Well I wasn't trying to be argumentative with Anant, since I agree with his tone on this one. These seem to be services that aren't quite on the same conceptual level as Apple's products. Agree? Disagree?
The iPhone came out with a phone with an icon-based application manager interface. Blackberry had such an interface well before Apple on a cell phone and I'm sure others before them. There is nothing revolutionary about that at all, just fancier graphics in the case of Apple's implementation. Icon-based application launchers are as old as the first GUI-based operating systems (i.e. Xerox, who Apple first stole the technology from). Added to that is multi-touch, again only "revolutionary" as far as it's use in a consumer handset. Elan and Synaptics invented multi-touch and have used it in commercial applications and resold the technology to just about every technology OEM out there.
The only feature Apple could possibly have a case on is the App Store integration. Apple will make a big deal about this in the press creating FUD to disrupt the commercial success of their competitors and will then sign a licensing deal to settle the manner. This is nothing but pure anti-competitive actions by a hypocritical company that has stolen more than their fair share of technology from others.
Apple, sign a cross-licensing deal and get back to proving that you have the best technology by innovating and not by being a patent troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason
I doubt very much this has to do with Apple feeling 'threatened' at all.
It is very simple, either you defend your patents, or you lose the rights to those patents.
If I patent a machine that creates blue widgets. And 18 months after release you create a machine that makes blue widgets (in the same manner) I have 2 choices, defend my patent or lose the rights to control my own patent. I am being overly simplistic, but that is the gist of it.
Lets set the way back machine to 1986? Apple Sued Microsoft for infringement on its graphical user interface. Apple lost, eventually, due to prior art at Xerox-PARC, but I believe that Xerox, by not defending it, lost the ability to require licenses of that technology from both companies. My memory might be hazy on the exact details, and I am not going to do a lit search to post on a blog. ;-) [edited for readability - need more coffee]
This is just a step in the great dance of who 'owns' what idea. Hell, back in 1990, I developed specs for a clamshell touch-screen device that would connect to the internet wirelessly. I, stupidly, didn't patent it. But if I had, you can bet I'd be going after Microsoft if one of their rumored WinPho7 phones does just that.
Apples interface for the iPhone was 'disruptive' and revolutionary. They deserve protection against copy cats.
It has been suggested elsewhere that Apple's internal statistics are not optimistic or that something is askew for the future, suggesting that Apple feels threatened to the point of cutting off competition with litigation.
Wrong. You can choose to litigate your patents at any time during the period they are in effect. There is no provision that says you have to maintain them through vigilance. You are thinking of trademarks which is a different IP beast altogether.
AHA! I was right
Quote:
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."[1] Because Mac's GUI was heavily based on unlicensed GUI developed before by Xerox, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds.[2] The lawsuit was dismissed because Xerox had waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired. Apple lost all claims in the suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and file folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994[1], and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
The key is 'statute of limitations' had passed on the Xerox infringement. So, yes, they can litigate, but if they don't defend for 7 years (I believe that is the statute of limitation) from the first infringement, they cannot press the infringement case.
I doubt very much this has to do with Apple feeling 'threatened' at all.
I've just read that Apple is actually looking for an injunction against all the named phones in their lawsuit. Which means a block on importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, or offering for sale.
Now if Apple wasn't "threatened" as you say, then couldn't they have just simply stopped at the lawsuit itself (essentially asking HTC to just pay)? Asking the court to literally stop all of those phones from crossing our borders and to remove all existing phones in our borders seems really excessive.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple also asks the court to force HTC to have any and all infringing items be removed from existing HTC smartphones not mentioned in the suit via a OTA update.
It does give off the feeling that Apple is threatened... This move would not just slow smartphone competition (as it would if Apple is simply successful on the lawsuit alone), it would outright kill competition in the US market, as most of those phones are the main competitors to Apple.
Hopefully they both are guilty of infringement and both have to pay or give some concessions. The arrogance of both companies is getting larger and larger each day.
