or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC to review one patent in HTC complaint against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC to review one patent in HTC complaint against Apple

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 
The U.S. International Trade Commission revealed on Friday that it will reexamine the "no violation" ruling on just one of the four patents that HTC had accused Apple of infringing.

Reuters reported the commission's announcement, noting that the complaint has become a "proxy" for Apple's larger intellectual property spat with Google's Android operating system. ITC's decision to review just one of the patents in question can be seen as favorable news for Apple, since it puts to rest its competitor's claims on the other three patents.

When contacted for comment, an Apple spokeswoman simply echoed the company's earlier statement, saying "competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

A judge for the commission had ruled in October that Apple was not guilty of infringing HTC's four patents, which relate to power management and phone dialing. HTC's original complaint was filed against the iPhone, iPad and iPod product lines in May 2010 as a counter to Apple's lawsuit against the handset maker.

According to late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' biography, he took a personal interest in Apple's case against HTC last year because the Taiwanese handset maker had released a device that he felt stole his company's inventions. Jobs subsequently vowed to "destroy Android" and go "thermonuclear war" over the issue.

Friday's news comes as the final ruling on Apple's case against HTC is set to arrive next Monday. The decision was originally scheduled for this Wednesday, but it was pushed back for unspecified reasons. A judge ruled in July that HTC had infringed two of Apple's patents.

Both companies have several other outstanding complaints lodged against the other with the ITC. Apple filed another suit against HTC in July. In September, HTC filed its third lawsuit against Apple with the commission, this time using patents it had acquired from Google.

For its part, HTC has said it views Apple's complaints against it as little more than a "distraction." Chief Executive Peter Chou has remained optimistic that the suit will not affect HTC's business.

Executives at the company have also indicated interest in settling its dispute with Apple. Industry watchers believe that HTC's $300 million purchase of S3 Graphics earlier this year was an attempt by the company to gain leverage on Apple.

S3 Graphics had sued Apple over patents related to image compression, winning aninitial ITC ruling against Apple in July. But, the decision was overturned by the commission in November. HTC responded to the news by noting that it would conduct a "holistic re-evaluation" of its acquisition in light of the reversal.
post #2 of 40
Herein lies the big problem for every one of these "IP theft" cases. A single, perhaps even vague and unknown, patent claim can result in an entire line of devices being banned from the market. None of these guys are willing to simply settle anymore, licence the tech as they traditionally have. They all are out for blood, demanding injunctions for the most minor infringement claims. With that refusal to settle, a single validated claim can see a companies fortunes turned upside-down, with perhaps no intent to have infringed on their part to begin with.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Herein lies the big problem for every one of these "IP theft" cases. A single, perhaps even vague and unknown, patent claim can result in an entire line of devices being banned from the market. None of these guys are willing to simply settle anymore, licence the tech as they traditionally have. They all are out for blood, demanding injunctions for the most minor infringement claims. With that refusal to settle, a single validated claim can see a companies fortunes turned upside-down, with perhaps no intent to have infringed on their part to begin with.

The old world doesn't exist anymore. Now if you create a new technology but somewhere deep inside it has some code or function that someone drew on a napkin 7 years ago and patented they have the right to shut you down...and likely will if you compete with them.

This is the new world. So much for progress, it's all about profits.
post #4 of 40
Time for Samsung and other Android vendors to start running...

You all used a product that violated patents. You knew it and therefore payed protection money to Microsoft (5-15 dollar per Android device).

That didn't help you.

And know Google owns Motorola mobile, who also violates these patents. This will be the biggest lawsuit and settlement in history.

It is not to much to ask: Invent something own. If PALM can do it, Google and other companies can do it. But Google is the internet generation. Just pirate everything...
post #5 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

The old world doesn't exist anymore. Now if you create a new technology but somewhere deep inside it has some code or function that someone drew on a napkin 7 years ago and patented they have the right to shut you down...and likely will if you compete with them.

This is the new world. So much for progress, it's all about profits.

This is what is different about Apple.
Apple is about creating the greatest product ever, then make profit.

All other companies is the other way. How do we most profit? What product fits in.

BTW: You Google tag is just silly. Google did not invent Android, they bought it. Any idiot in the world with money could do the same thing. They blatantly clones iOS because they have never had an own idea in history. Not a single software o product. That is just fact.

To admire a company that never invents anything, that data mines its customers, that have been guilty of illegal activities from modifying Linux code, illegal drugs ads, abusing its dominating position in market, that sniffed open Wifi hotspots and refuses to delete the data that they sniffed. That is strange. I guess its because of lack of IT knowledge. Bookmark this page and come back when you are 35 years+ and you will understand the world better.
post #6 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

This is what is different about Apple.
Apple is about creating the greatest product ever, then make profit.

