HTC wants to negotiate a patent deal with Apple

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 64
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    If that's the case, if it's not directly relevant to the UX Apple might not have a problem licensing the patents. Apple consistently show that tech specs are basically irrelevant to most people's purchasing decisions. If they can make a quid selling technology which doesn't suppress their advantages, why wouldn't they?



    Because Apple's problem is that it has limited ability to directly defend the UI and the unique Appleness? Applacity? of its products. So instead it's using its essentially unrelated software patents instead. Kinda the IP equivalent of arresting Al Capone for tax evasion.
  • Reply 42 of 64
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by runner7775 View Post


    This makes sense. Since Apple and HTC both own patents that the other violates, they will likely come to some agreement rather than continue the lawsuits.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    HTC: "We'll pay Apple $5.00 for each Android clone we ship."



    Apple: "We'll pay you $0.10 for each iPhone we ship. Deal."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    A reasonable conclusion versus the rabble-raising-hate-mongering that laces most of these posts.



    Let's get something straight about the S3 case. S3 was demanding $83 million. Unless this is overturned, or modified by the full commission, which is unlikely, though possible, they will only be receiving $8 million. What's worse, this seems to cover all of Apple previous mobile devices, all of their current mobile devices, and all of the mobile devices they will be selling in the future, until the patents expire.



    $8 million for what eventually be a billion devices, or more, is a drop in the bucket, as the expression goes.



    How HTC benefits from from this is something I don't understand. There aren't any other actions coming from this that they can threaten with, and Apple doesn't seem to be violating any other of their IP.



    I'm wondering if HTC made this deal before the decision of the Judge, but didn't finalize it until afterwards. If so, they took a chance. Considering how soon after the decision this deal was finalized, it's not likely it was conceived, negotiated and finalized after the decision.
  • Reply 43 of 64
    kovacmkovacm Posts: 57member
    no need to write (or read) anything else



    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-has-four.html



    clear as sky at 28. July at 12:00
  • Reply 44 of 64
    jahbladejahblade Posts: 147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    at least that's one thing they made themselves.



    lol!!!
  • Reply 45 of 64
    blursdblursd Posts: 123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I am a strong believer that holders of patents and IP in general are entitled to due compensation in case of clear infringement, or to the right of forcing the infringing party to cease their offense. Having said this, IP is a complex minefield nowadays. Any company entering a crowded field like the mobile industry cannot avoid employing someone else's IP. Sometimes, an equitable licensing arrangement is negotiated up front. Sometimes, this happens after the fact, when the two parties parry first in the courts and subsequently across the negotiating table. Sometimes, both parties turn a blind eye in order to avoid a complicated legal chain reaction.



    Apple is not a stranger to infringing other companies' IP rights. Look at their recent history of settlements. Look at their history of usurping other companies' trademarks (iThis, iThat ...), only to negotiate the rights well after the fact.



    So, what I don't understand is how Apple fans are able to find the high horse to ridicule other companies for doing the very same thing Apple does, over and over again?



    How is it that many of you confuse loving a company's products with defending the company on all fronts, even on fronts where the company itself has admitted to having erred here and there.



    Just enjoy your Apple products. No need to kiss Apple's butt at every turn. No need to belittle every competitor of Apple. Don't forget, without competition, Apple would not be what it is today.





    Not to split hairs, but I think there's a rather salient difference between the issues regarding Apple's patent infringement and that of companies like HTC and Samsung. Has Apple infringed on patents? Yes. Name me a technology company with over $300 million in revenue that hasn't.



    Was there a company that trademarked the iPhone name before Apple. Yes. Did Apple's iPhone look anything like the "other" iPhone. No. Was it even the same product? No. Was it targeted at the same market? No. The first (non-Apple) iPhone was a VoIP phone ... Apple's iPhone was a smart cellular phone. You'd have to be a complete idiot to confuse the two.



    As far as the naming of products the list could go on, but that's really not the same thing as giving your product a different name, but copying the look, feel, and experience of another product. I think anyone would agree the latter is far more aggrieved of a patent infringement than the former. You look at these devices (or even play around with them for a couple minutes) and the similarities are too numerous to be coincidence. They are trying to copy the iPhone ... it's that simple.



    Now, has Apple infringed on technology patents? Yes. I think the main difference between the patents Apple infringed and the case concerning HTC and Samsung Apple's infringements were functional and not aesthetic. For example, the Nokia and Kodak patents recently Apple was recently found to have infringed upon -- they were all mechanical patents on the inside of the phone. I don't think anyone's initial gut reaction when the iPhone was released was to say, "Oh, that's a Nokia phone ... or a Kodak camera!" That doesn't mean Apple didn't infringe on a patent, but I think the difference between what Apple did and what HTC and Samsung has done is obvious for anyone to recognize. The question then becomes, "is one really 'better' than the other." Well, that's open to debate, but the difference between the two situations is undeniable.