You bring up a interesting point that I wonder if Apple's lawyers have considered. By attacking an open source project (if that is indeed the case here and it's not about the App Store integration) Apple is violating the licensing terms of several open source licenses and they could have their right to use open source software in their products revoked. Apple is playing with fire here as a federal court has already set precedent in this regard. Apple's products may be great, but they are nothing without open source and it would be very difficult for them to re-implement the features without violating other company's patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason
That is a key point to understand. The whole concept is to prevent someone from PROFITING from your patent.
As Android is open source, Google is not directly profiting from phone. Now that is not to say that Apple won't go after Google in the future, but my guess is that they are using this action to shape what competitors can and can't do with with the Android interface.
It is hard, immensely hard, to go after Google/Android directly because the patents in question are all related to interface, how that interface interacts with the OS, and the developmental frameworks underlying the interface. Both iPhone and Android are descended from open-source. But the UI and frameworks to bridge between the UI and the kernal are Apples. Google just has to say that it didn't write the UI pieces and then they are 'off the hook'.
HTC built a UI that is surprisingly iPhone like. That has been it's selling point. This will end in either HTC redesigning their interface or HTC licensing technology from Apple [which I doubt will happen].
Uggg... Defending the patents through suits I can understand, but shouldn't they be suing Google over this? I can only imagine that these patent infringments are over software features in the Android OS and more than likely apply to EVERY Google Android phone, not just the ones from HTC.
As far as the shenanigans about asking to have the sales of all of these phones blocked from being sold here... Well, that just seems like a bad PR move. Defend your patents, sue them, make them pay licensing fees, but don't have sales blocked. That's just plain ridiculous.
I've got some advice for Apple. The majority of the phones you're asking to be blocked are on different carriers. Do you want to know why you're loosing potential market share to these phones? It's not just because of copy cat phones. I'll give you a hint; it's name is 4 characters long, you have an exclusive contract with them, and they provide an extremely lack of decent coverage. If you want to sell more phones, start producing them for different carriers.
I myself had an iPhone, moved to a location where I can't get AT&T coverage, and had to switch to Verizon. I'm now on a Droid; that's not because the Droid is better, but because I can't get an iPhone with Verizon. I miss my iPhone and want it back, but until you start selling your phone on more carriers, I won't be able to own one again.
So, to recap, less blockage of competition phone sales and more production of iPhone for other carriers. KTHXBYE
The key is 'statute of limitations' had passed on the Xerox infringement. So, yes, they can litigate, but if they don't defend for 7 years (I believe that is the statute of limitation) from the first infringement, they cannot press the infringement case.
I wonder if the timing has anything to with the iPad's imminent release with the same OS and patents I assume which is most likely about to also have numerous copycats. Phones are one thing but the 'Pad' may be the next major computing paradigm shift and Apple don't want a rerun of Windows this time most likely from Google.
Also if this does get nasty has Apple got its alternative to Google Maps ready yet?
The only feature Apple could possibly have a case on is the App Store integration. Apple will make a big deal about this in the press creating FUD to disrupt the commercial success of their competitors and will then sign a licensing deal to settle the manner. This is nothing but pure anti-competitive actions by a hypocritical company that has stolen more than their fair share of technology from others.
Apple, sign a cross-licensing deal and get back to proving that you have the best technology by innovating and not by being a patent troll.
Edited for missing his point... sheesh, Learn To read.
Yep - I agree. But I doubt the cross licensing will happen. At least not until the iPad and iPhone 4.0 are well established. Just setting back Android/WiPho7 a year will be enough to cement apples leadership.
This is a good tactical move by Apple to disrupt Android developers support. If the lawsuit is not over, how will the developers know what technology they can or can't use? They will wait for the lawsuit and development will stall on the Android platform.
Not that Apple's app store is losing pace but this sure will propel Apple platform to even further ahead. Good work!!
