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

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 90
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Maybe it is bad for consumers. However, before Apple came out with the iPhone (after investing hundreds of millions of dollars and getting AT&T to radically change it's way of doing business) consumers choices in the smart phone world stunk. You had RIM and Windows. The carriers put all this horrible software on your phones, and greatly limited what you could do.



    So consumers are better off now that Apple took a huge gamble with its money. It was far easier for Apple's competitors to copy the iPhone then it was for Apple to come up with the initial phone. There are some press clippings suggesting the heads of RIM thought it was impossible the iPhone would do what Jobs claimed it would do.



    If Apple's competitors can just copy Apple's ideas to compete with Apple that kills innovation, which in the long run harms consumers. Further, it isn't necessary. Palm and Microsoft responded to the iPhone in an innovative manner. Apple isn't suing either.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kevint View Post


    Listen, i understand that intellectual property is a valuable asset to a company, but on the other hand, it also stifles competition when a company has a vague patent and goes after any company that infringes upon it. If Apple is trying to slow the competition, i get that, but if they are ruthless enough they will push Companies like samsung out of the android market. Good move for apple, bad outcome for consumers.



  • Reply 62 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I'm not saying anything controversial or non-obvious here, you're just twisting my words around looking for errors.



    What you said is something that keeps getting said - it's not the first time you've said it either. It's one of those glib lines that makes superficial sense but is rooted deep in error.



    At best the fact that the patent was awarded means that it wasn't obvious to the patent clerk, but obvious in this context means obvious to somebody grounded in the problem domain - and naturally enough patent clerks are often not. They don't make patent clerks like Einstein these days.
  • Reply 63 of 90
    ufwaufwa Posts: 64member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    You've got to be kidding me!



    Don't these guys have a remote sense of self-esteem?! Pride?! Heck, decency?!



    what about this



    http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/



    the samsung tablet accessory is more like the incase thing.



    It looks from the photos to be a case with a cover that folds to allow the tablet to be propped up. several speck cases do the same thing.
  • Reply 64 of 90
    prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    What you said is something that keeps getting said - it's not the first time you've said it either. It's one of those glib lines that makes superficial sense but is rooted deep in error.



    At best the fact that the patent was awarded means that it wasn't obvious to the patent clerk, but obvious in this context means obvious to somebody grounded in the problem domain - and naturally enough patent clerks are often not. They don't make patent clerks like Einstein these days.



    Yeah, blah blah blah.



    All I'm going to say to this one is that you have a nasty habit of stating things as fact that you have no idea one way or the other about. Here you assume that a single clerk who is dumb, made a mistake about obviousness on the patent because ... well basically just because you disagree about the obviousness of the invention *today*. Then you throw yourself back to 15 years ago, and assume all kinds of stuff not in evidence and about which you couldn't possibly know and pronounce it to be fact.



    Your doing some of the very things you are accusing me of here not the least of which is simplifying the patent application process to the point where a single clerk is looking at a piece of paper, presumably with a big "approved" stamp in one hand and a "rejected" stamp in the other. I don't know the details of how patents are, or were approved in the US of A, but the idea that a single person making some kind of quick (and you think incorrect) judgement about it is almost certainly wrong.



    You've just wasted my time over and over again here with this silly argument and haven't (yet) proved anything I've said to be incorrect. Again, all I'm saying is that the patent wasn't obvious at the time, because I happen to know that this is one of the central things the patent office checks for ("obviousness"). You then retorted with words to the effect of "Oh yeah? well if it became obvious in the interim it would have been retracted" (which is actually an argument for my point of view if you think about it), failing to even notice that I never claimed that it wouldn't, and specifically implied that I had no knowledge of the "retraction process" or if there even is one.



    Your so hot to be right, that you're not even paying attention to what I was arguing.
  • Reply 65 of 90
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Actually, one patent is good for 20 years as it was filed after June 8, 1995. The other is good for 17 years. Nonetheless, any ITC ban would go into effect way before the appeal process in the Courts.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliffjumper68 View Post


    These patents turn 17 years old this summer and next spring anyways, so why is this a big issue? With appeals this case will clearly extend beyond the patent viability of both offending patents. After all patents are only good for 17 years, then it is public domain.



