No, Apple had a strong case against Palm, they just didn't see them as a real threat. Htc coupled with Android is a very real threat. It's on the table. And I agree with the above statements that the Implementation of multitouch to the N1 in addition to Sense UI probably tipped the scale.
How do you know that Apple has a strong case against Palm?
Do you have insight into someone who has investigated and come to that conclusion?
Edit: Also, a company doesn't necessarily sue someone because they are a threat. It is equally likely that it sues a smaller company who has less resources with which to defend itself well. Once you win one patent lawsuit, it tips the bar a bit for the next one. So in this case, Apple COULD be suing HTC because it's small and overseas. Or it could be that they are the first to copy Apple's patent (the Dream/G1 being one of the oldest multi-touch phones in the market). Or it could be, like you imply, that they are a threat.
I don't really know since I wasn't a fly in Apple's boardroom last week; I'm just pointing out that there are lots of legal strategies to choose from.
You don't need to license any sort of "key" to access iTunes, you just need to make the software like RIM did.
Palm was too lazy to even do that, instead they forged USB identification keys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris
I think that Apple didn't bother going after Palm because Palm was "only" piggybacking onto iTunes, not stealing their products. It really benefitted Apple in a minor way: more iTunes users, more iTunes Store sales. I'm surprised that Apple didn't license an iTunes "key" to Palm for them to use iTunes.
All Apple needed do was tweak iTunes a bit and break the Palm connections. A few hours of programmers' time versus the bottomless money pit of legal action. Sounds like a deal.
Maybe Apple was cutting Jon Rubinstein some slack, too.
Apple PAID Xerox for use of their IP: GUI, mouse, laser printing, etc..
).
actually that's so wrong exactly the opposite is true. It's the niddling details like UP doesn't mean DOWN that makes me post.
Xerox was allowed to invest in Apple prior to Apple's first stock-offering. Intellectual Property share was included in the agreement. In effect, Xerox PAID Apple, but since Xerox was investing heavily in a yet-to-be public company why WOULDN'T they want them to succeed ("here's 20 million - now would you go out of business so we can fire everyone in accounting who suggested this idea").
This of course has been noted in at least 10 books in 30 years. Naturally it's a big secret to everyone who doesn't read books.
But, warning to Apple the fact that they are ignoring Palm (unless there is a hidden license agreement I don't know about ) could prove to be negative as HTC is like to say they are selecting enforcing their patents and such Apple could lose the case.
"they are selecting enforcing their patents" - that is not a legal defense.
Have you tried that in court when you get a speeding ticket when others did not? It's useless; you need to have an affirmative argument as well (the cop was prejudiced against my race/ethnicity/sexual orientation/blah/blah/blah).
There is no law that says you have to sue everyone who is using your patented technology. Plus, maybe Palm isn't even using Apple's patented technology.
Let's jump back to the Apple Newton, which was around before HTC even existed.
Arguably it was put on the backburner for a while, updated and re-released as the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers". The only real one has been the iPod and the iPhone which isn't even the #1 selling smartphone.
Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best. Its not like they have been burning up the tech industry with everyone following for decades. Most of their products can bearly even make a dent in market share and the simple fact is they do well because they have a cult following that is willing to be over charged for hardware.
If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.
Lets jump back into reality when it come to how long Apple has truly been successful which by the way can change at anytime as it can with any company. Also note Apple has never put anyone out of business. It took them forever just to shutdown a company like Psystar which was pretty much run out of someones garage. Comparing them shutting down psystar compared to HTC backed by Google is freaking joke.
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.
My point is that the suit is more about Apply not wanting to have to compete with a phone like the Nexus One which seem to operate significantly different than the iPhone...
P.S. The look and feel issue was sorted out years ago with the Lotus vs Excel law suits.....
On Google: We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won?t let them, he says. Someone else asks something on a different topic, but there?s no getting Jobs off this rant. I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing, he says. This don?t be evil mantra: ?It?s bullshit.?
