportunistic manner typically with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

Apple is certainly being aggressive in protecting its patents but they're clearly not in the same category as scumbag companies who buy obscure patents with the sole intention of making easy money.

You may not like Apple using its patents against Google's Android but they are the last company that would meet the definition of a patent troll, given their role in singlehandedly revolutionizing the smartphone industry and continuously pushing the envelope over the last four years.

If legal proceedings weren't so time consuming, Google could have been sent back to the drawing board before they built such a large platform based in large part on Apple's IP.
post #55 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

If legal proceedings weren't so time consuming, Google could have been sent back to the drawing board before they built such a large platform based in large part on Apple's IP.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...infringes.html

Too bad just existing as an operating system let alone a smartphone infringes on Apple's 90's patents. The only way they couldn't infringe is not to build one at all.
post #56 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadGoat View Post

As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.

I don't think they will fall per se. They may have to license those patents, as I'm sure they license others. Licensing is a great business to be in

Everyone goes home happy
post #57 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That applies mostly to preliminary injunctions and very unusual cases. The Supreme Court has allowed companies to refuse to license their technologies.

The public interest test is there though, and conceivably would apply if Apple tried to have the majority of smartphones excluded from the US market. My point was simply that it's not open and shut, possession of a patent doesn't necessarily allow you to refuse to license, other considerations exist especially if there's a big existing market being served.
post #58 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

Why would this put HTC 'Out of business'?? For the first patent we're talking about 'data detectors' creating links contextually on information in a text stream. If Apple would be successful, and decide NOT to license, which is their right, HTC would just have to remove this feature - hardly out of business. It would put them at a competitive disadvantage but that's what R&D is all about.

And for those that say 'This is obvious'. First, its the use of this in the UI which, I believe in 1996 (the priority date of the patent) was NOT obvious. It is now because its 15 years old!!!! but still under patent.

This is what IP is all about and it is NOT anti-competitive. Google/HTC knew well about this patent and chose NOT to work around it and NOT to license it. Their bad.

The "wheel" seems like an obvious invention yet look at all the otherwise highly advanced civilizations that never discovered it. It's easy to label a brilliant idea obvious after someone else comes up with it. How many years were consumers forced to wallow in the stagnant mobile phone market before the first iPhone completely revolutionized it?
post #59 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

I'm on the same boat. Let them pay. Android is good for anyone who doesn't want or can't afford iPhone. That's OK but they have to pay. No free ride.

I don't get the idea that Android phones provide an affordable alternative to the iPhone. The subsidized price of a smartphone is insignificant compared to the cost of a corresponding data plan over a few months. Even if you gave iPhones away for free there would be a very large segment of the market who could not afford the data plans.

Why should mobile phone manufacturers who failed to deliver a shred of quality or innovation for years get to freely copy Apple's many innovations and secure a large stake in the market while claiming Apple's inventions are just common sense? Likewise why must Apple allow competitors to steal their ideas and their market share in exchange for licensing fees?
post #60 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

It's the bad luck scenario, much like the process where Microsoft was able to develop Windows using exactly the same Xerox PARC technologies and ideas that Apple 'stole'.

Cheers


Classic troll. Do some research before parroting simplistic lies.
post #61 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I have been trying to google Steve's statements regarding how well patented the iPhone technology was back at the original launch of the iPhone as it seems to to ring very true now. I've had no luck so far as all this new stuff swamps the results. However, I seem to recall Steve made a pretty pointed comment about the fact Apple had patents and would defend them regarding iOS. This was back when a Blackberry was considered leading edge and Schmidt was still trusted by Jobs and Google and Apple were friends.

Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU

post #62 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent.

Your argument is flawed; the nuclear arsenals wouldn't be deterrents if both sides believed they would never be used. Each side had to demonstrate its military might and the willingness to fight should the other step out of line.

Equally none of these companies would waste time and resources on patents if they were useless against others using their intellectual property.
post #63 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaim2 View Post

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...infringes.html

Too bad just existing as an operating system let alone a smartphone infringes on Apple's 90's patents. The only way they couldn't infringe is not to build one at all.