  • Reply 66 of 90
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    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.



    So will Apple go after MS next if they start to gain more market share?



    From the anger of your post, I think you have more to worry about than a phone.



    Apple and MS have a lot of cross licensing in place, they will likely continue to expand it.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post


    It's not borrowing if it's obvious. The first patent is definitely obvious from a software development standpoint.



    Was it obvious 17 years ago?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    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.



    You should win Analogy of the year



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    It seems to me that you're still upset about the argument yesterday where you were bested by someone else, and that you're carrying over this anger towards me today for some reason.



    I'm not saying anything controversial or non-obvious here, you're just twisting my words around looking for errors. Since my belief is that you "know what I meant" and that you don't really have a counter argument to it anyway (or necessarily even disagree), I'm just going to stop talking about this.



    I don't recall you saying ipso facto?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    What you said is something that keeps getting said - it's not the first time you've said it either. It's one of those glib lines that makes superficial sense but is rooted deep in error.



    At best the fact that the patent was awarded means that it wasn't obvious to the patent clerk, but obvious in this context means obvious to somebody grounded in the problem domain - and naturally enough patent clerks are often not. They don't make patent clerks like Einstein these days.



    Most of what you claim he is saying has only been said by you.



    Btw. It does matter if it was obvious when the patent was granted. Who thinks it was not obvious is a lot less important then when it was not obvious. Everything seems obvious after we have used it for 15 years.
  • Reply 67 of 90
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,195member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    What you said is something that keeps getting said - it's not the first time you've said it either. It's one of those glib lines that makes superficial sense but is rooted deep in error.



    At best the fact that the patent was awarded means that it wasn't obvious to the patent clerk, but obvious in this context means obvious to somebody grounded in the problem domain - and naturally enough patent clerks are often not. They don't make patent clerks like Einstein these days.



    Einstein wouldn't know 99% of what is patented today. Sorry, but he wouldn't.
  • Reply 68 of 90
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Yeah, blah blah blah.



    All I'm going to say to this one is that you have a nasty habit of stating things as fact that you have no idea one way or the other about. Here you assume that a single clerk who is dumb, made a mistake about obviousness on the patent because ...



    This is getting ugly.



    You suggested that the fact that the patent was granted is a proof that the idea wasn't obvious.



    Cloudgazer called you out and gave as an example the fact that patents do in fact get invalidated after they have been granted based on having been obvious (although not necessarily obvious to the clerk that granted them initially).



    You have since resorted to bringing up yesterday's discussions, suggesting that cloudgazer was angry, and (seemingly) refusing to argue further. That is no way to conduct a civilized discourse.



    I have to give the point to cloudgazer on this one.
  • Reply 69 of 90
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    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







    I was waiting for someone to copy and paste that tripe here:



    1: This is NOT a Samsung product. Even the article you got this from got that right. it is a product that Samsung approved (much like accessories seek approval for the "made for ipod" sticker)

    2: The Smart case is NOT apple's design. The idea of a triangle folding cover isn't new, and the first case made for an ipad with this design was NOT MADE BY APPLE. It was made by incase: http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/



    As for your 'Well most people understand copying as this" argument, that's pointless. What most people think doesn't matter because 1) we're discussing patent law here. 2) Most people are idiots when it comes to things that are not in their field (and sometimes idiots in their own field)



    The patent system is broken. The fact that developers are removing their apps from US markets proves this. Just because it's supporting a side you tend to agree with this time doesn't make the practice any more "valid."
  • Reply 70 of 90
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ufwa View Post


    what about this



    http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/



    the samsung tablet accessory is more like the incase thing.



    It looks from the photos to be a case with a cover that folds to allow the tablet to be propped up. several speck cases do the same thing.



    Lol, I didn't know about this one... Reminiscent of the WiFi syncing theft...





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    You've got to be kidding me!



    Don't these guys have a remote sense of self-esteem?! Pride?! Heck, decency?!



    Apparently, they don't... Wait, were you asking about Apple or Samsung?
  • Reply 71 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    All I'm going to say to this one is that you have a nasty habit of stating things as fact that you have no idea one way or the other about. Here you assume that a single clerk who is dumb, made a mistake about obviousness on the patent because ... well basically just because you disagree about the obviousness of the invention *today*. Then you throw yourself back to 15 years ago, and assume all kinds of stuff not in evidence and about which you couldn't possibly know and pronounce it to be fact.