Like someone else said, this is a very loaded quote.
The HTC phone's have been pushing Apples IP boundaries for a while now, functions released in European models then implemented as updates in the US models.
HTC (and Google?) have been testing just how far they can go in imitating the iPhone, obviously they overstepped the mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erac3rx
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.
While I posted in a similar vein when the Nokia suit story broke here, it bears repeating. First you cannot judge a patent by it's title, no matter how many you list in sequence. It is the details of the patent, the technology, etc. that are critical, period. So to cry foul based on the title or concept is to demonstrate a very deep lack of understanding of the patent/tort system and pertaining laws, no matter how broken it is.
Second, multitouch has many, many implementations. There is no effective way to carry multitouch specifically into this conversation without being very specific about to which implementation of multitouch you refer. Apple is of course suing on the basis of its very particular implementation of multitouch, derived (most likely, but not definitively) from its acquisition of a smaller multitouch developer company and its patents/IP.
I have not yet seen an opinion expressed in this thread that demonstrates any expertise in patent law or the purported technologies in question under the suit, so all of this is purely speculative and more or less inaccurate, as none of us have the necessary information required to make anything but an uninformed observation.
As for attributing anything like emotions to a large corporation, that's simply anthropmorphising at a ridiculous level, something else I posted on a while back. Apple, Microsoft, HTC, Motorola aren't "scared" of anything. The executives, managers and administrators spend their time directing operations to ensure the ongoing success of the corporation. If it makes business sense to sue another company, based on targeted research into their products and services compared to owned IP or competitive offerings, that's what they do. If it makes business sense to partner with a company that competes with them, they do that too. The corporate business landscape is incredibly complex, and involves a matrix of competing and cooperating relationships that the average person wouldn't and doesn't grasp. Especially as evidenced here.
Sanity. Extremely well said, and thank you. I wish we could make this point a sticky at the top of every thread concerning patents and infringement lawsuits.
I find it amusing you think everyone in here is idiots and couldn't possibly understand corporations......
And I find it merely depressing that you're so put off by simple clarity and truth. Corporations aren't people (and those that behave as such will shortly fail); patent lawsuits are based on specific implementations, not broad categories.
It follows that:
--Statements about how Apple must be "scared" or "vindictive" or "hypocritical" are simply misplaced anthropomorphizing and do more to muddy the waters than explain, and
--A lot of hand waving about how Apple must not have a valid case because touch screens, or phones, or UIs, or electronic devices, or objects in general have already existed are based on a basic misunderstanding about how patent law works. Moreover, without knowing the particulars of each alleged infringement, no one here is in any position to pass judgement on their validity. Each and every one them could be a blatant appropriation of a very specific implementation of a particular functionality, they could all be overreaching "see if it sticks" stuff, or (as seems most likely to me) they could be a mix of the two, with the shakier stuff included to give Apple's legal team some wiggle room on their way to getting what they really want. OTOH, IANAL so I have no idea.
Given that that about 75% of this thread centers on variants of those two fallacies, it seems perfectly fair to take the thread to task a bit. It might be amusing to argue from ignorance but it's not very interesting.
Comments
No, Apple had a strong case against Palm, they just didn't see them as a real threat. Htc coupled with Android is a very real threat. It's on the table. And I agree with the above statements that the Implementation of multitouch to the N1 in addition to Sense UI probably tipped the scale.
How do you know that Apple has a strong case against Palm?
Do you have insight into someone who has investigated and come to that conclusion?
Edit: Also, a company doesn't necessarily sue someone because they are a threat. It is equally likely that it sues a smaller company who has less resources with which to defend itself well. Once you win one patent lawsuit, it tips the bar a bit for the next one. So in this case, Apple COULD be suing HTC because it's small and overseas. Or it could be that they are the first to copy Apple's patent (the Dream/G1 being one of the oldest multi-touch phones in the market). Or it could be, like you imply, that they are a threat.