    Personally, I think copying the look, design, and feel of a product to ride the coattails of it's popularity is worse than what Apple has done. That's just my opinion though ...
  • Reply 46 of 64
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Let's get something straight about the S3 case. S3 was demanding $83 million. Unless this is overturned, or modified by the full commission, which is unlikely, though possible, they will only be receiving $8 million. What's worse, this seems to cover all of Apple previous mobile devices, all of their current mobile devices, and all of the mobile devices they will be selling in the future, until the patents expire.



    $8 million for what eventually be a billion devices, or more, is a drop in the bucket, as the expression goes.



    How HTC benefits from from this is something I don't understand. There aren't any other actions coming from this that they can threaten with, and Apple doesn't seem to be violating any other of their IP.



    I'm wondering if HTC made this deal before the decision of the Judge, but didn't finalize it until afterwards. If so, they took a chance. Considering how soon after the decision this deal was finalized, it's not likely it was conceived, negotiated and finalized after the decision.



    Well said.
  • Reply 47 of 64
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I am a strong believer that holders of patents and IP in general are entitled to due compensation in case of clear infringement, or to the right of forcing the infringing party to cease their offense. Having said this, IP is a complex minefield nowadays. Any company entering a crowded field like the mobile industry cannot avoid employing someone else's IP. Sometimes, an equitable licensing arrangement is negotiated up front. Sometimes, this happens after the fact, when the two parties parry first in the courts and subsequently across the negotiating table. Sometimes, both parties turn a blind eye in order to avoid a complicated legal chain reaction.



    Apple is not a stranger to infringing other companies' IP rights. Look at their recent history of settlements. Look at their history of usurping other companies' trademarks (iThis, iThat ...), only to negotiate the rights well after the fact.



    So, what I don't understand is how Apple fans are able to find the high horse to ridicule other companies for doing the very same thing Apple does, over and over again?



    How is it that many of you confuse loving a company's products with defending the company on all fronts, even on fronts where the company itself has admitted to having erred here and there.



    Just enjoy your Apple products. No need to kiss Apple's butt at every turn. No need to belittle every competitor of Apple. Don't forget, without competition, Apple would not be what it is today.



    Large companies, and small ones alike often come out with products that violate others IP. It's too difficult to do a complete patent search first. Generally, unless something is well known in the industry, there is no way to tell if something is patented or not. So what happens is that companies rely on the IP owner telling them if a violation occurs. Then, they negotiate. If the price is seemingly fair, it ends there. If not, it may end up in court. If the IP owner doesn't want to license, it may end up in court.



    This is nothing special, and I've had it occur with my own companies a few times over the years. The same thing is true with copyrights and trademarks. There are even times when a search fails to turn up a result, even though it is there. That happened to the name of my second company (though I wasn't an owner at the time). After a search, we were notified by a company IN THE SAME CITY, that we had usurped their name. We agreed to change it, though it was expensive.



    The problem occurs when companies know they are violating something important, and refuse to negotiate. Google has now taken IP from Sun, Microsoft and Apple. Certainly in the case of Sun, it was no error. They walked out of negotiations early on. The judge has stated that Google knew they were violating the IP. Google has only weakly protested that fact, and has been spending their time attempting to whittle down a possible settlement or ruling against them.



    Their statements show us that taking IP is a matter of business with Google, and they think they are in the right. Apple has never made statements like that.



    While companies often go to court over IP, they don't usually consider others IP to be fair game the way Google does.
  • Reply 48 of 64
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Let's get something straight about the S3 case. S3 was demanding $83 million. Unless this is overturned, or modified by the full commission, which is unlikely, though possible, they will only be receiving $8 million. What's worse, this seems to cover all of Apple previous mobile devices, all of their current mobile devices, and all of the mobile devices they will be selling in the future, until the patents expire.



    I believe you're mixing up S3 with the Personal Audio case. PA sought 84mil in their first suit and were awarded 8mil. Now they're going after additional products so could get considerably more than 8mil.



    S3 has never had an award, nor has it sought damages. S3 is after an ITC injunction - and looks like there's some news there. No injunction yet but still a risk of one on some of the macs if not mobile devices.



