or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC grants injunction over Apple Data Detectors patent against HTC Android phones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC grants injunction over Apple Data Detectors patent against HTC Android phones

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 
Apple has won an import ban from the US International Trade Commission blocking HTC Android phones that infringe upon its Data Detectors patent, a move that will require Android to drop the feature or implement it in a way that does not infringe.

The ITC granted Apple an import ban that will prevent HTC from selling its phones in the US with the feature beginning April 19, 2012. HTC will either need to remove the functionality or work with Google to implement it in a non-infringing way.

Removing the feature "would put HTC at a competitive disadvantage as compared to other smartphone makers, including other Android device makers," reports FOSS Patents writer Florian Mueller.

"Out of ten patents originally asserted, Apple finally managed to enforce one, and it's one of medium value," Mueller added, noting that "a much broader and potentially more impactful patent on realtime signal processing was not deemed infringed. That one could have had much more impact on HTC and, more generally, Android than the data tapping patent."

Mueller observed, "it's a starting point, and let's not forget that this is just the first of dozens of lawsuits Apple has already brought against the Android platform. There's a learning curve involved with anything, and patents need to be battle-tested. Chances are that Apple's lawsuits will become more effective."

Apple's years of work of Data Detectors

Apple's Advanced Technology Group invented Data Detectors in the mid 1990s, allowing an operating system to recognize formatted data (such as a phone number or email address) within an unstructured document, enabling the user to take action upon the data recognized.



The feature was added to Mac OS 8 in 1997 as a contextual menu plugin (above), but didn't make it to Mac OS X until Leopard 10.5 in 2008. Along the way, Data Detectors evolved into an automated technology initially called LiveDoc, where recognized data was automatically highlighted.



On Mac OS X, the feature enables users to perform actions such as clicking on information (such as in an email signature) to automatically create a new contact entry or selecting a highlighted date in order to set up a new calendar event. Since Snow Leopard in 2009, the feature has been activated for any documents managed by Core Text.

That same year, iOS 3.0 also incorporated the technology, allowing users to see email addresses and phone numbers as hyperlinks that can be touched to place a call, send a text, or compose an email.
post #2 of 52
so shameless... i didn't know the idea for data detectors was copied
post #3 of 52
FossPatents: ". . . relating only to HTC Android phones implementing one of two claims of a "data tapping patent": a patent on an invention that marks up phone numbers and other types of formatted data in an unstructured document, such as an email, in order to enable users to bring up other programs (such as a dialer app) that process such data. The import ban won't relate to HTC Android products that don't implement that feature, or that implement it in ways not covered by those patent claims.

If Google can implement this popular feature, which users of modern-day smartphones really expect, without infringing on the two patent claims found infringed, this import ban won't have any effect whatsoever."


So far there's not been any meaningful judgements passed down for either side. I don't know if courts and agencies are trying to avoid getting embroiled in these battles for marketshare, or if it's common for requested emergency injunctions to take months to implement once a judgement is handed down. Many here are waiting for D-Day to arrive with each court case only to see time being granted to fix any issues.

Perhaps it's perfectly normal. I don't know.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 52
It's a shame that at the rate they release crap, HTC will have new devices made by April that circumvent this

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #5 of 52
...on successfully patenting HYPERLINK technology. Yes, once again, you fooled the patent system into granting you a bogus patent unworthy of any judgement for it. Once again you take an idea that people already have implemented and consider so broad that no one else but you would have the distaste to try to patent it.

Apple is more evil than Microsoft ever was. Both companies admit stealing others' ideas, but only Apple has the audacity to try to patent them as if they were their idea. I hope everyone's eyes start opening up and start the boycott of a company that has gone from humble to a-hole in the course of a decade. Apple is leaning hard on the plastic cover over the self-destruct button....
post #6 of 52
"Baaannnn in the USA, I was Baaaan in the USA"
post #7 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It's a shame that at the rate they release crap, HTC will have new devices made by April that circumvent this

HTC already does. Was changed in Android 2.3. This pertains to Android 1.6-2.2
post #8 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratero View Post

HTC already does. Was changed in Android 2.3. This pertains to Android 1.6-2.2

Correct. It will only help HTC to accelerate to get rid of remaining devices shipping with 2.2 version of Android.

