Daniel, the Verge quote is here. Take it up with Nitay Patel if you don't believe it's true. I'm just repeating a statement from a generally credible source.
"It's important to note that the ITC issued an exclusion order and not a cease and desist; HTC's current products already on US shelves will be unaffected. However, exclusion orders are generally broadly worded and aren't limited to any specific products — so we would expect Apple to use this ruling to go after newer HTC devices running Android 2.3, 3.0 and even 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). . . We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."
I suspect you didn't read the article before making accusations that the claim was made up by posters here.
Gizmodo is posting the same claim: The ruling currently affects only HTC devices using android 2.2 and prior.
I'm not reading the actual article but it sounds more like this is saying that the products HTC already has in the US will not be banned from being sold. As of now. Even though it's infringing on Apples' patent. Not that the products already on US shelves "don't" infringe on the patent. But if HTC don't fix it by April, then all their products (that infringes) will be banned. Even the ones already sitting on US shelves. It doesn't say that Android 2.3 is not infringing. At least not from the clip quoted.
I'm not reading the actual article but it sounds more like this is saying that the products HTC already has in the US will not be banned from being sold. As of now. Even though it's infringing on Apples' patent. Not that the products already on US shelves "don't" infringe on the patent. But if HTC don't fix it by April, then all their products (that infringes) will be banned. Even the ones already sitting on US shelves. It doesn't say that Android 2.3 is not infringing. At least not from the clip quoted.
"We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."
In other words the ruling doesn't currently apply to that OS version and up according to the Verge and Gizmodo among others. That doesn't mean they're right, but that's what they wrote.
Of course it doesn't mean that HTC doesn't have an issue to deal with. The EVO 4G and Droid Incredible are two that haven't been updated to 2.3 yet. The original Nexus One is also in that currently infringing group, but I'm pretty sure that the upgrade path to ICS was announced for that yesterday or the day before.
EDIT: I was mistaken on the original Nexus phone. The Nexus One from 2009 hasn't been given clearance for an official version of ICS and may not ever, so CyanogenMod appears to be their best bet with Nexus Ones already running it. The Nexus S is what I apparently recalled getting official ICS updates rolling out now.
You are profoundly ignorant if you think Data Detectors is nothing more than a hyperlink.
You can call it whatever fancy name Apple put on someone else's invention but patenting turning something into a hyperlink based on what it says is only something a company like Apple would try to do. Take what everyone else does, slap a "magical" name on it and take it to the patent office. Seems all that Apple is good at lately now that they are no longer innovating.
They invented this in the mid 90s before it became so "common place". It's not a hyperlink but a way to decipher unformatted data.
Programs have been deciphering unformatted data and organizing it for decades. Run that by me again what is different here? What, that someone threw a hyperlink on that data? Apple is out of control and needs someone to put the smack down on them. Again, they are now worse than Microsoft. And I didn't think that was possible.
"We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."
In other words the ruling doesn't currently apply to that OS version and up according to the Verge and Gizmodo among others. that doesn't mean they're right, but that's what they wrote.
The ruling may not apply because 2.3 didn't exist when Apple filed the suit. The suit may have only stated up to 2.2. All Apple may have to do now is file the same suit to include the new Android OS's, if it's still infringing. No where does it state that 2.3 isn't infringing on the same patent. It just that the suit only applies up to 2.2 and maybe because that's how the suit may have been filed. And Apple could now go after 2.3 by using the ruling of this suit.
I remember one of these companies involve in these patent suits, can't remember if it was Nokia, Apple, HTC or Samsung, that wanted to include a new product to their original suit and the judge didn't let them. They either had to file a new suit for the new product or wait until the result of the original suit and then go after any new products infringing if they win.