All other companies is the other way. How do we most profit? What product fits in.

BTW: You Google tag is just silly. Google did not invent Android, they bought it. Any idiot in the world with money could do the same thing. They blatantly clones iOS because they have never had an own idea in history. Not a single software o product. That is just fact.

To admire a company that never invents anything, that data mines its customers, that have been guilty of illegal activities from modifying Linux code, illegal drugs ads, abusing its dominating position in market, that sniffed open Wifi hotspots and refuses to delete the data that they sniffed. That is strange. I guess its because of lack of IT knowledge. Bookmark this page and come back when you are 35 years+ and you will understand the world better.

So the Android they bought is the Android that exists? no? They've actually been modifying it significantly? Oh okay then...So I guess Siri is just what Apple bought...no? it isn't? Damn...so companies CAN buy and modify something to make it better huh? Crazy.

Also what has Apple invented? BIIIIGGG difference between invent and innovate.

Also can I get a point by point list of what you feel Android...that is STOCK Android...Google's Android...clones blatantly from iOS? I'll be waiting.

The two OSes are so different it's sad that there is even a real debate...just like MacOSX and Ubuntu are different...they have similarities, sure, but they are damn near night and day if you get beyond the "they have icons.........."

http://devour.com/video/everything-is-a-remix-part-3/

Everything is a remix...that's how it always was...from clothing, to language, to slang, to games, to cars, to computers, to operating systems...etc.

NOTHING exists in a void...nothing.

Not even Apple.
post #7 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

there isn't much similar between iOS and Android proper. That's probably why Apple hasn't gone aganist google directly; they don't have a strong case aganist them. Now samsung, on the other hand, who modifies android to look and behave like iOS, whose hardware design of a few select phones draw "significant inspiration from the iphone" to put it politely is being attacked by Apple, and for good reason.

I haven't looked at what Apple is using aganist HTC, but I'm betting its not design based.

One very big thing is one of the patents HTC is facing on Monday, you see wa-ay back in the nineties when Andy Ruben (the "inventor" of Android) was a mere intern at Apple, they thought it would be pretty cool if software could decipher the context of a line of text and decide on how other software would relate to it based on that context and then perform various actions based on that.

No-one had done it before so they set about inventing it, using the people they pay to come up with such things.

Now having invented it they patented it, Apple did the work so they deserved to reap the benefits.

This is being decided on Monday and as ALL Android devices use this it's a pretty big deal, license or work around, that's what's at stake.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #8 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

One very big thing is one of the patents HTC is facing on Monday, you see wa-ay back in the nineties when Andy Ruben (the "inventor" of Android) was a mere intern at Apple, they thought it would be pretty cool if software could decipher the context of a line of text and decide on how other software would relate to it based on that context and then perform various actions based on that.

No-one had done it before so they set about inventing it, using the people they pay to come up with such things.

Now having invented it they patented it, Apple did the work so they deserved to reap the benefits.

This is being decided on Monday and as ALL Android devices use this it's a pretty big deal, license or work around, that's what's at stake.

Which makes my point exactly.

Consider too that somewhere in someones bag of IP may a stray patent that could have the potential to block the entire line of iPhones from the market if used with malice by the holder. Is that really what you or anyone else would want to see? It's a two-way street.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #9 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So much for progress, it's all about profits.

Progress, I would think, is when one company does something novel, not when it relies on copying something already patented by another (and without a license no less). Having a patent on something is what drives progress, giving a company the motivation to come up with something new and unique (and presumably better).
post #10 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post

Progress, I would think, is when one company does something novel, not when it relies on copying something already patented by another (and without a license no less). Having a patent on something is what drives progress, giving a company the motivation to come up with something new and unique (and presumably better).

They can also be weilded improperly, used as roadblocks to markets. That's the reason the European Union is looking into both Apple and Samsung's legal attacks on each other. There's concerns IP is being used in an overtly aggressive manner by one or both in courtroom claims.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #11 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

there isn't much similar between iOS and Android proper. That's probably why Apple hasn't gone aganist google directly; they don't have a strong case aganist them. Now samsung, on the other hand, who modifies android to look and behave like iOS, whose hardware design of a few select phones draw "significant inspiration from the iphone" to put it politely is being attacked by Apple, and for good reason.

I haven't looked at what Apple is using aganist HTC, but I'm betting its not design based.



Apple would go after Google if they sold the software, but they give it away. Android was bought and modified to compete with the iPhone. It copies almost every part of the iOS.
post #12 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Time for Samsung and other Android vendors to start running...

You all used a product that violated patents. You knew it and therefore payed protection money to Microsoft (5-15 dollar per Android device).

That didn't help you.