If you believe everything you read in the press, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
"Patent Troll" has a modern, broad interpretation that covers companies that use patents to squash competition. You're definition is correct, but is only one definition of many around the terminology.
Seeing how this whole lawsuit is about stolen technology, Apple's past practices are very relevant. To say otherwise is just being hypocritical. That is not how business is done and why the IP system is in place, if not very broken. Throwing insults at me does not change this fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason
Dude, at first I was willing to accept that you ACTUALLY had knowledge of the situation, but now.. not so much.
1.) Apples case is not about an application launching interface regarding icons, it is about the TOUCH aspects. The iPhone is cursor-less, swipe, pinch to zoom, etc where all hailed as 'disruptive' and 'revolutionary' by the press. 18 months later, HTC copied these.
2.) You have never worked with a Patent troll, have you? By definition, patent trolls are 'non-practicing' owners of patents. They patent an idea/method but never deliver product. Apple created the touch interface, patented it, and is defending it.
As for 'stolen' their fair share - so what? This is how business is done. If you create something and don't defend it, you lose it. If you steal something and get caught, you get sued.
If you don't like it - move to North Korea where you will never be bothered by these issues again.
But I doubt the cross licensing will happen. At least not until the iPad and iPhone 4.0 are well established.
Exactly the point I raised about Apple raising hell in the press to disrupt competition. Then they will sign a cross-licensing agreement. That is how modern technology business is done.
I've just read that Apple is actually looking for an injunction against all the named phones in their lawsuit. Which means a block on importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, or offering for sale.
Now if Apple wasn't "threatened" as you say, then couldn't they have just simply stopped at the lawsuit itself (essentially asking HTC to just pay)? Asking the court to literally stop all of those phones from crossing our borders and to remove all existing phones in our borders seems really excessive.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple also asks the court to force HTC to have any and all infringing items be removed from existing HTC smartphones not mentioned in the suit via a OTA update.
It does give off the feeling that Apple is threatened... This move would not just slow smartphone competition (as it would if Apple is simply successful on the lawsuit alone), it would outright kill competition in the US market, as most of those phones are the main competitors to Apple.
Basics in negotiation: you go for much more than you want, and you settle for what you initially intended to get. It is as simple as that.
The whole point in all of this will be to determin if the patents are enforcable. Many patents are not enforcable or are easly worked around. I read the 20 patent claims. Some are very weak and probably wont stand up in court. A couple might have more teeth...
In general the more specific the patent the harder it is to enforce or the easier it is to work around. A more general patent is typically easier to prove, but one that is to general start to fall in the public domain and is also difficult to enforce...
Also if this does get nasty has Apple got its alternative to Google Maps ready yet?
There was a rumour about a job posting some time ago which stated "bringing maps to the next level" or something like that, so they have something in work. However it would be stupid for google to stop working with apple.
Comments
Search? Maps? Do those count?
Damn you, beat me to it. ;-)
Damn you, beat me to it. ;-)
Well I wasn't trying to be argumentative with Anant, since I agree with his tone on this one. These seem to be services that aren't quite on the same conceptual level as Apple's products. Agree? Disagree?
The only feature Apple could possibly have a case on is the App Store integration. Apple will make a big deal about this in the press creating FUD to disrupt the commercial success of their competitors and will then sign a licensing deal to settle the manner. This is nothing but pure anti-competitive actions by a hypocritical company that has stolen more than their fair share of technology from others.
Apple, sign a cross-licensing deal and get back to proving that you have the best technology by innovating and not by being a patent troll.
I doubt very much this has to do with Apple feeling 'threatened' at all.
It is very simple, either you defend your patents, or you lose the rights to those patents.
If I patent a machine that creates blue widgets. And 18 months after release you create a machine that makes blue widgets (in the same manner) I have 2 choices, defend my patent or lose the rights to control my own patent. I am being overly simplistic, but that is the gist of it.