The ruling may not apply because 2.3 didn't exist when Apple filed the suit. The suit may have only stated up to 2.2. All Apple may have to do now is file the same suit to include the new Android OS's, if it's still infringing. No where does it state that 2.3 isn't infringing on the same patent. It just that the suit only applies up to 2.2 and maybe because that's how the suit may have been filed. And Apple could now go after 2.3 by using the ruling of this suit.
I remember one of these companies involve in these patent suits, can't remember if it was Nokia, Apple, HTC or Samsung, that wanted to include a new product to their original suit and the judge didn't let them. They either had to file a new suit for the new product or wait until the result of the original suit and then go after any new products infringing if they win.
I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?
EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.
I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?
EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.
All I know is that I haven't read one article about this suit that states that Google has already found a work around in 2.3 or that this feature is not in 2.3 at all. All the articles seem to imply that Google has until April to figure it out. No one is saying that Google already figured out a work around. But the ban doesn't seem to be too big of a deal since Google can just remove the feature and put it back in with an update after they find a work around.
Even the "We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything." quote seems to imply that 2.3 is infringing and they're wondering if Apple will pursue any "further" action. Otherwise they should have stated "pursue any action against Android 2.3.......", if this patent didn't affect 2.3 at all.
Try again. This isn't just a hyperlink. It is a link that recognizes the protocol needed by the data given. Even when it isn't in an input field labeled 'phone number' or 'email address'
...on successfully patenting HYPERLINK technology. Yes, once again, you fooled the patent system into granting you a bogus patent unworthy of any judgement for it. Once again you take an idea that people already have implemented and consider so broad that no one else but you would have the distaste to try to patent it.
Apple is more evil than Microsoft ever was. Both companies admit stealing others' ideas, but only Apple has the audacity to try to patent them as if they were their idea. I hope everyone's eyes start opening up and start the boycott of a company that has gone from humble to a-hole in the course of a decade. Apple is leaning hard on the plastic cover over the self-destruct button....
Well, Apple did invent and patent Hypercard linking multiple individual documents. That was patented about the time the existing inside a single document patents expires, so it would have been a clear invention of theirs since nobody else played with cross-linked documents in the intervening 20 years.
Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the WWW has said he was inspired by Hypercard's capabilities and he figured out how to hyperlink documents between servers, another clearly independent advance. And he did so programming on a NeXT box, using Apple provided APIs and capabilities. Notice Apple never rained on the parade of an obviously independent discovery even though it indirectly depended on Apple tech (I say Apple because Apple bought NeXT very shortly after Berners Lee finished his initial work and NeXT OS became OS X).
But the links aren't what HTC lost on, it was the ability to filter and discover the appropriate data that eventually gets linked from a plain text document, like the body of an email.
Correct. It will only help HTC to accelerate to get rid of remaining devices shipping with 2.2 version of Android. ....
I deleted the anti-patent commentary/opinion part of your remarks, but I think this "fact' you are throwing up is quite wrong.
The first clue is that HTC themselves have said that they are already working on ways to get around it, but that they haven't done that yet, which strongly implies that the stolen stuff is still in post Android 2.2 versions.
Secondly, I think the onus on those pushing this argument to explain how exactly one can get around the patent and still have data detectors of any kind. It would appear to be impossible by the wording of the patent and the decision.
You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
I deleted the anti-patent commentary/opinion part of your remarks, but I think this "fact' you are throwing up is quite wrong.
The first clue is that HTC themselves have said that they are already working on ways to get around it, but that they haven't done that yet, which strongly implies that the stolen stuff is still in post Android 2.2 versions.
Secondly, I think the onus on those pushing this argument to explain how exactly one can get around the patent and still have data detectors of any kind. It would appear to be impossible by the wording of the patent and the decision.
You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
News to me if true.
why do you insist on using the word stolen?
That implies a different thing than what actually happened...
What would you call it? Illegally borrowing? Non-permission-based usage? Unsanctioned utilization? IP rapey?
infringement?
I have a question...if you built THE mousetrap as I know it...and I built a device that does the same exact thing (same result) in a completely different way (different coding) did I steal your mousetrap?