And know Google owns Motorola mobile, who also violates these patents. This will be the biggest lawsuit and settlement in history.

It is not to much to ask: Invent something own. If PALM can do it, Google and other companies can do it. But Google is the internet generation. Just pirate everything...

Apple didnt "invent" anything. All of the ideas they've used were already on the market or as prior art.

Dont be so full of yourself.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #13 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Apple didnt "invent" anything. All of the ideas they've used were already on the market or as prior art.

Dont be so full of yourself.

Thanks for clearing that up. Genius.

/sarcasm.
post #14 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

One very big thing is one of the patents HTC is facing on Monday, you see wa-ay back in the nineties when Andy Ruben (the "inventor" of Android) was a mere intern at Apple, they thought it would be pretty cool if software could decipher the context of a line of text and decide on how other software would relate to it based on that context and then perform various actions based on that.

No-one had done it before so they set about inventing it, using the people they pay to come up with such things.

Now having invented it they patented it, Apple did the work so they deserved to reap the benefits.

This is being decided on Monday and as ALL Android devices use this it's a pretty big deal, license or work around, that's what's at stake.

This is one thing people always seem to forget about, and it only came to light when court documents in the HTC case became public. I wonder why the Apple haters/fandroids never want to talk about this specific point?

Andy Rubin didn't just work at Apple, he worked as a junior engineer under the supervision of the two senior engineers who invented this patent. Further, they developed it at the exact same time Andy worked there. There's no way it's a coincidence that ideas developed at Apple made it into Android.

Anyone who develops software will get this. When you switch from one company to work at another, and then encounter the same types of problems, it's very tempting to simply re-use the same solutions you figured out at your previous employer instead of coming up with new solutions.

As a software engineer I've come across this situation many times. I find it extrememly hard to believe Andy Rubin didn't realize he was "re-using" ideas.

Couple this with the "Lindholm" e-mails Google is trying desperately (what is it, 5 or 6 filings to squash it now?) and it's not hard to see Google as wilfully infringing on others ideas.
post #15 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

This is one thing people always seem to forget about, and it only came to light when court documents in the HTC case became public. I wonder why the Apple haters/fandroids never want to talk about this specific point?

Andy Rubin didn't just work at Apple, he worked as a junior engineer under the supervision of the two senior engineers who invented this patent. Further, they developed it at the exact same time Andy worked there. There's no way it's a coincidence that ideas developed at Apple made it into Android.

Anyone who develops software will get this. When you switch from one company to work at another, and then encounter the same types of problems, it's very tempting to simply re-use the same solutions you figured out at your previous employer instead of coming up with new solutions.

As a software engineer I've come across this situation many times. I find it extrememly hard to believe Andy Rubin didn't realize he was "re-using" ideas.

Couple this with the "Lindholm" e-mails Google is trying desperately (what is it, 5 or 6 filings to squash it now?) and it's not hard to see Google as wilfully infringing on others ideas.

www.thisispatented.com (not a real website)

was the coder of vBulletin working at Apple?
post #16 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radjin View Post

Apple would go after Google if they sold the software, but they give it away. Android was bought and modified to compete with the iPhone. It copies almost every part of the iOS.

like?
post #17 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radjin View Post

Apple would go after Google if they sold the software, but they give it away. Android was bought and modified to compete with the iPhone. It copies almost every part of the iOS.


In the Oracle v Google case the Judge has already ruled that the fact that Google gave away Android for free was no Defence and has thrown out that Defence argument.

If you think about the Google Defence argument was ridiculous because they were benefitting from Android whether they charged for it or gave it away in order to profit from Android search/ advertising.

In any event, if you steal something but don't sell it that is no Defence.

It is the act of theft which is the offence.
post #18 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Thanks for clearing that up. Genius.

/sarcasm.

It's difficult to accept the truth so people like yourself likes to spin it around or deny it.

I'm just showing you what the reality is.

And thanks for the compliment. Graduating from UT Austin has its merits.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #19 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Apple didnt "invent" anything. All of the ideas they've used were already on the market or as prior art.

Dont be so full of yourself.

People who talk in absolutes (like you) are the ones who are full of yourself.

Seriously? Did you think before you typed that reply? Apple didn't invent anything? So their portfolio of thousands of patents are all about to be invalidated since every single one of them was already on the market or was prior art?
post #20 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Which makes my point exactly.

Consider too that somewhere in someones bag of IP may a stray patent that could have the potential to block the entire line of iPhones from the market if used with malice by the holder. Is that really what you or anyone else would want to see? It's a two-way street.