But it is really sad to see that anybody is able to get such a lousy patent. Apple should be ridiculed for just filling for such stupidity, not granted it and not getting any injunction. The patent law needs an update.
post #9 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratero View Post

HTC already does. Was changed in Android 2.3. This pertains to Android 1.6-2.2

Link? I hadn't seen that yet.

EDIT: Never mind. It appears you're absolutely correct, with a post at the Verge explaining this only applies to fairly old HTC handsets. Out of the 10 patents originally asserted by Apple, only part of a single one was successful apparently.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/19/2...tc-devices-itc
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 52
Keep up the lawsuits! I want to see a lot more suing!

We'll see who comes out still standing on two legs when all is said and done. Apple will win a lot more than they lose, thereby winning the war, and that's what ultimately matters.

Android should be sued out of existence. Forums without any Fandroids on them can only be a good thing.
post #11 of 52
They invented this in the mid 90s before it became so "common place". It's not a hyperlink but a way to decipher unformatted data.
post #12 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post




Thats how the Asian companies roll.






post #13 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

This is not remotely true. HTC says it is working on how to remove the functionally. It wouldn't need to do that if it were already removed from Android 2.3 Gingerbread, which is now a YEAR OLD.

How you three trolls managed to get that conclusion from the verge article that says nothing of the sort only indicates that your accounts are likely the same person, and/or a small group of misinformational circle jerks.

Daniel, the Verge quote is here. Take it up with Nitay Patel if you don't believe it's true. I'm just repeating a statement from a generally credible source.

"It's important to note that the ITC issued an exclusion order and not a cease and desist; HTC's current products already on US shelves will be unaffected. However, exclusion orders are generally broadly worded and aren't limited to any specific products — so we would expect Apple to use this ruling to go after newer HTC devices running Android 2.3, 3.0 and even 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). . . We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."


I suspect you didn't read the article before making accusations that the claim was made up by posters here.

Gizmodo is posting the same claim: The ruling currently affects only HTC devices using android 2.2 and prior.
http://gizmodo.com/5869507/htc-andro...-us-next-year/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

Copy or violate an IP to get started and make some traction in the market. Then figure out a workaround for next revisions to avoid or limit the penalty if caught or proven guilty.

It is a shame that this is implemented by Google that Google is not sued.
post #15 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Daniel, the Verge quote is here. Take it up with Nitay Patel if you don't believe it's true. I'm just repeating a statement from a generally credible source.

"It's important to note that the ITC issued an exclusion order and not a cease and desist; HTC's current products already on US shelves will be unaffected. However, exclusion orders are generally broadly worded and aren't limited to any specific products — so we would expect Apple to use this ruling to go after newer HTC devices running Android 2.3, 3.0 and even 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). . . We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."


I suspect you didn't read the article before making accusations that the claim was made up by posters here.

Gizmodo is posting the same claim: The ruling currently affects only HTC devices using android 2.2 and prior.
http://gizmodo.com/5869507/htc-andro...-us-next-year/

I'm not reading the actual article but it sounds more like this is saying that the products HTC already has in the US will not be banned from being sold. As of now. Even though it's infringing on Apples' patent. Not that the products already on US shelves "don't" infringe on the patent. But if HTC don't fix it by April, then all their products (that infringes) will be banned. Even the ones already sitting on US shelves. It doesn't say that Android 2.3 is not infringing. At least not from the clip quoted.
post #16 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I'm not reading the actual article but it sounds more like this is saying that the products HTC already has in the US will not be banned from being sold. As of now. Even though it's infringing on Apples' patent. Not that the products already on US shelves "don't" infringe on the patent. But if HTC don't fix it by April, then all their products (that infringes) will be banned. Even the ones already sitting on US shelves. It doesn't say that Android 2.3 is not infringing. At least not from the clip quoted.


"We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."


In other words the ruling doesn't currently apply to that OS version and up according to the Verge and Gizmodo among others. That doesn't mean they're right, but that's what they wrote.

