Apple's patent 'warning shots' prove disruptive for handset makers

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 121
    asianbobasianbob Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Separate from the patents, Apple has also trademarked the term "multi-touch" in the US. Given Apple's current state of mind, Samsung might want to be careful if they use the words "multi-touch" on a phone in the US.



    So they use "multitouch" instead of "multi-touch". Simple.
  • Reply 102 of 121
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    Probably true, but somewhat potentially irrelevant, depending on how Apple does this. If MS and Google, and Nokia, and Samsung all feel threatened, Apple does not have the market cap to take them all on at once.



    Your two sentences are somewhat opposed to each other. The first one is true, as I already wrote "not that it matters much in this debate." The second one is irrelevant in terms of patent lawsuits. In terms of competition, Apple is already partnering and competing with each one of them (except Nokia). MS, Google, and Samsung all have reasons to partner (i.e. they make significant profits off of it), but Apple has alternatives if they choose to stop.
  • Reply 103 of 121
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    With the stock valuation of HTC nearly $270 Billion it is incumbent upon them to have a large IP patent portfolio for their hardware solutions. The fact they don't is a wonder how come they haven't been slammed earlier.



    Their board needs to invest several billion in R&D and Patent their works.



    The stock valuation of HTC is not $270 billion in US dollars. If it was, it would be bigger than Microsoft. You might one to look that one up again...
  • Reply 104 of 121
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    This works against HTC or even Palm.



    Suing any of the companies heavily involved with wireless tech (Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, Qualcomm) is a whole world of pain though.
  • Reply 105 of 121
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    It has been reported on the board that the $290 billion is in Taiwanese dollars, which converts to about $80 billion US. Has anyone ascertained what HTCs patent portfolio looks like?



    See http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....le-google-htc/



    Over about the last ten years, it's Apple over 3000, HTC 58. Of course, many of Apple's patents have nothing to do with iPhone technology.
  • Reply 106 of 121
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Your two sentences are somewhat opposed to each other. The first one is true, as I already wrote "not that it matters much in this debate." The second one is irrelevant in terms of patent lawsuits. In terms of competition, Apple is already partnering and competing with each one of them (except Nokia). MS, Google, and Samsung all have reasons to partner (i.e. they make significant profits off of it), but Apple has alternatives if they choose to stop.



    I am sorry if I was not clear. My point was, is that if Apple handles this wrong, and Google, MS, Nokia and Samsung start to feel that their handset/OS sales are seriously threatened, then Apple's suing HTC could turn into a patent war of Apple vs. Everyone else, and Apple does not have the money to do that.
  • Reply 107 of 121
    sipsip Posts: 210member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    You both miss the point. You say that all it would take is a good contract with a new supplier and HTC is gone.



    However, what new company in their right mind would sign that contract.



    Let us assume you are right, and here is what happens.



    HTC is large phone manufacturer, and probably the main make of Android and Winmo phones. They get sued, and both Google and MS throw HTC under the bus with only minimal support (e.g., friends of the court briefs). HTC loses, and is no longer in business.



    Do I, as the next phone maker, really want to make an Android or Winmo phone. Why would I take the risk of making those phones when I could easily be out of business.



    Google and MS will support HTC, solely because of self-interest. Without HTC Android and Winmo are OSs without any hardware, and if Apple sues HTC out of existence, no company will take the risk of being another HTC, and hence Android and Winmo are really screwed.



    HTC is comparable to Nokia. HTC designs its own phones (initially, almost all HTC handsets ran a version of WinCE or Windows Mobile) and sells them to all the networks, who re-badge them. There are a load of websites where you can learn how to remove network specific software and make these generic phones.



    Microsoft & Google don't design the phones made by HTC. HTC invests the bucks to design and/or licence the components needed to build handsets specific to the underlying software, in these cases Windows Mobile and Android.



    If HTC goes under for any reason, there are no other manufacturers waiting in the wings to take over, unless its someone like Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung or LG, so it's in Google's and Microsoft's interest to ensure HTC stays afloat.



    Interesting website here:



    http://forum.xda-developers.com/index.php?
  • Reply 108 of 121
    It's astonishing how Apple haters can chastise Apple for suing HTC, and then say nothing regarding Apple being sued by Nokia.