There is a reason a lot of people are against software patents...they don't require the source code to be valid...so you are essentially patenting the idea...not the direct method...so using a different method but yielding the same result you can still be sued...and that's just the way it is...
not even trying to get into that argument though...the system is as it is...point is...the code HTC used (and, you know, everything else nowadays including Vbulletin) is probably VERY different from the code Apple used...therefore not theft...but infringement.
Had HTC lifted the code directly from Apple's source that would be theft.
And what agreement did they infringe upon? As far as I can tell these companies had no agreement with each other on this patent so the only infringement is based on not stealing another's property the way a car thief might infringe on the use of another's vehicle without their permission.
Quote:
I have a question...if you built THE mousetrap as I know it...and I built a device that does the same exact thing (same result) in a completely different way (different coding) did I steal your mousetrap?
Then you wouldn't be infringing on the implementation now would you so this wouldn't be an issue. Note the article clearly suggests that HTC needs to change the way data detectors are implemented not that the only solution is to never, ever, ever, ever have any data detectors… ever.
Quote:
Had HTC lifted the code directly from Apple's source that would be theft.
You have accidental v. purposeful. Lifting directly isn't the only way to steal IP. If you can prove it's purely accidental then I'm willlng to hear you out.
And what agreement did they infringe upon? As far as I can tell these companies had no agreement with each other on this patent so the only infringement is based on not stealing another's property the way a car thief might infringe on the use of another's vehicle without their permission.
you know...I'm not even going to get into it...
HTC (or Google) broke into Apple's headquarters...cracked the encryption on their servers or whatever...saw the source code...copied it directly...and then put it into Android...they stole it...directly from Apple..
I get you're all about Apple...I get it...
so from now on when Apple loses they are dirty rotten thieves with no respect for innovation...because apparently that's how it works.
Remember that...you think Apple is full of thieves.
Then you wouldn't be infringing on the implementation now would you so this wouldn't be an issue. Note the article clearly suggests that HTC needs to change the way data detectors are implemented not that the only solution is to never, ever, ever, ever have any data detectors? ever.
Do you feel if the data detectors are coded differently yet have the same result that they should be allowed?
Especially since the desired end result is the same?
Do you feel if the data detectors are coded differently yet have the same result that they should be allowed?
Especially since the desired end result is the same?
I clearly stated that in my comment about a different implementation, but you also have to consider the look and feel when considering trademark. (note: the NTC case seems to only involve a patent)
Can you honestly tell us that you think because Samsung used different code and manufacutring to create a copycat of the iPhone's UI that it's not infringing?
I clearly stated that in my comment about a different implementation, but you also have to consider the look and feel when considering trademark. (note: the NTC case seems to only involve a patent)
Can you honestly tell us that you think because Samsung used different code and manufacutring to create a copycat of the iPhone's UI that it's not infringing?
I've never been pro Samsung on the galaxy phone front.
Hell I'm hardly pro-samsung at all and wish HTC would step it's game up and blow Samsung out of favored territory.
Samsung is a copycat. Too much of one. I disagree with certain aspects of Apple's case against them but overall I'd love for them to lose.
You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
News to me if true.
Exactly. And having read the 7 page ITC ruling, I see no where in it that mentions this ban is exclusive to devices using Android 2.2 and before.
If that's the case, and considering this ruling, I'm sure Apple would have no problem with the court expanding the ban to not only all current HTC Android phones infringing on Apple's patent, but all other manufacturer's Android phones doing the same bit of infringing.
Comments
Daniel, the Verge quote is here. Take it up with Nitay Patel if you don't believe it's true. I'm just repeating a statement from a generally credible source.
"It's important to note that the ITC issued an exclusion order and not a cease and desist; HTC's current products already on US shelves will be unaffected. However, exclusion orders are generally broadly worded and aren't limited to any specific products — so we would expect Apple to use this ruling to go after newer HTC devices running Android 2.3, 3.0 and even 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). . . We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."