Lets set the way back machine to 1986? Apple Sued Microsoft for infringement on its graphical user interface. Apple lost, eventually, due to prior art at Xerox-PARC, but I believe that Xerox, by not defending it, lost the ability to require licenses of that technology from both companies. My memory might be hazy on the exact details, and I am not going to do a lit search to post on a blog. ;-) [edited for readability - need more coffee]
This is just a step in the great dance of who 'owns' what idea. Hell, back in 1990, I developed specs for a clamshell touch-screen device that would connect to the internet wirelessly. I, stupidly, didn't patent it. But if I had, you can bet I'd be going after Microsoft if one of their rumored WinPho7 phones does just that.
Apples interface for the iPhone was 'disruptive' and revolutionary. They deserve protection against copy cats.
It has been suggested elsewhere that Apple's internal statistics are not optimistic or that something is askew for the future, suggesting that Apple feels threatened to the point of cutting off competition with litigation.
Your not even an *imaginative* troll.
Adding to ignore list in 3, 2, 1 ...
Wrong. You can choose to litigate your patents at any time during the period they are in effect. There is no provision that says you have to maintain them through vigilance. You are thinking of trademarks which is a different IP beast altogether.
AHA! I was right
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."[1] Because Mac's GUI was heavily based on unlicensed GUI developed before by Xerox, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds.[2] The lawsuit was dismissed because Xerox had waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired. Apple lost all claims in the suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and file folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994[1], and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation
The key is 'statute of limitations' had passed on the Xerox infringement. So, yes, they can litigate, but if they don't defend for 7 years (I believe that is the statute of limitation) from the first infringement, they cannot press the infringement case.
I doubt very much this has to do with Apple feeling 'threatened' at all.
I've just read that Apple is actually looking for an injunction against all the named phones in their lawsuit. Which means a block on importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, or offering for sale.
Now if Apple wasn't "threatened" as you say, then couldn't they have just simply stopped at the lawsuit itself (essentially asking HTC to just pay)? Asking the court to literally stop all of those phones from crossing our borders and to remove all existing phones in our borders seems really excessive.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple also asks the court to force HTC to have any and all infringing items be removed from existing HTC smartphones not mentioned in the suit via a OTA update.
It does give off the feeling that Apple is threatened... This move would not just slow smartphone competition (as it would if Apple is simply successful on the lawsuit alone), it would outright kill competition in the US market, as most of those phones are the main competitors to Apple.
That is a key point to understand. The whole concept is to prevent someone from PROFITING from your patent.
As Android is open source, Google is not directly profiting from phone. Now that is not to say that Apple won't go after Google in the future, but my guess is that they are using this action to shape what competitors can and can't do with with the Android interface.
It is hard, immensely hard, to go after Google/Android directly because the patents in question are all related to interface, how that interface interacts with the OS, and the developmental frameworks underlying the interface. Both iPhone and Android are descended from open-source. But the UI and frameworks to bridge between the UI and the kernal are Apples. Google just has to say that it didn't write the UI pieces and then they are 'off the hook'.
HTC built a UI that is surprisingly iPhone like. That has been it's selling point. This will end in either HTC redesigning their interface or HTC licensing technology from Apple [which I doubt will happen].
As far as the shenanigans about asking to have the sales of all of these phones blocked from being sold here... Well, that just seems like a bad PR move. Defend your patents, sue them, make them pay licensing fees, but don't have sales blocked. That's just plain ridiculous.
I've got some advice for Apple. The majority of the phones you're asking to be blocked are on different carriers. Do you want to know why you're loosing potential market share to these phones? It's not just because of copy cat phones. I'll give you a hint; it's name is 4 characters long, you have an exclusive contract with them, and they provide an extremely lack of decent coverage. If you want to sell more phones, start producing them for different carriers.
I myself had an iPhone, moved to a location where I can't get AT&T coverage, and had to switch to Verizon. I'm now on a Droid; that's not because the Droid is better, but because I can't get an iPhone with Verizon. I miss my iPhone and want it back, but until you start selling your phone on more carriers, I won't be able to own one again.