    Easy enough to get them mixed up though.
  • Reply 49 of 64
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Large companies, and small ones alike often come out with products that violate others IP. It's too difficult to do a complete patent search first. Generally, unless something is well known in the industry, there is no way to tell if something is patented or not. So what happens is that companies rely on the IP owner telling them if a violation occurs. Then, they negotiate. If the price is seemingly fair, it ends there. If not, it may end up in court. If the IP owner doesn't want to license, it may end up in court.



    Yep. I've actually had legal advice to NOT do a patent search a priori. If you search and do something you think is similar but different, you open yourself to extra scrutiny on whether maybe you used those patent docs to help yourself and the "willful" trebling of damages. If you do not search and you tread on a patents toes, you chose whether to fight or license on a relatively level playing field, not one where the mere existence of a search in the legal billing makes you have to bring extra proof to the table to avoid being called out on willful behavior.
  • Reply 50 of 64
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    I believe you're mixing up S3 with the Personal Audio case. PA sought 84mil in their first suit and were awarded 8mil. Now they're going after additional products so could get considerably more than 8mil.



    S3 has never had an award, nor has it sought damages. S3 is after an ITC injunction - and looks like there's some news there. No injunction yet but still a risk of one on some of the macs if not mobile devices.



    Easy enough to get them mixed up though.



    Some interesting reads:



    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22255



    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22259
  • Reply 51 of 64
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kovacm View Post


    no need to write (or read) anything else



    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-has-four.html



    clear as sky at 28. July at 12:00



    His articles are always very good.
  • Reply 52 of 64
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    I believe you're mixing up S3 with the Personal Audio case. PA sought 84mil in their first suit and were awarded 8mil. Now they're going after additional products so could get considerably more than 8mil.



    S3 has never had an award, nor has it sought damages. S3 is after an ITC injunction - and looks like there's some news there. No injunction yet but still a risk of one on some of the macs if not mobile devices.



    Easy enough to get them mixed up though.



    Hmm. Yes, you're right. I mixed up the settlement. S3 won't on two of the patents they were seeking a judgement on. But apparently, it's minor, as the judge ruled that Apple had an implied right to at least one of the patents as a user of Nvidia chips, which violate the patent.



    Most of the violations of the patents that Apple is said to be violating have been knocked down.



    It still doesn't look like much of a win, as what S3 seems to have won in their ruling is minor.
  • Reply 53 of 64
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Hmm. Yes, you're right. I mixed up the settlement. S3 won't on two of the patents they were seeking a judgement on. But apparently, it's minor, as the judge ruled that Apple had an implied right to at least one of the patents as a user of Nvidia chips, which violate the patent.



    Most of the violations of the patents that Apple is said to be violating have been knocked down.



    It still doesn't look like much of a win, as what S3 seems to have won in their ruling is minor.



    I don't think we can dismiss it as minor. Theoretically HTC are still on course for an injunction against 90%+ of existing OS-X products being imported into the US. iOS devices are unaffected, but that's still a lot of lost revenue.



    The problem is that Apple's Mac lineup currently are almost all ATI or Intel, so Apple will have to devote engineers to switching across to NVIDIA, which will be particularly hard on models that don't have discrete graphics. Either that or they'll have to create a version of OS-X that doesn't infringe, if that's even possible.
  • Reply 54 of 64
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member


    The first is right on the money. The Apple/S3 business will come down to how easily Apple can stop infringing the S3 patents. I don't think Apple will want to be stuck using only NVIDIA chips in their OS-X machines, especially the Air, so if they can't find a software fix then they may have to agree to a cross-license, even if it's one favourable to them.



    I'm not sure how relavant the second report is. If SUN was happy for Google to do what it did then it could have issued them a license. An email or blog posting by an executive doesn't have force of law, though I suppose it may impact whether they are 'wilfully infringing'.
  • Reply 55 of 64
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I am a strong believer that holders of patents and IP in general are entitled to due compensation in case of clear infringement, or to the right of forcing the infringing party to cease their offense. Having said this, IP is a complex minefield nowadays. Any company entering a crowded field like the mobile industry cannot avoid employing someone else's IP. Sometimes, an equitable licensing arrangement is negotiated up front. Sometimes, this happens after the fact, when the two parties parry first in the courts and subsequently across the negotiating table. Sometimes, both parties turn a blind eye in order to avoid a complicated legal chain reaction.



    Apple is not a stranger to infringing other companies' IP rights. Look at their recent history of settlements. Look at their history of usurping other companies' trademarks (iThis, iThat ...), only to negotiate the rights well after the fact.



    So, what I don't understand is how Apple fans are able to find the high horse to ridicule other companies for doing the very same thing Apple does, over and over again?



    How is it that many of you confuse loving a company's products with defending the company on all fronts, even on fronts where the company itself has admitted to having erred here and there.