I suspect you didn't read the article before making accusations that the claim was made up by posters here.
Gizmodo is posting the same claim: The ruling currently affects only HTC devices using android 2.2 and prior.
http://gizmodo.com/5869507/htc-andro...-us-next-year/
I'm not reading the actual article but it sounds more like this is saying that the products HTC already has in the US will not be banned from being sold. As of now. Even though it's infringing on Apples' patent. Not that the products already on US shelves "don't" infringe on the patent. But if HTC don't fix it by April, then all their products (that infringes) will be banned. Even the ones already sitting on US shelves. It doesn't say that Android 2.3 is not infringing. At least not from the clip quoted.
I'm not reading the actual article but it sounds more like this is saying that the products HTC already has in the US will not be banned from being sold. As of now. Even though it's infringing on Apples' patent. Not that the products already on US shelves "don't" infringe on the patent. But if HTC don't fix it by April, then all their products (that infringes) will be banned. Even the ones already sitting on US shelves. It doesn't say that Android 2.3 is not infringing. At least not from the clip quoted.
"We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."
In other words the ruling doesn't currently apply to that OS version and up according to the Verge and Gizmodo among others. That doesn't mean they're right, but that's what they wrote.
Of course it doesn't mean that HTC doesn't have an issue to deal with. The EVO 4G and Droid Incredible are two that haven't been updated to 2.3 yet. The original Nexus One is also in that currently infringing group, but I'm pretty sure that the upgrade path to ICS was announced for that yesterday or the day before.
EDIT: I was mistaken on the original Nexus phone. The Nexus One from 2009 hasn't been given clearance for an official version of ICS and may not ever, so CyanogenMod appears to be their best bet with Nexus Ones already running it. The Nexus S is what I apparently recalled getting official ICS updates rolling out now.
http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-brie...mes-to-nexus-s
You are profoundly ignorant if you think Data Detectors is nothing more than a hyperlink.
You can call it whatever fancy name Apple put on someone else's invention but patenting turning something into a hyperlink based on what it says is only something a company like Apple would try to do. Take what everyone else does, slap a "magical" name on it and take it to the patent office. Seems all that Apple is good at lately now that they are no longer innovating.
They invented this in the mid 90s before it became so "common place". It's not a hyperlink but a way to decipher unformatted data.
Programs have been deciphering unformatted data and organizing it for decades. Run that by me again what is different here? What, that someone threw a hyperlink on that data? Apple is out of control and needs someone to put the smack down on them. Again, they are now worse than Microsoft. And I didn't think that was possible.
They invented this in the mid 90s before it became so "common place". It's not a hyperlink but a way to decipher unformatted data.
Correct. Somehow people seem to forget that Apple has made several operating systems.
"We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything."
In other words the ruling doesn't currently apply to that OS version and up according to the Verge and Gizmodo among others. that doesn't mean they're right, but that's what they wrote.
The ruling may not apply because 2.3 didn't exist when Apple filed the suit. The suit may have only stated up to 2.2. All Apple may have to do now is file the same suit to include the new Android OS's, if it's still infringing. No where does it state that 2.3 isn't infringing on the same patent. It just that the suit only applies up to 2.2 and maybe because that's how the suit may have been filed. And Apple could now go after 2.3 by using the ruling of this suit.
I remember one of these companies involve in these patent suits, can't remember if it was Nokia, Apple, HTC or Samsung, that wanted to include a new product to their original suit and the judge didn't let them. They either had to file a new suit for the new product or wait until the result of the original suit and then go after any new products infringing if they win.
The ruling may not apply because 2.3 didn't exist when Apple filed the suit. The suit may have only stated up to 2.2. All Apple may have to do now is file the same suit to include the new Android OS's, if it's still infringing. No where does it state that 2.3 isn't infringing on the same patent. It just that the suit only applies up to 2.2 and maybe because that's how the suit may have been filed. And Apple could now go after 2.3 by using the ruling of this suit.