I don't really know since I wasn't a fly in Apple's boardroom last week; I'm just pointing out that there are lots of legal strategies to choose from.
..and then we'll look at this.
Go HTC
down...
down...
HTC is clearly walking the line here.
Hey, I remember that ad.
The iPad is the Mac, take two. The computer for the bemused, confused, and intimidated.
Palm was too lazy to even do that, instead they forged USB identification keys.
I think that Apple didn't bother going after Palm because Palm was "only" piggybacking onto iTunes, not stealing their products. It really benefitted Apple in a minor way: more iTunes users, more iTunes Store sales. I'm surprised that Apple didn't license an iTunes "key" to Palm for them to use iTunes.
All Apple needed do was tweak iTunes a bit and break the Palm connections. A few hours of programmers' time versus the bottomless money pit of legal action. Sounds like a deal.
Maybe Apple was cutting Jon Rubinstein some slack, too.
Apple PAID Xerox for use of their IP: GUI, mouse, laser printing, etc..
).
actually that's so wrong exactly the opposite is true. It's the niddling details like UP doesn't mean DOWN that makes me post.
Xerox was allowed to invest in Apple prior to Apple's first stock-offering. Intellectual Property share was included in the agreement. In effect, Xerox PAID Apple, but since Xerox was investing heavily in a yet-to-be public company why WOULDN'T they want them to succeed ("here's 20 million - now would you go out of business so we can fire everyone in accounting who suggested this idea").
This of course has been noted in at least 10 books in 30 years. Naturally it's a big secret to everyone who doesn't read books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(c...ption_by_Apple
But, warning to Apple the fact that they are ignoring Palm (unless there is a hidden license agreement I don't know about ) could prove to be negative as HTC is like to say they are selecting enforcing their patents and such Apple could lose the case.
"they are selecting enforcing their patents" - that is not a legal defense.
Have you tried that in court when you get a speeding ticket when others did not? It's useless; you need to have an affirmative argument as well (the cop was prejudiced against my race/ethnicity/sexual orientation/blah/blah/blah).
There is no law that says you have to sue everyone who is using your patented technology. Plus, maybe Palm isn't even using Apple's patented technology.
Hey, I remember that ad.
The iPad is the Mac, take two. The computer for the bemused, confused, and intimidated.
Exactly.
Can you image a situation that somebody would patent a certain method of solving an ODE? Or may be someone would patent the idea of solving an ODE??
OMF, it will stop the progress and roll us back for a long time...
I'm trying to figure out if this is sarcasm or not... Either way, it was just an example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DU...layer_embedded
[/CENTER]
Arguably it was put on the backburner for a while, updated and re-released as the iPhone.
Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers". The only real one has been the iPod and the iPhone which isn't even the #1 selling smartphone.
Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best. Its not like they have been burning up the tech industry with everyone following for decades. Most of their products can bearly even make a dent in market share and the simple fact is they do well because they have a cult following that is willing to be over charged for hardware.
If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.
Lets jump back into reality when it come to how long Apple has truly been successful which by the way can change at anytime as it can with any company. Also note Apple has never put anyone out of business. It took them forever just to shutdown a company like Psystar which was pretty much run out of someones garage. Comparing them shutting down psystar compared to HTC backed by Google is freaking joke.
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.
Actually I own two macs......
My point is that the suit is more about Apply not wanting to have to compete with a phone like the Nexus One which seem to operate significantly different than the iPhone...
P.S. The look and feel issue was sorted out years ago with the Lotus vs Excel law suits.....
My apologies.
What models and when did you get them?
"Google's don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit! They're trying to kill us!" - Steve Jobs at a recent town hall meeting post iPad conference.
Nice quote - pity it's bullshit you filthy troll. Kill it! Kill the filthy troll! Burn HIM!
Nice quote - pity it's bullshit you filthy troll. Kill it! Kill the filthy troll! Burn HIM!