That would be acceptable as well.
post #64 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Whatever their intentions may be, Apple has broken a golden rule in the telecom industry - I don't sue you if you don't sue me, whether infringement is real or not. Everyone collects his own patent trove as a defensive measure, akin to how the USSR and the USA built up their respective nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. Apple enters this scene like a bull in a china shop and is showing no fear of countersuits. Their interest is very different that of Microsoft, IMO. Microsoft is acting like IBM of old, trying to collect license revenue. Apple is a purist who simply resents other companies trying to copy its products.

Stupidest post yet. That is why Nokia sued Apple.

Pretty much invalidates your entire post.
post #65 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

That is patentable? But this is trivial and obvious code. In most modern high level programming languages it is a single line of code. This is as bad as the Amazon one click patent. I'm actually surprised there isn't plenty of examples of prior art.

All this makes me think is the entire patent system is a joke and should be scrapped.

I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.

Here's an interesting story: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/...ent-violation/

I'm quoting from that article:

"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.

Any Android phone will do the same.

Unfortunately for the three dozen companies that make Android devices, Apple (AAPL) filed for a patent on the underlying system and method that performs these actions in 1996."

This function may seem inevitable NOW but only because the iPhone exists as a reference design. It seems similar in this regard to the Samsung phone's nearly-identical arrangement of application icons and the design, color and shape of those icons. When I see an article on smartphones and look at the photos, I have to squint hard to find which one is the iPhone because the dissimilarities are not always quickly discernible.
post #66 of 210
Worse case scenario and Apple shuts down ALL Androids sales...would that leave a hole in the market for MS and Windows 7 Phone????
post #67 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyJade View Post

spam

Moderators!!! Delete this fraking Post!!! Please BAN this jerk!!!
post #68 of 210
I seriously hope that these two patents are invalidated as they are too obvious and broad, and there was prior art. A patent that turns a hyperlink or URL in a body of text into a clickable link? Are you kidding me? Forum and news feed web software have supported this since the early 90s, most word processor software supports that, that functionality is built into Qt, etc.
post #69 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antinous View Post

I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.

Here's an interesting story: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/...ent-violation/

I'm quoting from that article:

"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.

Email clients and word processing software have supported this functionality since the 90s easily -- long before the iPhone was ever introduced. This exact functionality is exactly why regular expressions are so useful. Thank you Perl and Qt for built-in regular expressions!
post #70 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Moderators!!! Delete this fraking Post!!! Please BAN this jerk!!!

Done, next time, please don't quote the identifying information in spam.
post #71 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antinous View Post

I don't know anything about code. I think it's what the code does that made it innovative. It may seem obvious after the iPhone but it may not have been so apparent in 1996 when Apple patented the idea.
...
"When an iPhone receives a message that contains a phone number or an address -- e-mail, Web or street -- those bits of data are automatically highlighted, underlined and turned into clickable links.

Any Android phone will do the same.

Unfortunately for the three dozen companies that make Android devices, Apple (AAPL) filed for a patent on the underlying system and method that performs these actions in 1996."

This function may seem inevitable NOW but only because the iPhone exists as a reference design. ...

You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.

Having coded back in the 90's, the patented ability was not common, it was non-existent outside of the lab that figured it out (apparently Apple).

Every and anything you could click in 1995 (desktops mostly), was coded individually by someone. This patent would have been great back then to see, but html and the WWW were only a few years old, just getting going for the mainstream, and heck, telnet, bulletin boards, ascii were still common sites.
post #72 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

The "wheel" seems like an obvious invention yet look at all the otherwise highly advanced civilizations that never discovered it. It's easy to label a brilliant idea obvious after someone else comes up with it. How many years were consumers forced to wallow in the stagnant mobile phone market before the first iPhone completely revolutionized it?

The difference is that decades before the invention of this particular 'wheel' there was an invention of a wheel building tool, actually there were several.