No, that's not your point at all. Apple developed that system, patented it and is using it. Rubin, though he knew it was patented and developed by Apple, used it for Android anyway. He knowingly used a patented process that he had no right to. That's much different than developing something on your own and finding out later that someone had patented some small part of it, which is your original point.
post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Apple didnt "invent" anything. All of the ideas they've used were already on the market or as prior art.

That's the most ridiculous statement yet. ALL of Apple's ideas? Wow.
post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

No, that's not your point at all. Apple developed that system, patented it and is using it. Rubin, though he knew it was patented and developed by Apple, used it for Android anyway. He knowingly used a patented process that he had no right to. That's much different than developing something on your own and finding out later that someone had patented some small part of it, which is your original point.

You have apparently created your own argument, as that had nothing to do with anything I wrote, nor the point I made in the very first post.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You have apparently created your own argument, as that had nothing to do with anything I wrote, nor the point I made in the very first post.

The Strawman Cometh
post #24 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radjin View Post

Apple would go after Google if they sold the software, but they give it away. Android was bought and modified to compete with the iPhone. It copies almost every part of the iOS.

I was comparing the two just the other day, and it shocked me how closely Android copied the iOS notification system.

Those guys are blatent ripoffs!
post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Apple didnt "invent" anything. All of the ideas they've used were already on the market or as prior art.

Dont be so full of yourself.


We are talking about DEVELOPING technology -- you just throwing out this blanket statement is nonsense.

Apple usually creates Unique designs, and new processes, and when it doesn't, it licenses them. Sure there is "prior art" on almost every technology -- but it depends on the Pedigree.

>> In this case the "inventor" of Android was a developer from Apple. Then we've got a Google exec on the board of Apple at the time, who did NOT remove himself due to conflict of interest.

So let's look at the entire framework here; Google develops a phone in secret, using concepts and likely code developed by a person while they are working for Apple, and meanwhile they've got an exec who gets top level info on marketing, strategy, IP purchases and development.

Then Samsung, on top of the OTHER things Google has kind of "just used" from others, creates an interface and device that echos the iPhone.

.... this isn't just "Oh, we made a touchscreen interface -- what's unique about that?" You've got IP that was developed while snooping Apple and you've got a non-obvious, non-unique interface on top of that.

WebOS and Microsoft Mobile, at least, did their own thing. It's not inevitable that things look and function like an iPhone -- it's just kind of Me-Too and Lazy.



There are too many lawsuits on mobile tech right now, and most of it is to LIMIT competition. However, in a few of Apple's lawsuits (but not all), it's actually about making DUPLICATE products and NOT innovating.

And Google totally stabbed Jobs in the back on the phone development -- it's not even close to ethical.
post #26 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

We are talking about DEVELOPING technology -- you just throwing out this blanket statement is nonsense.

Apple usually creates Unique designs, and new processes, and when it doesn't, it licenses them. Sure there is "prior art" on almost every technology -- but it depends on the Pedigree.

>> In this case the "inventor" of Android was a developer from Apple. Then we've got a Google exec on the board of Apple at the time, who did NOT remove himself due to conflict of interest.

So let's look at the entire framework here; Google develops a phone in secret, using concepts and likely code developed by a person while they are working for Apple, and meanwhile they've got an exec who gets top level info on marketing, strategy, IP purchases and development.

Then Samsung, on top of the OTHER things Google has kind of "just used" from others, creates an interface and device that echos the iPhone.

.... this isn't just "Oh, we made a touchscreen interface -- what's unique about that?" You've got IP that was developed while snooping Apple and you've got a non-obvious, non-unique interface on top of that.

WebOS and Microsoft Mobile, at least, did their own thing. It's not inevitable that things look and function like an iPhone -- it's just kind of Me-Too and Lazy.



There are too many lawsuits on mobile tech right now, and most of it is to LIMIT competition. However, in a few of Apple's lawsuits (but not all), it's actually about making DUPLICATE products and NOT innovating.

And Google totally stabbed Jobs in the back on the phone development -- it's not even close to ethical.

So another "Apple and/or Steve Jobs are/was retarded in regards to Schmidt on the board despite the fact that Google buying Android was public knowledge at the time he was appointed"

You really do not see how bad your little theory makes your favorite company look right?

Also one function (just one) exists on Android (and everything else in existence today including this forum) not any code from Apple. Get your facts right.

And Google working on a phone was far from secret.
post #27 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

That's the most ridiculous statement yet. ALL of Apple's ideas? Wow.

We MIGHT be able to debate this with an example.

>> I'm tired of the "The stole it all from Xerox" when comparing what Microsoft did. It's the old; everything is equal argument and it isn't even CLOSE to the truth.

Jobs PAID Xerox for a tour of their technology lab.

The designers were happy to have SOMEONE look at what they were doing, as Xerox had no intent on using it, nor did it further develop these ideas.