    Just enjoy your Apple products. No need to kiss Apple's butt at every turn. No need to belittle every competitor of Apple. Don't forget, without competition, Apple would not be what it is today.



    Sadly you seem to equate all "infringement" claims as valid. This is far from the case. Many of the suits brought against apple are from patent trolls who shop the courts for the most favorable venue. Most often, settlements are due to several factors:

    1. It is far less costly to just settle. To defend your actions can cost far more than the cost of settling. (Nuisance suits.)

    2. It is a negotiation ploy to use the IP without a license as the holder is trying to extort exorbitant and unfair fees. This was the case with Nokia.

    3. The user feels the patents are too broad and are invalid.

    4. As to the iThing you mention, the original owners of those names came out quite satisfied with the results as Apple was willing to pay them hefty fees to secure the rights. Win Win.



    Conversely, android and android handset makers are blatantly copying significant aspects of the iphone from look and feel, user interface, etc etc etc instead of innovating on their own. They are blatantly ripping off the entire device. And google themselves are the new evil. They have created nothing new by stealing heavily from others while owning very little of the IP themselves. Then they cry foul - "the patent system is bad, patents are suppressing innovation". Too funny.
  • Reply 56 of 64
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,742member


    Not sure if either one is relevant.
  • Reply 57 of 64
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    I don't think we can dismiss it as minor. Theoretically HTC are still on course for an injunction against 90%+ of existing OS-X products being imported into the US. iOS devices are unaffected, but that's still a lot of lost revenue.



    The problem is that Apple's Mac lineup currently are almost all ATI or Intel, so Apple will have to devote engineers to switching across to NVIDIA, which will be particularly hard on models that don't have discrete graphics. Either that or they'll have to create a version of OS-X that doesn't infringe, if that's even possible.



    Apparently, both patents refer to Nvidia chips using the tech in question. Apple has been relying less lately on Nvidia tech. They've been moving to Sandy Ridge without Nvidia chips, and have been moving to ATI for some time. Apple would have to move away from Nvidia completely, which they are obviously doing. So it's not a major threat.



    But HTC can't work around Apples patents, so they seem stuck.



    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...artillery.html



    And, more specifically:



    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ad_do_not.html
  • Reply 58 of 64
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


    FK them! No way Apple! Stick it to them and show them that free isn't so free!



    Isn't that what happened when Apple sued?

    And isn't that what HTC is saying by trying to get a licensing deal?
  • Reply 59 of 64
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Apparently, both patents refer to Nvidia chips using the tech in question. Apple has been relying less lately on Nvidia tech. They've been moving to Sandy Ridge without Nvidia chips, and have been moving to ATI for some time. Apple would have to move away from Nvidia completely, which they are obviously doing. So it's not a major threat.



    You have it backwards. OS-X products using NVIDIA are covered under NVIDIA's license, but the other products aren't. ie. if they were to get an injunction along the lines of this preliminary ruling all iMacs, MBAs and I think almost all MBPs would be embargoed.



    'Macs that have Nvidia Corp. (NVDA) graphics processing units have an implied license to the patents, the judge said.'



    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...udge-says.html
  • Reply 60 of 64
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


    Sadly you seem to equate all "infringement" claims as valid. This is far from the case. Many of the suits brought against apple are from patent trolls who shop the courts for the most favorable venue. Most often, settlements are due to several factors:

    1. It is far less costly to just settle. To defend your actions can cost far more than the cost of settling. (Nuisance suits.)

    2. It is a negotiation ploy to use the IP without a license as the holder is trying to extort exorbitant and unfair fees. This was the case with Nokia.

    3. The user feels the patents are too broad and are invalid.

    4. As to the iThing you mention, the original owners of those names came out quite satisfied with the results as Apple was willing to pay them hefty fees to secure the rights. Win Win.



    The problem is that points 2) & 3) apply equally well to the patents that Apple is asserting against HTC. They are overly broad, quite possibly invalid and Apple is refusing to license them at any price, at least so far.



    Quote:

    Conversely, android and android handset makers are blatantly copying significant aspects of the iphone from look and feel, user interface, etc etc etc instead of innovating on their own. They are blatantly ripping off the entire device. And google themselves are the new evil. They have created nothing new by stealing heavily from others while owning very little of the IP themselves. Then they cry foul - "the patent system is bad, patents are suppressing innovation". Too funny.



    Yes but in the case of the HTC suit Apple aren't litigating on the basis of look and feel, user interface or any of that. They're litigating on the basis of broad software patents that any smartphone platform would inevitably end up infringing.



    Your argument would work great for the Samsung case, but it's just not applicable to the HTC one.
Sign In or Register to comment.