Of course it doesn't mean that HTC doesn't have an issue to deal with. The EVO 4G and Droid Incredible are two that haven't been updated to 2.3 yet. The original Nexus One is also in that currently infringing group, but I'm pretty sure that the upgrade path to ICS was announced for that yesterday or the day before.

EDIT: I was mistaken on the original Nexus phone. The Nexus One from 2009 hasn't been given clearance for an official version of ICS and may not ever, so CyanogenMod appears to be their best bet with Nexus Ones already running it. The Nexus S is what I apparently recalled getting official ICS updates rolling out now.
http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-brie...mes-to-nexus-s
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

They invented this in the mid 90s before it became so "common place". It's not a hyperlink but a way to decipher unformatted data.

Correct. Somehow people seem to forget that Apple has made several operating systems.
post #18 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

"We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."


In other words the ruling doesn't currently apply to that OS version and up according to the Verge and Gizmodo among others. that doesn't mean they're right, but that's what they wrote.

The ruling may not apply because 2.3 didn't exist when Apple filed the suit. The suit may have only stated up to 2.2. All Apple may have to do now is file the same suit to include the new Android OS's, if it's still infringing. No where does it state that 2.3 isn't infringing on the same patent. It just that the suit only applies up to 2.2 and maybe because that's how the suit may have been filed. And Apple could now go after 2.3 by using the ruling of this suit.

I remember one of these companies involve in these patent suits, can't remember if it was Nokia, Apple, HTC or Samsung, that wanted to include a new product to their original suit and the judge didn't let them. They either had to file a new suit for the new product or wait until the result of the original suit and then go after any new products infringing if they win.
post #19 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The ruling may not apply because 2.3 didn't exist when Apple filed the suit. The suit may have only stated up to 2.2. All Apple may have to do now is file the same suit to include the new Android OS's, if it's still infringing. No where does it state that 2.3 isn't infringing on the same patent. It just that the suit only applies up to 2.2 and maybe because that's how the suit may have been filed. And Apple could now go after 2.3 by using the ruling of this suit.

I remember one of these companies involve in these patent suits, can't remember if it was Nokia, Apple, HTC or Samsung, that wanted to include a new product to their original suit and the judge didn't let them. They either had to file a new suit for the new product or wait until the result of the original suit and then go after any new products infringing if they win.

I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?

EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?

EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.

All I know is that I haven't read one article about this suit that states that Google has already found a work around in 2.3 or that this feature is not in 2.3 at all. All the articles seem to imply that Google has until April to figure it out. No one is saying that Google already figured out a work around. But the ban doesn't seem to be too big of a deal since Google can just remove the feature and put it back in with an update after they find a work around.

Even the "We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything." quote seems to imply that 2.3 is infringing and they're wondering if Apple will pursue any "further" action. Otherwise they should have stated "pursue any action against Android 2.3.......", if this patent didn't affect 2.3 at all.
post #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroNix View Post

...on successfully patenting HYPERLINK technology.

Try again. This isn't just a hyperlink. It is a link that recognizes the protocol needed by the data given. Even when it isn't in an input field labeled 'phone number' or 'email address'

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #22 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroNix View Post

...on successfully patenting HYPERLINK technology. Yes, once again, you fooled the patent system into granting you a bogus patent unworthy of any judgement for it. Once again you take an idea that people already have implemented and consider so broad that no one else but you would have the distaste to try to patent it.

Apple is more evil than Microsoft ever was. Both companies admit stealing others' ideas, but only Apple has the audacity to try to patent them as if they were their idea. I hope everyone's eyes start opening up and start the boycott of a company that has gone from humble to a-hole in the course of a decade. Apple is leaning hard on the plastic cover over the self-destruct button....

Well, Apple did invent and patent Hypercard linking multiple individual documents. That was patented about the time the existing inside a single document patents expires, so it would have been a clear invention of theirs since nobody else played with cross-linked documents in the intervening 20 years.

Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the WWW has said he was inspired by Hypercard's capabilities and he figured out how to hyperlink documents between servers, another clearly independent advance. And he did so programming on a NeXT box, using Apple provided APIs and capabilities. Notice Apple never rained on the parade of an obviously independent discovery even though it indirectly depended on Apple tech (I say Apple because Apple bought NeXT very shortly after Berners Lee finished his initial work and NeXT OS became OS X).