    All I'm going to say is that you have a nasty habit of stating I'm stating something that you can't actually quote me stating. Actually the assumptions here are all yours. You assume that because a patent (or claim on a patent) is granted it is non-obvious - I am saying that at most one can say it was non-obvious to the clerk. I am also saying that some patents or claims on patents are subsequently invalidated because they are in fact obvious. In those cases the clerk was at best mistaken - ie. to the clerk it was not obvious, but in fact to an experienced practitioner it was.



    I am not saying that this patent is necessarily obvious, I don't need to since my contention is that it was not even novel, and I provided a specific example of it in the last thread which nobody was able to refute. The emacs text editor running folding minor mode and font lock, a publicly available unix development environment back in the early 90s.



    Now if you are stating that claims or entire patents are never invalidated for being obvious then we can dismiss that.



    http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/2...id-as-obvious/

    http://frisinaip.com/federal-circuit...r-obviousness/



    easy to find more, just google for 'patent invalidated obviousness' or 'claim invalidated obviousness'. It's really rather, well, obvious.



    Quote:

    Again, all I'm saying is that the patent wasn't obvious at the time, because I happen to know that this is one of the central things the patent office checks for ("obviousness"). You then retorted with words to the effect of "Oh yeah? well if it became obvious in the interim it would have been retracted" (which is actually an argument for my point of view if you think about it), failing to even notice that I never claimed that it wouldn't, and specifically implied that I had no knowledge of the "retraction process" or if there even is one.



    Now you're just taking your wrongness and compounding it with extreme wrongness. A patent which is invalidated due to being obvious is invalidated because it is considered that it was obvious at the time of filing, not because it is obvious now - that would be ridiculous. The invalidating judge is not saying that the patent is merely obvious now, he is saying that the patent office was incorrect in its determination of non-obviousness then.



    Again this is all rather obvious.





    Quote:

    Your so hot to be right, that you're not even paying attention to what I was arguing.



    You're so unable to admit to being wrong that you just digging yourself in deeper.
  • Reply 72 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Einstein wouldn't know 99% of what is patented today. Sorry, but he wouldn't.



    Perhaps not, but in whatever field he was assigned i'd trust him to figure out if it was obvious The guy could create general relativity on one hand, and help develop a refrigerator design on the other.
  • Reply 73 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


    Apple and MS have a lot of cross licensing in place, they will likely continue to expand it.



    Can you find a citation for that? I'm not being contentious here, I've looked after somebody else asked and all I can find is the late 90s deal which ran 5 years and no evidence it was ever renewed.



    Quote:

    Most of what you claim he is saying has only been said by you.



    I'm really not putting words into his mouth here. This isn't the first time he's said something that presumes that all patents are automatically valid just because they were granted. A few days ago he said



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    What's obvious *now* wasn't obvious when they were patented or someone else would have done it wouldn't they?



    Which was equally sophomoric, perhaps even worse.



    Quote:

    Btw. It does matter if it was obvious when the patent was granted. Who thinks it was not obvious is a lot less important then when it was not obvious. Everything seems obvious after we have used it for 15 years.



    Absolutely, the test is whether it would be obvious to a person well grounded in the available prior art at the time of filing. I would actually say that in this case it's worse than that, it's fully pre-empted by prior art, but that's just my opinion.
  • Reply 74 of 90
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    To say the smart cover is not an Apple design is a little disingenuous. Sure, the over all design looks very similar to the Incase design. The innovation Apple brought to the table is the magnets that act to align the cover, hold it in place, and turn the device off and on. Those features seem to be uniquely Apple. That typically is what Apple always does is build on something that is already out there. Further, Apple's design only covers the front, while Incase's design wraps around the whole thing and is affixed to the back. I can't see anything Apple's competitors are adding to the design.



    With that said, it should be noted, Apple's means of protecting the Smart Cover design are limited to trademark law and possibly patent law. Neither Incase, Apple, or anybody else can copyright the overall design of the cover because it likely would be considered a useful article and not be eligible for copyright protection. However, by the knock off using the name Smart Case, it is possible Apple could win a trademark fight based on Apple's Trademark on the mark "Smart Cover." That seems like a clear attempt to build on the good will Apple has developed using the mark Smart Cover.



    Apple also has at least one patent covering Smart Covers, and could possible assert those rights if any type of interactive functionality is added between the third parties cover and Samsung's devices (e.g. removing the cover turns the device on).



    Further, it is interesting to note, Incase has not said a word about Apple's case. It is possible Apple collaborated with Incase. Whatever the situation might be, Incase's design borrows from many other ideas. For instance, gymnastic mats that fold in a very similar way. Some truck bed covers. Also I remember my mother's kitchen table came with a protection pad that worked just like this cover. The Smart Cover undoubtedly seems inspired by Incase's design, but under copyright law that is fine. In turn, Samsung's knock off case maker is also free to be inspired by Apple with the possible exception of the name. The parties also might not be able to use the exact same colors, as colors are protected under copyright as well (try mixing a Ralph Lauren color using some other company's paint at a place like Home Depot).









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    I was waiting for someone to copy and paste that tripe here:



    1: This is NOT a Samsung product. Even the article you got this from got that right. it is a product that Samsung approved (much like accessories seek approval for the "made for ipod" sticker)

    2: The Smart case is NOT apple's design. The idea of a triangle folding cover isn't new, and the first case made for an ipad with this design was NOT MADE BY APPLE. It was made by incase: http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/



    As for your 'Well most people understand copying as this" argument, that's pointless. What most people think doesn't matter because 1) we're discussing patent law here. 2) Most people are idiots when it comes to things that are not in their field (and sometimes idiots in their own field)



    The patent system is broken. The fact that developers are removing their apps from US markets proves this. Just because it's supporting a side you tend to agree with this time doesn't make the practice any more "valid."



  • Reply 75 of 90
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    To say the smart cover is not an Apple design is a little disingenuous. Sure, the over all design looks very similar to the Incase design. The innovation Apple brought to the table is the magnets that act to align the cover, hold it in place, and turn the device off and on. Those features seem to be uniquely Apple. That typically is what Apple always does is build on something that is already out there. Further, Apple's design only covers the front, while Incase's design wraps around the whole thing and is affixed to the back. I can't see anything Apple's competitors are adding to the design.



    With that said, it should be noted, Apple's means of protecting the Smart Cover design are limited to trademark law and possibly patent law. Neither Incase, Apple, or anybody else can copyright the overall design of the cover because it likely would be considered a useful article and not be eligible for copyright protection. However, by the knock off using the name Smart Case, it is possible Apple could win a trademark fight based on Apple's Trademark on the mark "Smart Cover." That seems like a clear attempt to build on the good will Apple has developed using the mark Smart Cover.



    Apple also has at least one patent covering Smart Covers, and could possible assert those rights if any type of interactive functionality is added between the third parties cover and Samsung's devices (e.g. removing the cover turns the device on).



    Further, it is interesting to note, Incase has not said a word about Apple's case. It is possible Apple collaborated with Incase. Whatever the situation might be, Incase's design borrows from many other ideas. For instance, gymnastic mats that fold in a very similar way. Some truck bed covers. Also I remember my mother's kitchen table came with a protection pad that worked just like this cover. The Smart Cover undoubtedly seems inspired by Incase's design, but under copyright law that is fine. In turn, Samsung's knock off case maker is also free to be inspired by Apple with the possible exception of the name. The parties also might not be able to use the exact same colors, as colors are protected under copyright as well (try mixing a Ralph Lauren color using some other company's paint at a place like Home Depot).



    I hope they weren't granted any patents for having the device power on when the cover is removed. That's not a new idea, at all. Apple just changed the packaging.



    Blackberry's have had this function for quite awhile. You slide your blackberry into a OEM pouch, it goes to sleep, pull it out, and the screen lights up again. Blackberry's solution is actually more advanced because you can have the pouch define profiles. For example, on my blackberry, I had it set up so when the phone was in it's holster, the ONLY noise it would make would be if someone called me. Texts, emails, etc. all were silenced. Pull it out of the holster, and the text message had a ringtone again.