Jobs didn't go in with a floppy drive -- just smart people taking notes -- IDEAS are not patentable.

Next, the interface for the Lisa, and original Apples, were designed by a lady who, if I remember correctly, never was on the tour.

If you look at what next had produced, it looks nothing like what Apple produced -- it looks a lot more like the Unix based X-Windows to me. But it's been a while.

And again, no Code, no IDE's, no algorithms as far as I know changed hands.

The ideas?
Using a mouse to control a cursor.
Local networking.
Icons to represent files.

When Apple created the Lisa, Apples and Macs -- they developed all their own technology. They had to figure out a way to "reference" objects in memory to the code or images they represented (creating what was a called a double-dererferenced pointer). They used a Supercomputer, I believe to try and optimize and squeeze their OS down. The created things like Quickdraw to make images on the screen, using very relatively primitive components.

The accomplishment of creating a GUI and making it easy to use, when other companies were using ASCII art and command line is nothing short of a miracle. 128K for an OS, and the rest on ROM, then an application and files fitting onto an 800k floppy.

>> And what did Bill Gates create in comparison? He stole CP/M from another man by hiring a hacker/developer. He created his IDE while being an Apple developer and taking advantage of the fact that Jobs hadn't bothered to copyright or patent much of anything -- and mostly ported these ideas and concepts to sit on top of DOS (the other thing he stole).

Then there was networking IP stolen from Novell. Object linking and embedding from another company now a footnote. Video For Windows 1.4d had parts that were a binary match for Quicktime for Windows - and in that ONE case they got caught. Microsoft is NOT the exception -- they are the rule this day in business.

It's not like I'm religious about Apple -- nor do I think they haven't been occasionally BORROWING heavily from shareware developers at times. But they at least seem to innovate the interface, and develop rather than steal, and they license when possible. They aren't saints and they are no longer chumps.


>> But let's not treat everything as equal. Samsung was a privileged manufacturer for the iPhone -- getting reference designs and learning a LOT about Apple's technology. THen they produce a phone that the average consumer can't tell a part from an iPhone.

And google develops their phone while having a privileged seat on Apple's board, and while they have a developer on the inside feeding them tech.

That's not kosher.
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So another "Apple and/or Steve Jobs are/was retarded in regards to Schmidt on the board despite the fact that Google buying Android was public knowledge at the time he was appointed"

You really do not see how bad your little theory makes your favorite company look right?

Also one function (just one) exists on Android (and everything else in existence today including this forum) not any code from Apple. Get your facts right.

And Google working on a phone was far from secret.


1st, it's not MY little company - taking a position isn't evidence of someone who is automatically myopic. I want Android to be successful -- but I recognize that it did NOT have a clean room origin, nor was Google acting in good faith with Apple.

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apples $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong, Jobs said. Im going to destroy Android, because its a stolen product. Im willing to go thermonuclear war on this.
-- that doesn't sound like Jobs REALLY knew what Google intended -- perhaps there was a gentleman's agreement, or their mutual friends said they were doing one thing while doing another. But I doubt Job's sentiment came out of nowhere -- he didn't even freak out like this when Gates took things from Apple's IDE to make Windows.
GRAND THEFT ANDROID

I'm not an expert at what went on at the time Google was developing Android, but I'm pretty sure that if we looked into it a bit, we will see that Android probably benefitted from having eyes and ears in Apple's boardroom.

There is a LOT of techniques, that seem to bounce back and forth and iPhones now do some things that Androids do -- like multitasking and copying the BETTER alert system from Android -- but it's also very likely that Apple had a long list of "nice features" but started with battery life and interface first.


I didn't say they directly stole the OS -- it's completely a different platform entirely -- and it's what gives Apple a competitive advantage. The ONE unique thing Google really did, and it's their achilles heel;
"
Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an incompatible clone of Java
"
>> Oracle's lawsuit may be the worst. Android is based on someone else's JAVA tech, and then it doesn't leave it compatible. it's the same kind of Embrace and Extend that Microsoft did to JAVA in the first place.

Oracle may NOT be the best home for JAVA as a standard -- but Google isn't doing the platform any favors, and they are making open source proprietary -- kind of against the EULA.

>> If ANY company brings Android to it's knees -- it's likely Oracle. I hope that doesn't happen, but it's going to RAISE the cost of creating an Android phone.


Then there is this; http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...ple/#more-4595
<I>AMD filed a motion with the US International Trade Commission proposing that it dismiss the S3 case against Apple because the patents-in-suit allegedly belong to ATI rather than S3G and ATI has no intention of suing Apple over them, notes FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller.</I>

$300 Million for patents that S3 didn't even own.


>> HTC tried to sue for injunction, but unlike Apple and the Samsung case -- they didn't try to Apple to license from them, and they probably don't have a leg to stand on.


