It's nice that we finally got the details of the patents referenced in the suit. Doesn't change the fact that it's pretty clear this is Apple trying to see how much success they have here before going after Android directly.
One of my frustrations here is that quite honestly, HTCs interface is just not that similar to the iPhone interface, and certainly runs on different architecture. Sense UI has features that I wish my (and my wife's) iPhone 3GS' had -- swiping left and right to switch between apps instead of just the grid of icons and search being one of them. Yes you can see a grid of applications, yes the art style is similar... but the experience of using Sense UI is quite different. I actually wish I could have Sense UI my iPhone as it's-- to me-- a nice hybrid between the overly app-based implementation Apple has and the overly information-based implementation Windows Phone 7 is going for.
My point-- there may be some merit here based on the specific patents that Apple holds, but the statements people are making that HTC's UI is a 'copycat' are just false. And lets be frank, Apple takes inspiration from others just as much as everybody else.
The patents in the lawsuit aren't about "look and feel" or design trademarks so just looking for similarities in the UI will get you nowhere. It's about the hardware and software implementations underlying the system.
Let's see it. If it's anything like any of the other lists we've seen floating around the internets, Apple's done much better than even I expected.
Are you trying to say the mouse was invented by Apple? Are you serious? The mouse was invented in 1963 by Douglas Engelbart.
Apple also did not invent the Apps Store. While they made iTunes, music libraries has already been around for some time.
For something to be a "game changer" the best you are going to get is the iPod that was a true game changer. The iPhone is a great product but even that isn't a game changer.
Every company sees dark times and some never make it out of those dark times. Apple has had its share of dark times and right now they are doing very well. Its not like they can never see dark times again. Also the iPad isn't even on sale for all we know it could be the next Apple TV, Mac Mini, Apple II or G4 Cube.
Also you mentioned OSX how about we talk about Apple operating systems before OSX they didn't exactly burn up the tech industry in fact most of them outright sucked.
Seeing as how this patent lawsuit wasn't filed in Marshall, Texas it's an automatic point for Apple (and for Nokia, respectively).
One thing I find interesting is that a jury trial is requested (or demanded) by Apple. There's a strange disconnect between those judging the facts of the case as it comes to trial (the jury) and the class of people to whom the instructions for building the invention are targeted (persons skilled in the relevant art). It is up to counsel to have these things explained in appropriate terms but I can't help but wonder whether a similarly composed jury would be better able to measure the merits of the case.
This of course it not relevant to the Apple good, everyone else bad theme and quite apart from the merits of whether patents of the kind contemplated should be awarded but it is another point to be made in the broader patent discussion.
First Nokia and now Apple. No respect for Apple on this move. Compete on the market instead of the courtroom!
The counter-suit is going to get interesting too, when it comes, given that HTC has been making phones for a lot longer and probably has tons of its own patents that it can sue for. Why can't they just stick to making phones? Or is Jobs out of ideas for iPhone 4.0?
Are you trying to say the mouse was invented by Apple? Are you serious? The mouse was invented in 1963 by Douglas Engelbart.
Apple also did not invent the Apps Store. While they made iTunes, music libraries has already been around for some time.
For something to be a "game changer" the best you are going to get is the iPod that was a true game changer. The iPhone is a great product but even that isn't a game changer.
Every company sees dark times and some never make it out of those dark times. Apple has had its share of dark times and right now they are doing very well. Its not like they can never see dark times again. Also the iPad isn't even on sale for all we know it could be the next Apple TV, Mac Mini, Apple II or G4 Cube.
Also you mentioned OSX how about we talk about Apple operating systems before OSX they didn't exactly burn up the tech industry in fact most of them outright sucked.
As I said before, you've got a strange understanding of the words "game changer".
[QUOTE=mark2005;1582565]Depends on what you mean by "game changer". Most people think it means that it significantly changes the game that was being played by the competitors prior to its arrival. [QUOTE]
And that is exactly what Quadra means. This is the same guy that was saying the iPad was going to totally replace notebooks it was going to be a game changer on the entire notebook industry and "Slate" computing was going to take over the world.