So, to recap, less blockage of competition phone sales and more production of iPhone for other carriers.
AHA! I was right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation
The key is 'statute of limitations' had passed on the Xerox infringement. So, yes, they can litigate, but if they don't defend for 7 years (I believe that is the statute of limitation) from the first infringement, they cannot press the infringement case.
Also if this does get nasty has Apple got its alternative to Google Maps ready yet?
The only feature Apple could possibly have a case on is the App Store integration. Apple will make a big deal about this in the press creating FUD to disrupt the commercial success of their competitors and will then sign a licensing deal to settle the manner. This is nothing but pure anti-competitive actions by a hypocritical company that has stolen more than their fair share of technology from others.
Apple, sign a cross-licensing deal and get back to proving that you have the best technology by innovating and not by being a patent troll.
Edited for missing his point... sheesh, Learn To read.
Yep - I agree. But I doubt the cross licensing will happen. At least not until the iPad and iPhone 4.0 are well established. Just setting back Android/WiPho7 a year will be enough to cement apples leadership.
Not that Apple's app store is losing pace but this sure will propel Apple platform to even further ahead. Good work!!
"Patent Troll" has a modern, broad interpretation that covers companies that use patents to squash competition. You're definition is correct, but is only one definition of many around the terminology.
Seeing how this whole lawsuit is about stolen technology, Apple's past practices are very relevant. To say otherwise is just being hypocritical. That is not how business is done and why the IP system is in place, if not very broken. Throwing insults at me does not change this fact.
Dude, at first I was willing to accept that you ACTUALLY had knowledge of the situation, but now.. not so much.
1.) Apples case is not about an application launching interface regarding icons, it is about the TOUCH aspects. The iPhone is cursor-less, swipe, pinch to zoom, etc where all hailed as 'disruptive' and 'revolutionary' by the press. 18 months later, HTC copied these.
2.) You have never worked with a Patent troll, have you? By definition, patent trolls are 'non-practicing' owners of patents. They patent an idea/method but never deliver product. Apple created the touch interface, patented it, and is defending it.
As for 'stolen' their fair share - so what? This is how business is done. If you create something and don't defend it, you lose it. If you steal something and get caught, you get sued.
If you don't like it - move to North Korea where you will never be bothered by these issues again.
You don't name Google because Google isn't the one selling it.
Actually, Google is the ONLY one selling the Nexus One in the US...
Don't bother. You are using words that the fellow won't understand.
fellow == C-3PO
But I doubt the cross licensing will happen. At least not until the iPad and iPhone 4.0 are well established.
Exactly the point I raised about Apple raising hell in the press to disrupt competition. Then they will sign a cross-licensing agreement. That is how modern technology business is done.
I've just read that Apple is actually looking for an injunction against all the named phones in their lawsuit. Which means a block on importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, or offering for sale.
Now if Apple wasn't "threatened" as you say, then couldn't they have just simply stopped at the lawsuit itself (essentially asking HTC to just pay)? Asking the court to literally stop all of those phones from crossing our borders and to remove all existing phones in our borders seems really excessive.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple also asks the court to force HTC to have any and all infringing items be removed from existing HTC smartphones not mentioned in the suit via a OTA update.
It does give off the feeling that Apple is threatened... This move would not just slow smartphone competition (as it would if Apple is simply successful on the lawsuit alone), it would outright kill competition in the US market, as most of those phones are the main competitors to Apple.
Basics in negotiation: you go for much more than you want, and you settle for what you initially intended to get. It is as simple as that.
In general the more specific the patent the harder it is to enforce or the easier it is to work around. A more general patent is typically easier to prove, but one that is to general start to fall in the public domain and is also difficult to enforce...
In a year or two we will see what happens....
Also if this does get nasty has Apple got its alternative to Google Maps ready yet?
There was a rumour about a job posting some time ago which stated "bringing maps to the next level" or something like that, so they have something in work. However it would be stupid for google to stop working with apple.