Google is turning into another Microsoft, and other than search and their Android phone -- don't seem to have much focus. I would LOVE for them to get their act together, but to do that, it might require them to innovate.
post #29 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

- cut for space -

You need to fix some of your facts. Or at least fact check.

The mouse, cursor, icons (and folders) existed prior to Apple.

Apple never mentioned anything about Schmidt stealing, being a mole, etc...so why you all insist on it is shocking. Do you know something Apple doesn't?

Android wasn't built in secret. Everyone knew since 2005 they were getting into the phone business.

Rubin stopped working for Apple in the 90s.
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

You need to fix some of your facts. Or at least fact check.

The mouse, cursor, icons (and folders) existed prior to Apple.

The idea of the mouse, cursor, icons (and folders) existed prior to Apple. But it's not the idea that is patentable. What's patentable is the method you use to implement those ideas.

For example, when Doug Engelbart came up with the concept of a mechanical device to control a cursor on a computer screen back in the mid sixties, he built his first "mouse" using a small box with two rollers. One for the x and another for the y axis. And his mouse (and cursor) can only move along those axis.

PARC, in the seventies, built a mouse that used a laser that read a precisely etched grid pattern on a mouse pad as it moved across it. Thus the mouse and cursor was able to move diagonally. But it cost over $300 to build.

Apple, in the eighties, came up with the "mouses ball" to move rollers on the x and y axis. Apple mouse can also move the cursor diagonally across the screen without the need for a special grid pattern mouse pad. And it met Steve Jobs requirements. That it must cost under $15 to build and you can use it by moving it on top for your blue jeans. This was the most common mouse used on all computers until the late nineties, when the laser mouse became cheap enough to build. I'm not sure if Apple ever took out a patent for their mouse design. When people say that Apple "invented" the mouse, they're talking about that mouse that everyone, in the eighties and nineties, used with their computers. The one with the mouse ball in it. No one is saying Apple came up with the original idea of the "mouse". Nearly everyone knows that credit belongs to Doug Engelbart. Except for those that thinks PARC "invented" the mouse.

The same hold true for icons and folders. The software needed to create those is what patentable. And Apple did it one way and PARC did it another. Apple software could run on a $2500 computer. PARC software needed a $16,000 computer.
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

**snip** not going to argue regarding Fake_William who's all over the place **

Rubin stopped working for Apple in the 90s.

Too bad that a key patent was developed while Andy Rubin was working for Apple and that this patent is at the heart of the ITC complaint that's going to be handed down tomorrow (if it doesn't get pushed back again). All the patent experts seem to think a ban on HTC products is inevitable.

Just because touchscreen smartphones are a very recent product doesn't mean that underlying features/functions of the OS itself haven't been thought of many years ago.
post #32 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The idea of the mouse, cursor, icons (and folders) existed prior to Apple. But it's not the idea that is patentable. What's patentable is the method you use to implement those ideas.

For example, when Doug Engelbart came up with the concept of a mechanical device to control a cursor on a computer screen back in the mid sixties, he built his first "mouse" using a small box with two rollers. One for the x and another for the y axis. And his mouse (and cursor) can only move along those axis.

PARC, in the seventies, built a mouse that used a laser that read a precisely etched grid pattern on a mouse pad as it moved across it. Thus the mouse and cursor was able to move diagonally. But it cost over $300 to build.

Apple, in the eighties, came up with the "mouses ball" to move rollers on the x and y axis. Apple mouse can also move the cursor diagonally across the screen without the need for a special grid pattern mouse pad. And it met Steve Jobs requirements. That it must cost under $15 to build and you can use it by moving it on top for your blue jeans. This was the most common mouse used on all computers until the late nineties, when the laser mouse became cheap enough to build. I'm not sure if Apple ever took out a patent for their mouse design. When people say that Apple "invented" the mouse, they're talking about that mouse that everyone, in the eighties and nineties, used with their computers. The one with the mouse ball in it. No one is saying Apple came up with the original idea of the "mouse". Nearly everyone knows that credit belongs to Doug Engelbart. Except for those that thinks PARC "invented" the mouse.

The same hold true for icons and folders. The software needed to create those is what patentable. And Apple did it one way and PARC did it another. Apple software could run on a $2500 computer. PARC software needed a $16,000 computer.

All you are doing is detailing the evolution of these things...and I'm glad you know it. Most people seem to feel there was DOS-like computers ONLY and then boom, Apple came through with the GUI.

Apple deserves a hell of a lot of credit but too many people give them ALL of the credit.
post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

hindsight is 20/20. Maybe Apple didn't put 2 and 2 together, or maybe they really missed all those signs.