Wish I was joking about that but I'm not. Then after it was released he was happy to try it call it a Kindle killer. Talk about downgrading your expectations.
That makes little sense since Android is not tied to any one vendor and Android is open, which means that any win for Apple against HTC means that any other vendor can change up any implementation of Android to deal with patent infringement.
Yeah, exactly. Apple wants to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to use Android.
What it clearly shows is that Apple thinks it can convince the court that HTC has violated its patents. Attributing it to 'fear' might make for amusing conversation, but isn't something that is relevant in the legal sense.
Call it fear or whatever you want to. The fact that Apple is doing this shows that they are seeing Android as a real, and a really big, threat.
Quote:
It's one thing to make a generic claim that they have copied other's ideas, but it's another matter to prove it specifically.
The point is that they are copying like crazy themselves. If it's wrong to copy, they shouldn't be doing it themselves (regardless of whether the companies Apple is stealing from will sue them or not).
Quote:
I would be very surprised if Apple were just shooting from the hip in this case. Steve Jobs said at the iPhone introduction that it was heavily patented and that they would defend them vigorously.
Of course this is not shooting from the hip. It's a calculated move to destroy or delay Android. They must be pretty sure that they can pull it off.
One thing I find interesting is that a jury trial is requested (or demanded) by Apple.
Is that and atypical initial request or these lawsuits? If so, that seems to support my hypothesis that Apple isn't going to settle on this one, that they have something to prove. I just hope they don't go back to the spoken motto of "litigate, not innovate" of the early 1990s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill
It's already been pointed out on this thread that this is THE EXACT quote. PLEASE POST MORE OFTEN.
That is how quotations work on message boards, though usually not as quickly as that.
[QUOTE=extremeskater;1582733][QUOTE=mark2005;1582565]Depends on what you mean by "game changer". Most people think it means that it significantly changes the game that was being played by the competitors prior to its arrival.
Quote:
And that is exactly what Quadra means. This is the same guy that was saying the iPad was going to totally replace notebooks it was going to be a game changer on the entire notebook industry and "Slate" computing was going to take over the world.
Wish I was joking about that but I'm not. Then after it was released he was happy to try it call it a Kindle killer. Talk about downgrading your expectations.
I fully expect the iPad to be a game changer in the market segments for tablets, e-readers and netbooks. But we'll see in a couple of months how it's going.
I kinda doubt it will "totally replace notebooks" but I don't know if that's exactly what Quadra said.
Not seeing a single geek argument on the whole of the internet IS incredible. If he's incapable of seeing it - he's fucking magical. I'm still waiting for my unicorn.
Someone earlier cited NeXTstep and object oriented programing - in which I say - good point. It also so happens NeXT computers - like most - have things called batteries. They provide power to things called onboard clocks. These batteries can eventually die and the clocks reset their dates - like mine did. Computers are magical devices that can display words like "unicorn".
Is that and atypical initial request or these lawsuits? If so, that seems to support my hypothesis that Apple isn't going to settle on this one, that they have something to prove. I just hope they don't go back to the spoken motto of "litigate, not innovate" of the early 1990s.
I have no idea whether it is typical or not. I really meant to comment on what I perceive as an inadequacy in the judicial process as technology progresses far more quickly than many people can be expected to understand. I'm not from the US, as it happens.
The point is that they are copying like crazy themselves. If it's wrong to copy, they shouldn't be doing it themselves (regardless of whether the companies Apple is stealing from will sue them or not).
Exactly what is it that Apple is copying? If it's happening "like crazy", it should be easy to give lots of examples with info to back it up.
Sometimes something that seems like common sense, especially in software development, gets overlooked as a patentable feature. If Apple came in, saw there was no patent, and got one of their own, they CAN turn around and make rim pay up, even if they were doing it before Apple.
At least, that's how it was explained to me a while back.
You are correct only to an extent.
If a discovery or an invention has not been patented, and has been made public for more than a year, then it becomes public property.
