Apple's victory over HTC may set high royalty precedent for Android devices

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 513 View Post


    Those 2 patents are 17 years and 15 years old. So they will expire in 3 and 5 years, cool.



    Don't know if you are aware of this, but writing " http://www.appleinsider.com " in this text field, and if the forum software (here vBulletin Solutions) recognize it as an URL, Apple could sue them too.



    Yeah...



    Technically that probably doesn't infringe because the UI is running on a different computer system to the detection software - the detection is happening server side. Still breathtakingly broad though.
  • Reply 22 of 90
    gprovidagprovida Posts: 246member
    Apple does not license it IP as a business for income. It will license to encourage standards valuable to it, e.g., H.264, FaceTime, bonjour, etc. I think Apple will demand big penalty and force HTC Android et al to develop different OS, similar to MS Windows 7, WebOS, and RIM. Open source and free is OK, but Google was played fast and loose on IP. It is also leaving HW OEMs hanging.
  • Reply 23 of 90
    shawnbshawnb Posts: 155member
    Let's see. Carriers pay about $200 less for an Android device versus iPhone and average over $2400 revenue during the contract of the device.



    I'm not sure how another $5 per Android device spells disaster for everyone but Apple.
  • Reply 24 of 90
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    Is this really such a stretch? Much to their stockholders' dismay, MS is still in the foothold stage of the mobile market. I'd be surprised if any of their mobile division is profitable!



    Meanwhile, royalty payments are pure profit--no R and D, no component costs, no assembly, no packaging...



    Uhm, I disagree. There certainly are R and D costs involved. That's what this is all about. Using your R & D to innovate and then enjoy the advantages of that innovation. The advantage can be securing your position in the marketplace or by way of a royalty payment. It's not right to scam someone's IP and that goes for Apple too.
  • Reply 25 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    As I wrote in my previous post to somebody else, if Apple is guilty of violating somebody's patents, then the people who hold those patents should sue Apple. And Apple should also do the same to anybody who has violated any of Apple's patents, and we'll see who is still standing in the end.



    Obviously that's the situation, and nobody should blame Apple for patenting everything that they can legally get away with, and litigating based on any patent that they can get. It's certainly not like they're beating up on small independent software makers here.



    But you can't expect to hear a lot of cheering from software developers either. It's kinda like we're back in WW-1 watching our own soldiers use poison gas on the enemy. We may hope our side wins but we also hope that the weapons get banned.
  • Reply 26 of 90
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    It's kinda like we're back in WW-1 watching our own soldiers use poison gas on the enemy. We may hope our side wins but we also hope that the weapons get banned.



    Interesting thought.
  • Reply 27 of 90
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shawnb View Post


    Let's see. Carriers pay about $200 less for an Android device versus iPhone and average over $2400 revenue during the contract of the device.



    I'm not sure how another $5 per Android device spells disaster for everyone but Apple.



    $5 to the manufacture is $10 to wholesale and $20 to retail. It might not eat up a $200 delta entirely, but it puts more pressure on margins for the competitor. Loss of margins means less money for advertising, and an uphill battle to make your profit in volume.
  • Reply 28 of 90
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AHrubik View Post


    If that ever happens HP will come around with the Palm portfolio in hand and start doing the same to Apple. If you think Apple isn't one of the copy cats you're sorely mistaken.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    And Apple will pull out it's Newton portfolio



    Funny how folks conveniently leave out a piece of history a to suit their iHating agenda. The Android community seems to be on AI today. As much as I like competition, I personally think Android takes shortcuts with their development (copying) and is coming back to bite them in the backside. But then again, Android is made by geeks, for geeks, so they have no problem taking bits of codes and ideas from other folks without regard to IP.
  • Reply 29 of 90
    davemcm76davemcm76 Posts: 265member
    At times like this I always refer back to this gorgeous web of legal action, write the whole industry off as a sorry mess and try to get on with my day.



  • Reply 30 of 90
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 513 View Post


    Those 2 patents are 17 years and 15 years old. So they will expire in 3 and 5 years, cool.



    Don't know if you are aware of this, but writing " http://www.appleinsider.com " in this text field, and if the forum software (here vBulletin Solutions) recognize it as an URL, Apple could sue them too.



    Yeah...



    The issue here is the browser is a free software. There is no need for Apple to sue for monetary damages. Because Apple is not making money from the Safari browser too.



    Also, if Apple sued the browser it will affect the Windows OS. Apple and Microsoft has cross licensed their patents in the 1990s.
  • Reply 31 of 90
    I think everybody is trying to mak a big deal out of this when in the end it's really nothing. e.g. the $5 HTC gives MSFT per device is like 2-3% of the manufacturing cost of the device. So what if HTC ends up giving another $5 to AAPL? It's still only $10 per device, likely just 5% of manufacturing cost. I mean, the inflation of China's wage is probably a much bigger threat to HTC than these patent suits.
  • Reply 32 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post


    The two patents HTC allegedly infringes are incredibly general and describe functions that are surely not specific to mobile phones.