    It's not often Apple sue anyone is it?



    I'm not buying this Apple is evil because they control the App Store nonsense. I would like gambling apps on the phone and being 25 I think I should be allowed that.

    That said I like that the apps are vetted, there has already been a case of an Android app needing to be pulled because of it stealing data.
  • Reply 109 of 121
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sip View Post


    HTC is comparable to Nokia. HTC designs its own phones (initially, almost all HTC handsets ran a version of WinCE or Windows Mobile) and sells them to all the networks, who re-badge them. There are a load of websites where you can learn how to remove network specific software and make these generic phones.



    Microsoft & Google don't design the phones made by HTC. HTC invests the bucks to design and/or licence the components needed to build handsets specific to the underlying software, in these cases Windows Mobile and Android.



    If HTC goes under for any reason, there are no other manufacturers waiting in the wings to take over, unless its someone like Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung or LG, so it's in Google's and Microsoft's interest to ensure HTC stays afloat.



    Interesting website here:



    http://forum.xda-developers.com/index.php?



    which is exactly the point I was trying to make.
  • Reply 110 of 121
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mitch1984 View Post


    It's astonishing how Apple haters can chastise Apple for suing HTC, and then say nothing regarding Apple being sued by Nokia.



    It's not often Apple sue anyone is it?



    I'm not buying this Apple is evil because they control the App Store nonsense. I would like gambling apps on the phone and being 25 I think I should be allowed that.

    That said I like that the apps are vetted, there has already been a case of an Android app needing to be pulled because of it stealing data.



    Supposedly in the 1990s Apple was sue happy, but that is not the case any longer.



    As to Nokia, Apple is using technology patented by Nokia. The issue is that allegedly Nokia wants to charge Apple more than they charge other companies for the licensing fees, and Nokia wants to license some of Apple's technology.



    Apple has every right to sue if they believe their IP is being copied, just as Kodak can sue Apple because they felt their IP is being infringed on, even though Kodak (a company that is nearly 125 years old) was called a patent troll on this site numerous times.



    That is the way the system works.
  • Reply 111 of 121
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    It is utterly unlikely that they will waste their corporate resources and legal talent to fight on someone else's behalf. No sensible company will do so. They will wait and see, and gather the arsenal for their turn, if/when it occurs. Maybe they'll go as far as filing a brief defending handset makers, that's about it.



    If HTC goes down for using technologies implemented in Google's or MS mobile platforms, same would apply to other manufacturers behind Android and WP7 as well. Even if Apple doesn't assault Google and MS directly, destroying their manufacturers (or even just scaring them away) would do a lot of damage to Android and WP7 platform penetration, so I think it is a bit naive to expect they will just let HTC down the drain...
  • Reply 112 of 121
    I am an avid Mac fan yet own a Palm Pre phone (absolutely love it!) I have noticed that Apple has not sued Palm. Why not? Palm would be an easy victim considering their financial stability in the market right now. MAYBE PALM OWNS MORE COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS THAN APPLE DOES FOR MULTI TOUCH ETC. I think if Palm had more money right now THEY could make Apples life really miserable in the courts!
  • Reply 113 of 121
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matthew walton View Post


    I am an avid Mac fan yet own a Palm Pre phone (absolutely love it!) I have noticed that Apple has not sued Palm. Why not? Palm would be an easy victim considering their financial stability in the market right now. MAYBE PALM OWNS MORE COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS THAN APPLE DOES FOR MULTI TOUCH ETC. I think if Palm had more money right now THEY could make Apples life really miserable in the courts!



    No. You'd be wrong. Apple has more Patents in the past 5 years than the entire history of Palm on Phones/PDAs.
  • Reply 114 of 121
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    No. You'd be wrong. Apple has more Patents in the past 5 years than the entire history of Palm on Phones/PDAs.



    I would be surprised if the only thing that Apple patented in the last 5 years was strictly iPhone related.
  • Reply 115 of 121
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icyfog View Post


    This is great.