If someone or some company decided to patent an identical discovery or invention, subseqquent grant of a patent to the second company, does not negate the proviso stated in the previous paragraph -- simply because the patent officer who approved the application did not exercise due diligence to discover all prior patented and "public" discoveries and inventions.
What I find silly (if not stupid) in the arguments -- on both sides -- in this board is the tendency to confuse our bias or opinion to be the basis of deciding the legality or falsehood, of what really are very complex matters to resolve.
That is what the courts are meant to untangle.
It is a lack of proper education and understanding of the law to suggest that there is a need for patent reform therefore Apple or whatever company who plan to protect their patents is wrong or is afraid of the competition.
What is right and wrong are not equivalent to legal or illegal. Nor are these terms synonymous with true or false.
All the court can decide really is what is legal or not.
It is very costly process on all parties involved -- that is why being a lawyer could be a very lucrative position, especially if frivolous suits have no penalty. Like any other company, usually they tend to settle the matter. For example, the use of Apple with the terms "Apple", "iPhone", etc. Perhaps even "iPad"; the same reason, Microsoft was forced to make a deal with Apple, when it got caught using some of the inventions of Apple in its system and products.
What is true also is that if you do not protect your registered trademark or discoveries and inventions, you also lose your legal right to such properties. It becomes generic. A very good example is the "term" -- Aspirin. That trademark was owned by the company "Bayer". But, the company never sued others early, so that when they finally realized their error, it was too late. Note that this must not be confused with the invention for the manufacture of the compound aspirin itself. That patent has a time limit. After that, the manufacture of the compound "aspirin" can be done by any generic pharmaceutical company as it is done now, like many drugs, after a patent expiration, On the other hand, a trademark can be protected for a much longer time.
This doesn't look like an attempt to protect intellectual properties. It's a tactic to slow down development from competitors using vague patenting language.
If you look at Apple's recent history, they have lost as many lawsuits as they have won because they do take tech that is patented by other small companies. The individual inventor is handicapped no matter what you say. It is always better to have a team of high paid lawyers.
Fanboys may not admit but Apple is not always innocent in these situation. Don't think I dislike Apple. For the most part, I only buy their products because they are the best at what they do. Their needs to be some honesty on this thread.
And when Apple has lost, they've paid up. Just the way it is supposed to work. Let's look at the process.
Company A builds gadget X. As they do it, they research if anyone else has relevant patents that they might infringe upon. They may conclude that none do (whether they are deceiving themselves or it was an oversight/misunderstanding or they have incompetent patent researchers, it doesn't matter.) So Company A releases gadget X. Over a period of time, Company B researches gadget X and concludes it has patented technology that was used in gadget X. They notify Company A. Company A researches the complaint.
If it was an oversight/mistake and its clear infringement, Company A can pay up (if there's licensing or cross-patenting options) or redesign using a different non-infringing implementation. If Company A thinks Company B's complaint is debatable, or worse, they just want to prolong the battle as long as they can, they can refuse and wait until they get sued, and the courts can settle it. Doesn't matter what the motivation is, the process works out just the same - go to court.
Note HTC (Company A) said they hadn't heard of/were surprised by the lawsuit, and not that Apple has never contacted them about the patented technology. HTC may believe it's contestable and is just waiting for Apple to sue.
I don't understand why anyone is so worked up over this part of the process. It's the way it was meant to be.
Now, one could be worked up over how patents get issued. But that's another story.
Yeah, exactly. Apple wants to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to use Android.
So the only reason to protect one's IP is to make life difficult for competitors? And by going after HTC, Apple is really going after other manufacturers is some odd, circuitous fashion that has nothing to do with actually protecting one's property, selling products or HTC? By that logic then you could say the creation of the iPhone was because Apple wanted to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to sell phones. It's silly.
Comments
It's nice that we finally got the details of the patents referenced in the suit. Doesn't change the fact that it's pretty clear this is Apple trying to see how much success they have here before going after Android directly.