    The judge in this case found otherwise. I suspect his opinion is based on the facts and knowledge of patent law.
  • Reply 33 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    But then again, Android is made by geeks, for geeks, so they have no problem taking bits of codes and ideas from other folks without regard to IP.



    Most geeks would see a big difference between copying code (bad unless explicity licensed) and copying ideas (generally good).



    All modern OSes, and most productivity apps are built on copied ideas - the entire software industry ran on copied ideas until the early 90s when it began to digest the 1980s supreme court ruling that made software patents practicable. Copied ideas are so important to software development that an entire movement built up around them in the 90s trying to identify them and calling them 'patterns'.
  • Reply 34 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post


    The two patents HTC allegedly infringes are incredibly general and describe functions that are surely not specific to mobile phones.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post


    The judge in this case found otherwise. I suspect his opinion is based on the facts and knowledge of patent law.



    No he didn't because generality isn't necessarily a problem for patents. The requirements are novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility and industrial applicability.



    The patents arguably are extremely general and definitely are not specific to mobile phones, mobile phones aren't even mentioned in the embodiment sections.



    Unfortunately all that does is open up a larger potential space of prior art, but as Apple found out recently against a patent troll - even huge amounts of prior art may not be enough to convince a judge.
  • Reply 35 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    I guess you forget that Apple has stolen/misused others' patents and has had to pay out. Apple is NO BETTER than any of these other companies when it comes to patent infringement.



    You're missing a critical point in your comment. Violation of patent law does not require stealing or misuse. One can legitimately solve a problem and inadvertently violate a patent. That is one of several arguments against certain software patents; programmers are inventing new "machines" to solve large and small tasks all the time. Many approaches are quite obvious to us, though "novel".



    The software patent system is out of whack because patents have been granted for solutions that almost any programmer could come up with, if given a particular problem to solve. Some of these patents seem to cover IP which is quite mundane and pedestrian.



    I would suspect for many patented software solutions, one would find thousands of examples of existing code which performs the same or similar to the algorithm patented. These "obviousness" and "prior art" arguments that have not yet prevailed.
  • Reply 36 of 90
    prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Most geeks would see a big difference between copying code (bad unless explicity licensed) and copying ideas (generally good). ...



    This is partially what fuels the debate though.



    Normal, (non-geeks) would argue that this is entirely backwards. Stealing other people's ideas is generally the thing that most people think should be most illegal and is what patent law is intended to protect us from. Outside of computer hackers, it's never been the case that stealing ideas has been considered "generally good."



    On the other hand, most people also see "code" as just a bunch of language that describes the idea and therefore something that anyone should be able to copy any time they want. Code is generally seen as the same as a paragraph describing an idea rather than an idea or innovation itself.



    If what you say is true about how geeks view things, then they are operating with opposite assumptions than those the rest of the population employs in these cases. It's also worth noting that the patent office sees things closer to the way the general population thinks than they do the way the "geeks" think.
  • Reply 37 of 90
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    No he didn't because generality isn't necessarily a problem for patents. The requirements are novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility and industrial applicability.



    The patents arguably are extremely general and definitely are not specific to mobile phones, mobile phones aren't even mentioned in the embodiment sections.



    Unfortunately all that does is open up a larger potential space of prior art, but as Apple found out recently against a patent troll - even huge amounts of prior art may not be enough to convince a judge.



    It seems general because the patents are more thant 15 years old. The idea has been implemented in the PC browsers.
  • Reply 38 of 90
    prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post


    ... The first patent is definitely obvious from a software development standpoint.



    No, it's not. The definition of "obvious" is variant over time.



    At the time it was patented, it was not "obvious," or it wouldn't have been granted.
  • Reply 39 of 90
    prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    I guess you forget that Apple has stolen/misused others' patents and has had to pay out. Apple is NO BETTER than any of these other companies when it comes to patent infringement....



    Such a broad and completely unsupported statement! Try leaving the hyperbole at home next time.



    Apple is definitely *not* the same as other companies when it comes to borrowing ideas and primarily thinks up everything on it's own rather than even "borrowing" (let alone outright stealing) from others.



    Case in point: Take a look at Samsung's latest product



  • Reply 40 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    No, it's not. The definition of "obvious" is variant over time.



    At the time it was patented, it was not "obvious," or it wouldn't have been granted.



    Because no patent granted has ever subsequently been invalidated either in part or whole due to obviousness right?
Sign In or Register to comment.