Or maybe (most likely) it didn't happen as so many seem to feel it did.
post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Too bad that a key patent was developed while Andy Rubin was working for Apple and that this patent is at the heart of the ITC complaint that's going to be handed down tomorrow (if it doesn't get pushed back again). All the patent experts seem to think a ban on HTC products is inevitable.

Just because touchscreen smartphones are a very recent product doesn't mean that underlying features/functions of the OS itself haven't been thought of many years ago.

The point was he made it sound like Rubin was working on Android while at Apple and was feeding code to his own company...this is not true.

And yea...we'll see tomorrow how the world feels about giving Apple a monopoly on something all web browsers, most forum software, and most modern software use.

http://www.wellguesstheybetterremove...linkedthis.com

andthis@gmail.com

The reason Android uses auto linking is because EVERY modern web browser at the time of it's inception and most internet software used it...not because Rubin was at Apple.

Also this is why I do not like software patents...now if Android's code is 100% Apple's code then yes, ban it or penalize Google and demand an alteration...but in this case it is more of an idea thing...they patented the idea.
post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

All you are doing is detailing the evolution of these things...and I'm glad you know it. Most people seem to feel there was DOS-like computers ONLY and then boom, Apple came through with the GUI.

That's because what most people saw in the market, before the Mac, was only DOS-like computers. How many people had access to PARC? Besides Steve Jobs and Apple, how many people outside of PARC, that you have read about, ever saw or heard about the Xerox Alto computer running a GUI? Most people don't care about a computer that uses a GUI and mouse that is sitting in some lab some where, that's never going to be available (or affordable) to the average consumer. Even if it's the first of it's kind.

Thomas Edison was not the first person to come up with the idea of a device to record and reproduce sound. Some 50 years before, some one made a device that recorded sound on to a piece of paper covered in ashes. The etched lines made by this device, consisting of a needle attached to a diaphragm, resembled a record groove. But he had no way of playing back that sound. And some 6 months before Edison introduced his phonograph, some guy sent to the French patent office, a sketch outlining a device that could record and play back the recorded sound. However, this guy didn't have the skill, nor the desire, to build the device he came up with. And when Edison introduced his cylinder phonograph, there were people that said that he should not be credited with inventing the phonograph, there was prior art. But most people ignore the prior art and give Edison his due credit. Not only because he was the first to build a working model of such a device, but more importantly, because his device was available to the average consumer. (Even though is was some what expensive for the average consumer at the time it came out).

If Edison had kept his cylinder phonograph confined to his lab because he saw no need for such a device or that it was too expensive to market to the consumer, then most people might be saying that it was Emile Berliner that invented the phonograph. Berliner is the person that came up with the flat disc record used on Victor Talking Machines, Victrolas, Gram-o-phones, and all record players to date. (It was a vast improvement sound wise and had other advantages over the wax cylinder used by Edison.) That's because, if Edison didn't bring his phonograph to market, most people would only envision a record player playing a flat disc. Not the wax cylinder that was used by Edison for his first phonograph. BTW- "phonograph" was a Trademark own by Edison at the time. But it became generic for all record players.

People tend to think that the inventor is the person (or company) that first bring the product to market. Not the first to patent such a product that there's a prototype of and it's sitting in a lab some where, while they try to figure out what to use it for. It's just like how many people think that Henry Ford invented the automobile for no other reason than because he made them affordable (with his assembly line process) for the average consumer to own. Many people think that Kodak invented photographic film. They didn't. Kodak invented photographic film on a roll, that the average consumer can easily use in their roll film camera. But hardly any one would think that Kodak invented the first megapixal digital camera. But they did.


Quote:
App[le deserves a hell of a lot of credit but too many people give them ALL of the credit.

It's more like too many people giving Apple NONE of the credit.
post #36 of 40
- I'll address the large portion of your post separately -
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


It's more like too many people giving Apple NONE of the credit.

I don't recall anyone or any large number of people giving Apple no credit...only an idiot would do that...and being that there are quite a few idiots I guess I could see that happening.

But no...Apple, with Steve at the helm is responsible for advancing tech at a faster rate and for reinvigorating existing markets
post #37 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

That's because what most people saw in the market, before the Mac, was only DOS-like computers. How many people had access to PARC? Besides Steve Jobs and Apple, how many people outside of PARC, that you have read about, ever saw or heard about the Xerox Alto computer running a GUI? Most people don't care about a computer that uses a GUI and mouse that is sitting in some lab some where, that's never going to be available (or affordable) to the average consumer. Even if it's the first of it's kind.