One of my frustrations here is that quite honestly, HTCs interface is just not that similar to the iPhone interface, and certainly runs on different architecture. Sense UI has features that I wish my (and my wife's) iPhone 3GS' had -- swiping left and right to switch between apps instead of just the grid of icons and search being one of them. Yes you can see a grid of applications, yes the art style is similar... but the experience of using Sense UI is quite different. I actually wish I could have Sense UI my iPhone as it's-- to me-- a nice hybrid between the overly app-based implementation Apple has and the overly information-based implementation Windows Phone 7 is going for.
My point-- there may be some merit here based on the specific patents that Apple holds, but the statements people are making that HTC's UI is a 'copycat' are just false. And lets be frank, Apple takes inspiration from others just as much as everybody else.
The patents in the lawsuit aren't about "look and feel" or design trademarks so just looking for similarities in the UI will get you nowhere. It's about the hardware and software implementations underlying the system.
The GUI
Macintosh
The Mouse
iPod
iPod Touch
iPod Nano
iPhone
iTunes
OS X (Microsoft clearly loves it)
App Store
iMacs
and now . . .
The iPad
Try the past decade.
Let's see it. If it's anything like any of the other lists we've seen floating around the internets, Apple's done much better than even I expected.
Are you trying to say the mouse was invented by Apple? Are you serious? The mouse was invented in 1963 by Douglas Engelbart.
Apple also did not invent the Apps Store. While they made iTunes, music libraries has already been around for some time.
For something to be a "game changer" the best you are going to get is the iPod that was a true game changer. The iPhone is a great product but even that isn't a game changer.
Every company sees dark times and some never make it out of those dark times. Apple has had its share of dark times and right now they are doing very well. Its not like they can never see dark times again. Also the iPad isn't even on sale for all we know it could be the next Apple TV, Mac Mini, Apple II or G4 Cube.
Also you mentioned OSX how about we talk about Apple operating systems before OSX they didn't exactly burn up the tech industry in fact most of them outright sucked.
Again: "Google's don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit! They're trying to kill us!" - Steve Jobs on the Google phone platform.
Is that what one says when they're "scared sh*tless"?
I doubt it.
Seeing as how this patent lawsuit wasn't filed in Marshall, Texas it's an automatic point for Apple (and for Nokia, respectively).
One thing I find interesting is that a jury trial is requested (or demanded) by Apple. There's a strange disconnect between those judging the facts of the case as it comes to trial (the jury) and the class of people to whom the instructions for building the invention are targeted (persons skilled in the relevant art). It is up to counsel to have these things explained in appropriate terms but I can't help but wonder whether a similarly composed jury would be better able to measure the merits of the case.
This of course it not relevant to the Apple good, everyone else bad theme and quite apart from the merits of whether patents of the kind contemplated should be awarded but it is another point to be made in the broader patent discussion.
First Nokia and now Apple. No respect for Apple on this move. Compete on the market instead of the courtroom!
The counter-suit is going to get interesting too, when it comes, given that HTC has been making phones for a lot longer and probably has tons of its own patents that it can sue for. Why can't they just stick to making phones? Or is Jobs out of ideas for iPhone 4.0?
Are you trying to say the mouse was invented by Apple? Are you serious? The mouse was invented in 1963 by Douglas Engelbart.
Apple also did not invent the Apps Store. While they made iTunes, music libraries has already been around for some time.
For something to be a "game changer" the best you are going to get is the iPod that was a true game changer. The iPhone is a great product but even that isn't a game changer.
Every company sees dark times and some never make it out of those dark times. Apple has had its share of dark times and right now they are doing very well. Its not like they can never see dark times again. Also the iPad isn't even on sale for all we know it could be the next Apple TV, Mac Mini, Apple II or G4 Cube.
Also you mentioned OSX how about we talk about Apple operating systems before OSX they didn't exactly burn up the tech industry in fact most of them outright sucked.
As I said before, you've got a strange understanding of the words "game changer".
Again: "Google's don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit! They're trying to kill us!" - Steve Jobs on the Google phone platform.
It's already been pointed out on this thread that this is not a quote. Stop posting bullshit.
And that is exactly what Quadra means. This is the same guy that was saying the iPad was going to totally replace notebooks it was going to be a game changer on the entire notebook industry and "Slate" computing was going to take over the world.