I remember one of these companies involve in these patent suits, can't remember if it was Nokia, Apple, HTC or Samsung, that wanted to include a new product to their original suit and the judge didn't let them. They either had to file a new suit for the new product or wait until the result of the original suit and then go after any new products infringing if they win.
I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?
EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.
I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?
EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.
All I know is that I haven't read one article about this suit that states that Google has already found a work around in 2.3 or that this feature is not in 2.3 at all. All the articles seem to imply that Google has until April to figure it out. No one is saying that Google already figured out a work around. But the ban doesn't seem to be too big of a deal since Google can just remove the feature and put it back in with an update after they find a work around.
Even the "We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything." quote seems to imply that 2.3 is infringing and they're wondering if Apple will pursue any "further" action. Otherwise they should have stated "pursue any action against Android 2.3.......", if this patent didn't affect 2.3 at all.
...on successfully patenting HYPERLINK technology.
Try again. This isn't just a hyperlink. It is a link that recognizes the protocol needed by the data given. Even when it isn't in an input field labeled 'phone number' or 'email address'
...on successfully patenting HYPERLINK technology. Yes, once again, you fooled the patent system into granting you a bogus patent unworthy of any judgement for it. Once again you take an idea that people already have implemented and consider so broad that no one else but you would have the distaste to try to patent it.
Apple is more evil than Microsoft ever was. Both companies admit stealing others' ideas, but only Apple has the audacity to try to patent them as if they were their idea. I hope everyone's eyes start opening up and start the boycott of a company that has gone from humble to a-hole in the course of a decade. Apple is leaning hard on the plastic cover over the self-destruct button....
Well, Apple did invent and patent Hypercard linking multiple individual documents. That was patented about the time the existing inside a single document patents expires, so it would have been a clear invention of theirs since nobody else played with cross-linked documents in the intervening 20 years.
Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the WWW has said he was inspired by Hypercard's capabilities and he figured out how to hyperlink documents between servers, another clearly independent advance. And he did so programming on a NeXT box, using Apple provided APIs and capabilities. Notice Apple never rained on the parade of an obviously independent discovery even though it indirectly depended on Apple tech (I say Apple because Apple bought NeXT very shortly after Berners Lee finished his initial work and NeXT OS became OS X).
But the links aren't what HTC lost on, it was the ability to filter and discover the appropriate data that eventually gets linked from a plain text document, like the body of an email.
Correct. It will only help HTC to accelerate to get rid of remaining devices shipping with 2.2 version of Android. ....
I deleted the anti-patent commentary/opinion part of your remarks, but I think this "fact' you are throwing up is quite wrong.
The first clue is that HTC themselves have said that they are already working on ways to get around it, but that they haven't done that yet, which strongly implies that the stolen stuff is still in post Android 2.2 versions.
Secondly, I think the onus on those pushing this argument to explain how exactly one can get around the patent and still have data detectors of any kind. It would appear to be impossible by the wording of the patent and the decision.
You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
News to me if true.
I deleted the anti-patent commentary/opinion part of your remarks, but I think this "fact' you are throwing up is quite wrong.
The first clue is that HTC themselves have said that they are already working on ways to get around it, but that they haven't done that yet, which strongly implies that the stolen stuff is still in post Android 2.2 versions.
Secondly, I think the onus on those pushing this argument to explain how exactly one can get around the patent and still have data detectors of any kind. It would appear to be impossible by the wording of the patent and the decision.
You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
News to me if true.
why do you insist on using the word stolen?
That implies a different thing than what actually happened...
and you lot know that.
why do you insist on using the word stolen?
That implies a different thing than what actually happened...
and you lot know that.