For example an AWK script (1977 Aho, Weinberger, Kernighan) consists of a list of regular expressions to be matched and associated pieces of code to be executed. That's ALL that awk does. It seems at first blush impossible to write an AWK script that doesn't infringe this patent, so what were people using this tool for during those decades? Was it just distributed on every single unix platform for kicks?
post #73 of 210
If there is one party that is to be blamed for all the Android producers' present predicament, it's Google. Google has a history of playing fast and loose with other people's IPs. Its cavalier attitude resonates that of the robber barons' reign in the Wild wild West era.
post #74 of 210
I've been using Apple products since first getting to use a Lisa back in '82. But all this litigation BS and closed minded systems I've had it with Apple. Competition is what drives innovation not litigation. Closed versus Open systems was always the difference between Jobs and Woz. The way things are going my current Apple/Mac products are my last.
post #75 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by estyle View Post

You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.

Where do you see anything specifying that this is an OS level action?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claim 15 of US patent 5,946,647

In a computer having a memory storing actions, a method for causing the computer to perform an action on a structure identified in computer data, comprising the steps of:
receiving computer data;
detecting a structure in the data;
linking at least one action to the detected structure;
enabling selection of the structure and a linked action; and
executing the selected action linked to the selected structure.

That is the full text of claim 15, one of the four claims which HTC is infringing. Anything doing all those things is infringing that claim. You really think that wasn't an obvious piece of existing tech in 1996? Really?
post #76 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by estyle View Post

You are correct - the patent is not about programmers putting in code each time with a "Mailto:" prompt or other similar markup, but rather that the OS detects what should be marked up by format and context and automatically self creates the markup.

And yet Apple did not add this functionality to their OS until the iPhone came out? Share the love Apple instead of making us manually code this functionality. For Qt widgets, this is merely a flag to toggle.
post #77 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by macologist View Post

I agree with Qualcomm poit + this point: Cross Licensing instead of Law Suits!!! ...

You're looking at it wrong.

If all patent holders were forced to cross licence, then there isn't much point to having a patent system in the first place. Anyone could copy anyone else and know that all they have to do is pay them a bit of cash to cover off stealing their ideas.

The patent system is indeed broken, but it's broken the *other* way.

Here we have a case of an industry leader, creating a brand new category of device loaded with innovations and every one of them is solidly patented. But at the end of the day, they are going to win only on these two obscure old patents (from OS-X days no less), when in fact they should have won on all the other stuff as well.

I would suggest the patent system is broken not because Apple won this minor victory, but because they lost almost everything else. I mean they literally *invented* multi-touch computing for the desktop and mobile devices and they own all the basic patents on it, and yet it doesn't seem to matter at all. Apple seems to have no power to stop anyone else from doing anything they want with it.

Now *that's* evidence of a broken system. Not this.
post #78 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

... That is the full text of claim 15, one of the four claims which HTC is infringing. Anything doing all those things is infringing that claim. You really think that wasn't an obvious piece of existing tech in 1996? Really?

As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."
post #79 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

As someone has already mentioned, the 1996 patent was probably based on "data detectors" which Apple did indeed invent. Not sure of the exact date, but it was before iOS and before OS X. Their claim to this technology is rock solid and yes, they did think of it before anyone else and before it was "obvious."

Priority on a patent such as this which isn't a continuation patent is based on filing date, there is a year's lee-way if you have already filed in another jurisdiction but that's it. The patent was filed in 1996, anything that infringes the patent that pre-exists 1996 is prior art.

Every awk script ever written infringes claim 15. Are you saying that Apple invented data detectors before 1977? That would be a neat trick.
post #80 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Priority on a patent such as this which isn't a continuation patent is based on filing date, there is a year's lee-way if you have already filed in another jurisdiction but that's it. The patent was filed in 1996, anything that infringes the patent that pre-exists 1996 is prior art.

Every awk script ever written infringes claim 15. Are you saying that Apple invented data detectors before 1977? That would be a neat trick.

If you had actually used AWK or read the patent, you would understand this. While the 647 patent might even use AWK as a front end, what AWK is and does is not the scope of the patent.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers