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

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


    Apple's patents relate specifically to an application recognizing phone numbers, dates and addresses within a text message or email that you receive



    Completely wrong. The preferred embodiment describes such an application, but the claims never specify such things - and the claims determine the scope of the patent.
  • Reply 82 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    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.



    They're close, though the different aspect ratio means they're not the same. The slight rounding on the raised sections is exact and non-functional.
  • Reply 83 of 90
    nhtnht Posts: 4,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    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.



    Yes, but all patents from Apple and MS filed between 97 and 02 were automatically covered. Since then it is not unreasonable to assume that they have cross licensed individual patents on an as needed/desired basis.



    Given that Apple is naturally secretive and MS has a history of NDAs on offensive cross-licenses (specifically with respect to Linux related patents) that you don't see big press releases isn't indicative that they aren't occurring.



    In any case, MS has indicated it has patent license deals with Apple since 2003:



    "Microsoft said it has entered into more than 600 patent licensing agreements since it launched its IP licensing program in December 2003, including deals with Apple, Novell, Hewlett-Packard and Samsung."



    http://www.crn.com/news/applications...Ycw**.ecappj01
  • Reply 84 of 90
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,818member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gimpymw View Post


    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.



    I haven't seen any evidence that Nokia was attempting to charge Apple a premium other than Apple lawyers made that claim in one filing.



    Note that when HTC may be found to infringe on an Apple patent, it's theft according to some here, with their offending devices worthy of banishment from the market. Yet Apple infringes, with today's Kodak/Apple article the latest example, and the attitude is entirely different.



    The fact is that every mobile player is guilty of "stealing" ideas from someone else, be it Apple, MS, Google or Blackberry. Sometimes they know they're doing it, and sometimes it blindsides them.
  • Reply 85 of 90
    nhtnht Posts: 4,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


    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?



    Consumers don't get anything from a complete Android failure. But we do get something out of a partial Android failure: a three way game vs a two way game. It is much better for us to see 35% Android, 35% WP7, 25% iOS, 5% other than 70% Android, 25% iOS, 5% other.



    Besides, WP7 is a nice handset OS.



    Quote:

    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.



    Neither Android manufacturers nor Google are really "innovating like crazy". The only one I see really innovating in order to challenge iOS is Microsoft.



    That's part of it I guess. A lot of folks like seeing Google getting taken down a notch or two on Android because they've always been a bit too liberal with other people's IP. Android is to big to be killed IMHO so it's amusing to watch.
  • Reply 86 of 90
    nhtnht Posts: 4,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I haven't seen any evidence that Nokia was attempting to charge Apple a premium other than Apple lawyers made that claim in one filing.



    Well they aren't likely to submit a complete fabrication in a court document are they? Especially if Nokia can simply provide the court with the actual demand.



    The sticking point was the cross licensing that Apple claimed that Nokia wanted. Nokia got some cross licensing but how much do you want to bet they didn't get the ones they originally really wanted except under a MS cross licenses for WP7?



    Now that Symbian is dead they could both agree to settle. Rumor has it somewhere around $11/iPhone. I wonder when the Android shoe drops.
  • Reply 87 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    In any case, MS has indicated it has patent license deals with Apple since 2003:



    "Microsoft said it has entered into more than 600 patent licensing agreements since it launched its IP licensing program in December 2003, including deals with Apple, Novell, Hewlett-Packard and Samsung."



    http://www.crn.com/news/applications...Ycw**.ecappj01



    Well it's not definitive but it's certainly indicative that the Apple-MS deal remains in force, nice find.
  • Reply 88 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Note that when HTC may be found to infringe on an Apple patent, it's theft according to some here, with their offending devices worthy of banishment from the market. Yet Apple infringes, with today's Kodak/Apple article the latest example, and the attitude is entirely different.



    You're right - there's a lot of double standard going on here, these patents are really very comparable to the S3 or Kodak patents. In both cases the defendant can make a strong argument that the patents validity is questionable.



    Would you agree though that the Samsung case is genuinely different?
  • Reply 89 of 90
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,818member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    You're right - there's a lot of double standard going on here, these patents are really very comparable to the S3 or Kodak patents. In both cases the defendant can make a strong argument that the patents validity is questionable.



    Would you agree though that the Samsung case is genuinely different?



    Yes, the Samsung case is quite different IMO. I feel Sammy has strayed a bit too close to the look/feel of Apple's iPhone (but not the iPad with the Tab10.1). It should be an easy fix for Samsung, but not without a cost in some settlement with Apple.



    At the same time Apple looks like they're throwing as many claims against the wall as they can think of and don't really care how many stick as long as a few do.
  • Reply 90 of 90
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    At the same time Apple looks like they're throwing as many claims against the wall as they can think of and don't really care how many stick as long as a few do.



    Well they're also on the receiving end of suits from S3 & Kodak, so it would be unfair to expect them not to demand royalties on their own tech - that itself would be a kind of double standard.



    In my developer utopia none of these software patents or thinly veiled 'a device which ...' software patents would be valid - but in this one they are.
Sign In or Register to comment.