What would you call it? Illegally borrowing? Non-permission-based usage? Unsanctioned utilization? IP rapey?
What would you call it? Illegally borrowing? Non-permission-based usage? Unsanctioned utilization? IP rapey?
infringement?
I have a question...if you built THE mousetrap as I know it...and I built a device that does the same exact thing (same result) in a completely different way (different coding) did I steal your mousetrap?
There is a reason a lot of people are against software patents...they don't require the source code to be valid...so you are essentially patenting the idea...not the direct method...so using a different method but yielding the same result you can still be sued...and that's just the way it is...
not even trying to get into that argument though...the system is as it is...point is...the code HTC used (and, you know, everything else nowadays including Vbulletin) is probably VERY different from the code Apple used...therefore not theft...but infringement.
Had HTC lifted the code directly from Apple's source that would be theft.
infringement?
And what agreement did they infringe upon? As far as I can tell these companies had no agreement with each other on this patent so the only infringement is based on not stealing another's property the way a car thief might infringe on the use of another's vehicle without their permission.
I have a question...if you built THE mousetrap as I know it...and I built a device that does the same exact thing (same result) in a completely different way (different coding) did I steal your mousetrap?
Then you wouldn't be infringing on the implementation now would you so this wouldn't be an issue. Note the article clearly suggests that HTC needs to change the way data detectors are implemented not that the only solution is to never, ever, ever, ever have any data detectors… ever.
Had HTC lifted the code directly from Apple's source that would be theft.
You have accidental v. purposeful. Lifting directly isn't the only way to steal IP. If you can prove it's purely accidental then I'm willlng to hear you out.
And what agreement did they infringe upon? As far as I can tell these companies had no agreement with each other on this patent so the only infringement is based on not stealing another's property the way a car thief might infringe on the use of another's vehicle without their permission.
you know...I'm not even going to get into it...
HTC (or Google) broke into Apple's headquarters...cracked the encryption on their servers or whatever...saw the source code...copied it directly...and then put it into Android...they stole it...directly from Apple..
I get you're all about Apple...I get it...
so from now on when Apple loses they are dirty rotten thieves with no respect for innovation...because apparently that's how it works.
Remember that...you think Apple is full of thieves.
Then you wouldn't be infringing on the implementation now would you so this wouldn't be an issue. Note the article clearly suggests that HTC needs to change the way data detectors are implemented not that the only solution is to never, ever, ever, ever have any data detectors? ever.
Do you feel if the data detectors are coded differently yet have the same result that they should be allowed?
Especially since the desired end result is the same?
Do you feel if the data detectors are coded differently yet have the same result that they should be allowed?
Especially since the desired end result is the same?
I clearly stated that in my comment about a different implementation, but you also have to consider the look and feel when considering trademark. (note: the NTC case seems to only involve a patent)
Can you honestly tell us that you think because Samsung used different code and manufacutring to create a copycat of the iPhone's UI that it's not infringing?
I clearly stated that in my comment about a different implementation, but you also have to consider the look and feel when considering trademark. (note: the NTC case seems to only involve a patent)
Can you honestly tell us that you think because Samsung used different code and manufacutring to create a copycat of the iPhone's UI that it's not infringing?
I've never been pro Samsung on the galaxy phone front.
Hell I'm hardly pro-samsung at all and wish HTC would step it's game up and blow Samsung out of favored territory.
Samsung is a copycat. Too much of one. I disagree with certain aspects of Apple's case against them but overall I'd love for them to lose.
You seem therefore to be arguing that Android doesn't use data detectors since version 2.2?
News to me if true.
Exactly. And having read the 7 page ITC ruling, I see no where in it that mentions this ban is exclusive to devices using Android 2.2 and before.
If that's the case, and considering this ruling, I'm sure Apple would have no problem with the court expanding the ban to not only all current HTC Android phones infringing on Apple's patent, but all other manufacturer's Android phones doing the same bit of infringing.