Not the exact quote as he posted, but:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...#ixzz0h3FqQCNR
On Google: We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won?t let them, he says. Someone else asks something on a different topic, but there?s no getting Jobs off this rant. I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing, he says. This don?t be evil mantra: ?It?s bullshit.?
Like someone else said, this is a very loaded quote.
Nice quote - pity it's bullshit you filthy troll. Kill it! Kill the filthy troll! Burn HIM!
[CENTER]Really?
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...es-steve-jobs/
http://seoblackhat.com/2010/01/31/jo...a-is-bullshit/
http://mac.blorge.com/2010/01/31/job...n-is-bullshit/
Apparently not to those who were there.
[/CENTER]
HTC (and Google?) have been testing just how far they can go in imitating the iPhone, obviously they overstepped the mark.
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.
While I posted in a similar vein when the Nokia suit story broke here, it bears repeating. First you cannot judge a patent by it's title, no matter how many you list in sequence. It is the details of the patent, the technology, etc. that are critical, period. So to cry foul based on the title or concept is to demonstrate a very deep lack of understanding of the patent/tort system and pertaining laws, no matter how broken it is.
Second, multitouch has many, many implementations. There is no effective way to carry multitouch specifically into this conversation without being very specific about to which implementation of multitouch you refer. Apple is of course suing on the basis of its very particular implementation of multitouch, derived (most likely, but not definitively) from its acquisition of a smaller multitouch developer company and its patents/IP.
I have not yet seen an opinion expressed in this thread that demonstrates any expertise in patent law or the purported technologies in question under the suit, so all of this is purely speculative and more or less inaccurate, as none of us have the necessary information required to make anything but an uninformed observation.
As for attributing anything like emotions to a large corporation, that's simply anthropmorphising at a ridiculous level, something else I posted on a while back. Apple, Microsoft, HTC, Motorola aren't "scared" of anything. The executives, managers and administrators spend their time directing operations to ensure the ongoing success of the corporation. If it makes business sense to sue another company, based on targeted research into their products and services compared to owned IP or competitive offerings, that's what they do. If it makes business sense to partner with a company that competes with them, they do that too. The corporate business landscape is incredibly complex, and involves a matrix of competing and cooperating relationships that the average person wouldn't and doesn't grasp. Especially as evidenced here.
Sanity. Extremely well said, and thank you. I wish we could make this point a sticky at the top of every thread concerning patents and infringement lawsuits.
I find it amusing you think everyone in here is idiots and couldn't possibly understand corporations......
And I find it merely depressing that you're so put off by simple clarity and truth. Corporations aren't people (and those that behave as such will shortly fail); patent lawsuits are based on specific implementations, not broad categories.
It follows that:
--Statements about how Apple must be "scared" or "vindictive" or "hypocritical" are simply misplaced anthropomorphizing and do more to muddy the waters than explain, and
--A lot of hand waving about how Apple must not have a valid case because touch screens, or phones, or UIs, or electronic devices, or objects in general have already existed are based on a basic misunderstanding about how patent law works. Moreover, without knowing the particulars of each alleged infringement, no one here is in any position to pass judgement on their validity. Each and every one them could be a blatant appropriation of a very specific implementation of a particular functionality, they could all be overreaching "see if it sticks" stuff, or (as seems most likely to me) they could be a mix of the two, with the shakier stuff included to give Apple's legal team some wiggle room on their way to getting what they really want. OTOH, IANAL so I have no idea.
Given that that about 75% of this thread centers on variants of those two fallacies, it seems perfectly fair to take the thread to task a bit. It might be amusing to argue from ignorance but it's not very interesting.
[CENTER]Really?
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/...es-steve-jobs/
http://seoblackhat.com/2010/01/31/jo...a-is-bullshit/
http://mac.blorge.com/2010/01/31/job...n-is-bullshit/
Apparently not to those who were there.
[/CENTER]
Funny I don't see "They're trying to kill us!" anywhere up there.
THERE'S ANOTHER ONE - BURN HIM! stamping feet foley - rhubarb rampaging mob rhubarb