    Where's the popcorn? I can't wait to see how this unfolds.



    oh man, now i want popcorn!
  • Reply 116 of 121
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    So lets say Apple's multi-touch works with two x y coordinates, while Google's code works with a line drawn between two spots pressed on the screen (working with the line's angle and length to calculate positioning) then Google gets pinch to zoom working in their photo app. The code does different things to make multi-touch work. Is this still a patent issue?



    I see where you are coming from, however Google would still work on two x-y coordinates as tha is what is required to determine the length and angle of the line.



    With something like the "bounce scroll" (when you reach the top/bottom of a list on the iPhone), I can imagine a patent (don't know if there is one) would be for "the decelleration

    beyond the list bounds and snapping back to the edge of the lists bounds", and that really wouldn't leave much room for anybody to implement their own "version" of it.



    That's how I see it, although IANAL and could be horribly wrong
  • Reply 117 of 121
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    So tell us precisely which technology?



    Exactly how are they using this technology.



    I'll give you a year or so, to reverse engineer an iPhone so you can report back to us the precise nature of the ALLEGED infringement, while you're at it would you also provide concise details of all the Nokia patents with explanations of why there are no work arounds and whether they are valid, having NEVER been tested.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    Supposedly in the 1990s Apple was sue happy, but that is not the case any longer.



    As to Nokia, Apple is using technology patented by Nokia. The issue is that allegedly Nokia wants to charge Apple more than they charge other companies for the licensing fees, and Nokia wants to license some of Apple's technology.



    Apple has every right to sue if they believe their IP is being copied, just as Kodak can sue Apple because they felt their IP is being infringed on, even though Kodak (a company that is nearly 125 years old) was called a patent troll on this site numerous times.



    That is the way the system works.



  • Reply 118 of 121
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    If I had a patent on a specific implementation of the Bubble-Sort algorithm, then no one would be allowed to use my specific implementation of Bubble-Sort without a specific license to do so.



    How does that work. A bubble sort by definition compares an element to it's neighbour and "bubbles up" the neighbour if it is "smaller" than the element being compared.



    That is the only way a bubble sort can work.



    If you are talking about determining how to do the comparison, that's a completely different and wholly unrelated matter.



    The bubbling would be the patented implementation of a "sort". There are numerous ways to sort, but only one way to bubble-sort.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    It's not what the code does that is important. It's how it's implemented within the product and it's non-obvious nature that makes it patentable.



    what the code does == implementation
  • Reply 119 of 121
    brainlessbrainless Posts: 272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wonder View Post


    One of the things Apple patented was the concept of multi-touch.

    That is the idea that using more than one touch point to carry out an action.

    As an example the pinch / zoom action using two fingers is an Apple patent.

    Not how the software does it, not the code, but the actual act of using two points to zoom in and out of an image / screen. Apple patented this, and if someone else does that then they break the patent regardless of the software used to do it. It is the same with the sweep of the finger to unlock the phone, it is an Apple patent, they came up with it first and therefore is another phone does it then they are stealing the idea.



    Yeah they patented it but the real test will be once this is brought to the court. This is very weak patent in my eyes, as touch displays are here for a long time. I had sweep action on my old SonyEricsson M600. Its like someone selling camera and trying to patent that you can't take photos of the house with it.



    They risk more than they can gain there.



    And the bottom line is that patent system needs to be reformed. If I recall the Apple's claim right, they patented "Object Oriented GUI" or something similar. Thats' ridiculous. They should've patent holding phone in hand as well.
  • Reply 120 of 121
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Brainless View Post


    Yeah they patented it but the real test will be once this is brought to the court. This is very weak patent in my eyes, as touch displays are here for a long time. I had sweep action on my old SonyEricsson M600. Its like someone selling camera and trying to patent that you can't take photos of the house with it.



    They risk more than they can gain there.



    And the bottom line is that patent system needs to be reformed. If I recall the Apple's claim right, they patented "Object Oriented GUI" or something similar. Thats' ridiculous. They should've patent holding phone in hand as well.



    Again, even a broken patent system wouldn't allow Apple to simply patent an "object oriented GUI" with no further definitions. People are seizing on the short descriptions of the patented material to demonstrate that these patents are ridiculous, but of course the actual patents hinge on the specific implementation.
Sign In or Register to comment.