But the links aren't what HTC lost on, it was the ability to filter and discover the appropriate data that eventually gets linked from a plain text document, like the body of an email.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #23 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Correct. It will only help HTC to accelerate to get rid of remaining devices shipping with 2.2 version of Android. ....

I deleted the anti-patent commentary/opinion part of your remarks, but I think this "fact' you are throwing up is quite wrong.

The first clue is that HTC themselves have said that they are already working on ways to get around it, but that they haven't done that yet, which strongly implies that the stolen stuff is still in post Android 2.2 versions.

Secondly, I think the onus on those pushing this argument to explain how exactly one can get around the patent and still have data detectors of any kind. It would appear to be impossible by the wording of the patent and the decision.

You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
News to me if true.
post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I deleted the anti-patent commentary/opinion part of your remarks, but I think this "fact' you are throwing up is quite wrong.

The first clue is that HTC themselves have said that they are already working on ways to get around it, but that they haven't done that yet, which strongly implies that the stolen stuff is still in post Android 2.2 versions.

Secondly, I think the onus on those pushing this argument to explain how exactly one can get around the patent and still have data detectors of any kind. It would appear to be impossible by the wording of the patent and the decision.

You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
News to me if true.

why do you insist on using the word stolen?

That implies a different thing than what actually happened...

and you lot know that.
post #25 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

why do you insist on using the word stolen?

That implies a different thing than what actually happened...

and you lot know that.

What would you call it? Illegally borrowing? Non-permission-based usage? Unsanctioned utilization? IP rapey?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #26 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What would you call it? Illegally borrowing? Non-permission-based usage? Unsanctioned utilization? IP rapey?

infringement?

I have a question...if you built THE mousetrap as I know it...and I built a device that does the same exact thing (same result) in a completely different way (different coding) did I steal your mousetrap?

There is a reason a lot of people are against software patents...they don't require the source code to be valid...so you are essentially patenting the idea...not the direct method...so using a different method but yielding the same result you can still be sued...and that's just the way it is...

not even trying to get into that argument though...the system is as it is...point is...the code HTC used (and, you know, everything else nowadays including Vbulletin) is probably VERY different from the code Apple used...therefore not theft...but infringement.

Had HTC lifted the code directly from Apple's source that would be theft.
post #27 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

infringement?

And what agreement did they infringe upon? As far as I can tell these companies had no agreement with each other on this patent so the only infringement is based on not stealing another's property the way a car thief might infringe on the use of another's vehicle without their permission.

Quote:
I have a question...if you built THE mousetrap as I know it...and I built a device that does the same exact thing (same result) in a completely different way (different coding) did I steal your mousetrap?

Then you wouldn't be infringing on the implementation now would you so this wouldn't be an issue. Note the article clearly suggests that HTC needs to change the way data detectors are implemented not that the only solution is to never, ever, ever, ever have any data detectors… ever.

Quote:
Had HTC lifted the code directly from Apple's source that would be theft.

You have accidental v. purposeful. Lifting directly isn't the only way to steal IP. If you can prove it's purely accidental then I'm willlng to hear you out.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #28 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

And what agreement did they infringe upon? As far as I can tell these companies had no agreement with each other on this patent so the only infringement is based on not stealing another's property the way a car thief might infringe on the use of another's vehicle without their permission.

you know...I'm not even going to get into it...

HTC (or Google) broke into Apple's headquarters...cracked the encryption on their servers or whatever...saw the source code...copied it directly...and then put it into Android...they stole it...directly from Apple..

I get you're all about Apple...I get it...

so from now on when Apple loses they are dirty rotten thieves with no respect for innovation...because apparently that's how it works.

Remember that...you think Apple is full of thieves.
post #29 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Then you wouldn't be infringing on the implementation now would you so this wouldn't be an issue. Note the article clearly suggests that HTC needs to change the way data detectors are implemented not that the only solution is to never, ever, ever, ever have any data detectors ever.

Do you feel if the data detectors are coded differently yet have the same result that they should be allowed?

Especially since the desired end result is the same?
post #30 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Do you feel if the data detectors are coded differently yet have the same result that they should be allowed?