Thomas Edison was not the first person to come up with the idea of a device to record and reproduce sound. Some 50 years before, some one made a device that recorded sound on to a piece of paper covered in ashes. The etched lines made by this device, consisting of a needle attached to a diaphragm, resembled a record groove. But he had no way of playing back that sound. And some 6 months before Edison introduced his phonograph, some guy sent to the French patent office, a sketch outlining a device that could record and play back the recorded sound. However, this guy didn't have the skill, nor the desire, to build the device he came up with. And when Edison introduced his cylinder phonograph, there were people that said that he should not be credited with inventing the phonograph, there was prior art. But most people ignore the prior art and give Edison his due credit. Not only because he was the first to build a working model of such a device, but more importantly, because his device was available to the average consumer. (Even though is was some what expensive for the average consumer at the time it came out).

If Edison had kept his cylinder phonograph confined to his lab because he saw no need for such a device or that it was too expensive to market to the consumer, then most people might be saying that it was Emile Berliner that invented the phonograph. Berliner is the person that came up with the flat disc record used on Victor Talking Machines, Victrolas, Gram-o-phones, and all record players to date. (It was a vast improvement sound wise and had other advantages over the wax cylinder used by Edison.) That's because, if Edison didn't bring his phonograph to market, most people would only envision a record player playing a flat disc. Not the wax cylinder that was used by Edison for his first phonograph. BTW- "phonograph" was a Trademark own by Edison at the time. But it became generic for all record players.

People tend to think that the inventor is the person (or company) that first bring the product to market. Not the first to patent such a product that there's a prototype of and it's sitting in a lab some where, while they try to figure out what to use it for. It's just like how many people think that Henry Ford invented the automobile for no other reason than because he made them affordable (with his assembly line process) for the average consumer to own. Many people think that Kodak invented photographic film. They didn't. Kodak invented photographic film on a roll, that the average consumer can easily use in their roll film camera. But hardly any one would think that Kodak invented the first megapixal digital camera. But they did.

I don't think we disagree...in fact I'm sure we don't. Not even sure if we are debating at this point. lol

edit: yea I read back...and we don't seem to disagree at all. It may sound like I'm downplaying Apple's achievements and innovations but that is most likely an unintentional result of me feeling the need to counter those who act as if we'd be living in the stone-age without Apple.


Back to topic my issues with software patents are as follows:

This is an old analogy but it's easy to follow.

Say you created the mousetrap...the plank of wood with the springloaded trap/switch. Specific design, works wonderfully...you patent it...you own THAT mousetrap...anyone wants to build your mousetrap better get your permission, pay, or be prepared for the penalties.

I come around, and I build a different mousetrap...the end game is the same...it traps mice...but the way it gets there isn't....maybe my springloaded trap is triggered a different way...perhaps it zigs, whereas yours zagged...now there is no denying that my mousetrap was directly inspired by your mousetrap existing...but my mousetrap is NOT your mousetrap....we can both patent our separate ideas...and share the market.

Now let's say you code "an apparatus in which a springloaded trap is set and a trigger is baited in which a mouse and/or other rodent is lured into said trap by said bait and causes the spring mechanism to release thereby trapping and/or killing the mouse."

That can cover any possible design or method for trapping and/or killing mice...as long as it uses a spring and some bait.

So essentially with that coded patent you didn't patent YOUR mousetrap...you patented the idea of trapping and/or killing mice using a springloaded trap...so even if mine is not like yours...somehow I am in violation.


Like I've said before...if the code is exactly the same in HTC (Android) and Apple's version of auto-hyperlink then by all means demand royalties, penalty, and a change in code.

But if the codes are completely different yet the end result is the same...why should Apple get to sue?

If you build a vacuum one way...and I build it another...both being vacuums...both having the same end game...but both built differently...should he who invented the first type of vacuum be able to sue? Obviously not...but in software it's a lot murkier.
post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

And yea...we'll see tomorrow how the world feels about giving Apple a monopoly on something all web browsers, most forum software, and most modern software use.

http://www.wellguesstheybetterremove...linkedthis.com

andthis@gmail.com

The reason Android uses auto linking is because EVERY modern web browser at the time of it's inception and most internet software used it...not because Rubin was at Apple.

Also this is why I do not like software patents...now if Android's code is 100% Apple's code then yes, ban it or penalize Google and demand an alteration...but in this case it is more of an idea thing...they patented the idea.

It's not any real issue based on today's decision. The ITC Judge affirmed an extremely narrow victory for Apple which amounted to nothing at all in all likelihood, and won't go into effect until April in any case.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 40
Well, Apple won. Some of HTC's stuff will be banned in the US in 2012.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #40 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, Apple won. Some of HTC's stuff will be banned in the US in 2012.

Potentially banned. Given until mid April to put a workaround in place, I'm sure you would expect the function to be changed.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC to review one patent in HTC complaint against Apple