    If they got a patent for the fact that it wakes the screen on removal, it just further showcases how broken the patent system is. Now, implementations like Evernote's "quiz" are (to my knowledge) unique, but waking a screen with magnets is not.



    Additionally, the samesung case is secured to the device by something that wraps around the back, not a magnetic hinge.





    It is telling that InCase said nothing. In fact, what they said is "we will make no comment." that doesn't sound like there was a healthy bargain between the two. I am NOT implying that Apple "stole" anything. (as you and I both agree, the concept is far from unique.. at least when it comes to triangle folds) All I was trying to point out was how off Peabody's statement was that he 1) implied that Samsung made the case 2) implied that Apple came up with the idea for the case.
  • Reply 76 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    However, by the knock off using the name Smart Case, it is possible Apple could win a trademark fight based on Apple's Trademark on the mark "Smart Cover." That seems like a clear attempt to build on the good will Apple has developed using the mark Smart Cover.



    The problem Apple will have there is that there is an existing Smart Case product which has a tradmark. Presumably this means the samsung knockoff won't be able to be marketed in the US anyway - at least not by that name.



    http://www.aviiq.com/pages/smart-case-for-ipad-2



    Their best approach would probably be to go for trade dress, since it makes the 10.1 look even more like an iPad-2 than it already did.
  • Reply 77 of 90
    It scares me that so many people actually want to just see android fail. My question is why. What do you get by android failing? For that matter why do you hate android its software if you don't like then don't use it. Right now the various android headset makers are innovating like crazy. Apple just can sit back and watch as samsung, htc, and other android OEMs compete and they can get first hand knowledge of what features consumers want and what is just a gimmick all this without spending a dime. Android being free allows it to be the perfect testing bed for new smartphone features.
  • Reply 78 of 90
    gimpymwgimpymw Posts: 45member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    Apple had to recently pay Nokia because of some patents. Fair is fair and anybody is free to sue Apple if they wish, and Apple is also free to do the same.



    And I am hardly angry. I don't care much for sports, and I don't have any sports team which I cheer on and I see this as sports (and war), and I am rooting for Apple. This is entertainment.



    The issue between Nokia vs. Apple was a little more complicated than it seemed. Apple was willing to pay Nokia's license fees but Nokia being the greedy bastards that they are decided to gouge Apple by charging Apple a higher license fees than they were to other licensees. Apple said fuck you to Nokia and decided to not pay them anything and Nokia sued them. Apple may have lost the decision

    to Nokia but after the settlement I doubt that Apple's paying the premium that Nokia originally demanded.
  • Reply 79 of 90
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    The problem Apple will have there is that there is an existing Smart Case product which has a tradmark. Presumably this means the samsung knockoff won't be able to be marketed in the US anyway - at least not by that name.



    http://www.aviiq.com/pages/smart-case-for-ipad-2



    Their best approach would probably be to go for trade dress, since it makes the 10.1 look even more like an iPad-2 than it already did.



    My gut armchair-legal opinion is that trade dress is the most likely defense. Just looking at it, you'd think it was an iPad 2 with a Smart Cover; is it just me, or do the fold lines seem the exact same spacing?. Plus, the colors seem oddly familiar. That combo, plus the name, make it an obvious offender.



    That said, it appears to be Korean-only for now. If it makes it to the U.S., I'd expect a name change, but I still think Apple might win on trade dress.



    As has been said, this is NOT Samsung. However, apparently the owner is related to a Samaung exec and they appear to be closely related companies.



    This kind of stuff makes your blood boil, but then again who are we to enforce Western beliefs about IP, if it's not being sold in the West? IP beliefs are not universal.
  • Reply 80 of 90
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,584member
    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...



    Apple's patents relate specifically to an application recognizing phone numbers, dates and addresses within a text message or email that you receive (which requires an algorithm) then automatically converting the text to a hyperlink, and then linking that text stream to the appropriate application - phone number to calling function and / or address book, address to the address book, date to the calendar with auto insert in your calendar.



    If they put a crimp on Android growth because they actually need to start paying for stolen IP for the next 3 to 5 years that's great!
Sign In or Register to comment.