Especially since the desired end result is the same?

I clearly stated that in my comment about a different implementation, but you also have to consider the look and feel when considering trademark. (note: the NTC case seems to only involve a patent)

Can you honestly tell us that you think because Samsung used different code and manufacutring to create a copycat of the iPhone's UI that it's not infringing?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I clearly stated that in my comment about a different implementation, but you also have to consider the look and feel when considering trademark. (note: the NTC case seems to only involve a patent)

Can you honestly tell us that you think because Samsung used different code and manufacutring to create a copycat of the iPhone's UI that it's not infringing?


I've never been pro Samsung on the galaxy phone front.

Hell I'm hardly pro-samsung at all and wish HTC would step it's game up and blow Samsung out of favored territory.

Samsung is a copycat. Too much of one. I disagree with certain aspects of Apple's case against them but overall I'd love for them to lose.
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
News to me if true.

Exactly. And having read the 7 page ITC ruling, I see no where in it that mentions this ban is exclusive to devices using Android 2.2 and before.

If that's the case, and considering this ruling, I'm sure Apple would have no problem with the court expanding the ban to not only all current HTC Android phones infringing on Apple's patent, but all other manufacturer's Android phones doing the same bit of infringing.
post #33 of 52
Don't you think that Apple would be better to just license this tech now that they have the ITC ruling set as a precedent? They could ask for a dollar per phone from each and every android handset sold. That would bring in a silly amount of cash.

Microsoft seem happy to do this already.
post #34 of 52
It looks like Rubin may have inadvertently seen the source code for this, when he was working at Apple with other engineers involved with this specific patent.

He may have copied it when developing Android.

Now the law is quite black and white on this whether it was "inadvertent" or not, it was stolen and HTC has been found guilty so far of using it.

"Inadvertently" picking something of a shelf in a store and walking out with it is no defence.

Source code to the function, Rubin is the link.
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 #35 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

It looks like Rubin may have inadvertently seen the source code for this, when he was working at Apple with other engineers involved with this specific patent.

He may have copied it when developing Android.

Now the law is quite black and white on this whether it was "inadvertent" or not, it was stolen and HTC has been found guilty so far of using it.

"Inadvertently" picking something of a shelf in a store and walking out with it is no defence.

Source code to the function, Rubin is the link.

These patents don't deal with source codes...if they did fewer of these patents would hold any water.

did vbulletin steal from Apple too?

disqus?

Microsoft? (well...bad example lol)

Chrome? Firefox? IE? hotmail? Yahoo? Etc...etc...etc

no? If source codes were required for software patents software patents would be a lot weaker than they are.

I can patent A hinge...but I can't patent THE hinge. Physical objects need more specifics...I can't patent the idea of a hinge.

Software patents allow you to patent the "method and apparatus for..." almost anything effectively patenting the idea of something.

If there is a common problem...and 100 engineers code 100 ways to get from point A to B...should the first person to get to B get to tell the other 99 that their 99 different ways of getting the same result are STOLEN!!!!!??


I get that you love Apple...but don't be closed minded.

Infringe...yes... (specifically due to how software patents are handled) stole? no. Had any of Apple's source code been found in Android source code (Freely available) Apple would've shut down Android a long time ago.
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?

EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.

HTC's statement on this issue is very clear:
"However, the ‘647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.”

They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.

So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

HTC's statement on this issue is very clear:
"However, the 647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.

They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.

So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.

Yay progress.

/s
post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

HTC's statement on this issue is very clear:
"However, the 647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.

They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.

So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.

What's going to stop future HTC owners from just going to the app stores or wherever and just downloading the original, a modified, or a different SMS app that has this feature?
post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrispoe View Post

What's going to stop future HTC owners from just going to the app stores or wherever and just downloading the original, a modified, or a different SMS app that has this feature?

Either laziness or a ban on said apps.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Either laziness or a ban on said apps.

Totally agree about the laziness aspect, but there's no way to ban an app on android. You can install apps from anywhere.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • ITC grants injunction over Apple Data Detectors patent against HTC Android phones
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC grants injunction over Apple Data Detectors patent against HTC Android phones