Wish I was joking about that but I'm not. Then after it was released he was happy to try it call it a Kindle killer. Talk about downgrading your expectations.
If you include computers, software, ipods, peripherals, songs, etc. etc.
Not if you compare profit made on telephones vs. profits made my nokia or ericsson or motorola or HTC or etc. etc. on telephones.
That statement by Stevie was pretty loaded. But I guess you went for it....
Bzzt. Wrong. Jobs' comment with laptops and iPods included was about revenue.
The discussion here was about profit. Apple profit on just its phones exceeds the profits of any company from selling just their phones.
Do you understand the difference?
That makes little sense since Android is not tied to any one vendor and Android is open, which means that any win for Apple against HTC means that any other vendor can change up any implementation of Android to deal with patent infringement.
Yeah, exactly. Apple wants to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to use Android.
What it clearly shows is that Apple thinks it can convince the court that HTC has violated its patents. Attributing it to 'fear' might make for amusing conversation, but isn't something that is relevant in the legal sense.
Call it fear or whatever you want to. The fact that Apple is doing this shows that they are seeing Android as a real, and a really big, threat.
It's one thing to make a generic claim that they have copied other's ideas, but it's another matter to prove it specifically.
The point is that they are copying like crazy themselves. If it's wrong to copy, they shouldn't be doing it themselves (regardless of whether the companies Apple is stealing from will sue them or not).
I would be very surprised if Apple were just shooting from the hip in this case. Steve Jobs said at the iPhone introduction that it was heavily patented and that they would defend them vigorously.
Of course this is not shooting from the hip. It's a calculated move to destroy or delay Android. They must be pretty sure that they can pull it off.
One thing I find interesting is that a jury trial is requested (or demanded) by Apple.
Is that and atypical initial request or these lawsuits? If so, that seems to support my hypothesis that Apple isn't going to settle on this one, that they have something to prove. I just hope they don't go back to the spoken motto of "litigate, not innovate" of the early 1990s.
It's already been pointed out on this thread that this is THE EXACT quote. PLEASE POST MORE OFTEN.
That is how quotations work on message boards, though usually not as quickly as that.
And that is exactly what Quadra means. This is the same guy that was saying the iPad was going to totally replace notebooks it was going to be a game changer on the entire notebook industry and "Slate" computing was going to take over the world.
Wish I was joking about that but I'm not. Then after it was released he was happy to try it call it a Kindle killer. Talk about downgrading your expectations.
I fully expect the iPad to be a game changer in the market segments for tablets, e-readers and netbooks. But we'll see in a couple of months how it's going.
I kinda doubt it will "totally replace notebooks" but I don't know if that's exactly what Quadra said.
That did not seem to make any sense....
Not seeing a single geek argument on the whole of the internet IS incredible. If he's incapable of seeing it - he's fucking magical. I'm still waiting for my unicorn.
Someone earlier cited NeXTstep and object oriented programing - in which I say - good point. It also so happens NeXT computers - like most - have things called batteries. They provide power to things called onboard clocks. These batteries can eventually die and the clocks reset their dates - like mine did. Computers are magical devices that can display words like "unicorn".
And now - David Blaine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYxu_MQSTTY
And By-the-fuck-way, didn't everyone get the memo from Apple.com's homepage? Magical is now a documented feature.
Is that and atypical initial request or these lawsuits? If so, that seems to support my hypothesis that Apple isn't going to settle on this one, that they have something to prove. I just hope they don't go back to the spoken motto of "litigate, not innovate" of the early 1990s.
I have no idea whether it is typical or not. I really meant to comment on what I perceive as an inadequacy in the judicial process as technology progresses far more quickly than many people can be expected to understand. I'm not from the US, as it happens.
The point is that they are copying like crazy themselves. If it's wrong to copy, they shouldn't be doing it themselves (regardless of whether the companies Apple is stealing from will sue them or not).
Exactly what is it that Apple is copying? If it's happening "like crazy", it should be easy to give lots of examples with info to back it up.
yes but did they patent it?
Sometimes something that seems like common sense, especially in software development, gets overlooked as a patentable feature. If Apple came in, saw there was no patent, and got one of their own, they CAN turn around and make rim pay up, even if they were doing it before Apple.
At least, that's how it was explained to me a while back.
You are correct only to an extent.
If a discovery or an invention has not been patented, and has been made public for more than a year, then it becomes public property.
If someone or some company decided to patent an identical discovery or invention, subseqquent grant of a patent to the second company, does not negate the proviso stated in the previous paragraph -- simply because the patent officer who approved the application did not exercise due diligence to discover all prior patented and "public" discoveries and inventions.
What I find silly (if not stupid) in the arguments -- on both sides -- in this board is the tendency to confuse our bias or opinion to be the basis of deciding the legality or falsehood, of what really are very complex matters to resolve.
That is what the courts are meant to untangle.
It is a lack of proper education and understanding of the law to suggest that there is a need for patent reform therefore Apple or whatever company who plan to protect their patents is wrong or is afraid of the competition.
What is right and wrong are not equivalent to legal or illegal. Nor are these terms synonymous with true or false.
All the court can decide really is what is legal or not.
It is very costly process on all parties involved -- that is why being a lawyer could be a very lucrative position, especially if frivolous suits have no penalty. Like any other company, usually they tend to settle the matter. For example, the use of Apple with the terms "Apple", "iPhone", etc. Perhaps even "iPad"; the same reason, Microsoft was forced to make a deal with Apple, when it got caught using some of the inventions of Apple in its system and products.
What is true also is that if you do not protect your registered trademark or discoveries and inventions, you also lose your legal right to such properties. It becomes generic. A very good example is the "term" -- Aspirin. That trademark was owned by the company "Bayer". But, the company never sued others early, so that when they finally realized their error, it was too late. Note that this must not be confused with the invention for the manufacture of the compound aspirin itself. That patent has a time limit. After that, the manufacture of the compound "aspirin" can be done by any generic pharmaceutical company as it is done now, like many drugs, after a patent expiration, On the other hand, a trademark can be protected for a much longer time.
CGC
If you look at Apple's recent history, they have lost as many lawsuits as they have won because they do take tech that is patented by other small companies. The individual inventor is handicapped no matter what you say. It is always better to have a team of high paid lawyers.
Fanboys may not admit but Apple is not always innocent in these situation. Don't think I dislike Apple. For the most part, I only buy their products because they are the best at what they do. Their needs to be some honesty on this thread.
And when Apple has lost, they've paid up. Just the way it is supposed to work. Let's look at the process.
Company A builds gadget X. As they do it, they research if anyone else has relevant patents that they might infringe upon. They may conclude that none do (whether they are deceiving themselves or it was an oversight/misunderstanding or they have incompetent patent researchers, it doesn't matter.) So Company A releases gadget X. Over a period of time, Company B researches gadget X and concludes it has patented technology that was used in gadget X. They notify Company A. Company A researches the complaint.
If it was an oversight/mistake and its clear infringement, Company A can pay up (if there's licensing or cross-patenting options) or redesign using a different non-infringing implementation. If Company A thinks Company B's complaint is debatable, or worse, they just want to prolong the battle as long as they can, they can refuse and wait until they get sued, and the courts can settle it. Doesn't matter what the motivation is, the process works out just the same - go to court.
Note HTC (Company A) said they hadn't heard of/were surprised by the lawsuit, and not that Apple has never contacted them about the patented technology. HTC may believe it's contestable and is just waiting for Apple to sue.
I don't understand why anyone is so worked up over this part of the process. It's the way it was meant to be.
Now, one could be worked up over how patents get issued. But that's another story.
Yeah, exactly. Apple wants to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to use Android.
So the only reason to protect one's IP is to make life difficult for competitors? And by going after HTC, Apple is really going after other manufacturers is some odd, circuitous fashion that has nothing to do with actually protecting one's property, selling products or HTC? By that logic then you could say the creation of the iPhone was because Apple wanted to make life difficult for manufacturers who want to sell phones. It's silly.