A few factors determine how much this affects HTC:
1) is this ruling limited to android versions 2.2 and prior?
That is my understanding. It is very possibly based on the detail that 2.2 was the current version at the time the suit was filed.
That said, if it was a violation in 2.2 and it is in 2.3 and beyond it will be almost certainly deemed a violation if it is exactly the same tech. Which means that Google etc would need to change it before said version goes public.
So given this, while this ruling might not have a noticeable impact on the items listed, it could cause delays with newer products and that will be an impact.
Quote:
Since pretty much every modern OS includes 'data detectors' that perform the same or similar functions to what Apple is claiming, I would suspect that it wont take much effort at all.
While this could be true, it is possible that those other companies licensed the tech from Apple and thus aren't at risk. It's also possible that their method of detection is different and due to this they are being left alone.
HTC already resolved this and vowed to continue to protect themselves with the help of Google of course. It's a losing battle for Apple. It's really too bad. Reminiscent of Windows vs Apple. We know who won that.
When it comes to software patents the source code for an implementation should be just as important as the implementation itself.
There are so many ways to design a mousetrap, door hinge, engine, etc etc etc and the patents on each implementation are required to be rather specific. With software the code should matter much more than "method and implementation for..."
Wrong, a patent (as long as it isn't a design patent) is about the "method and implementation" ONLY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
I can patent an ingenious no wear door hinge and specify it so no one can copy MY door hinge...if someone else comes out with a no wear door hinge that isn't like my no wear door hinge and doesn't infringe upon my specific patent for it I cannot sue them simply because they made a door hinge that doesn't wear. In software I can patent "A method and/or apparatus whereby a door hinge can be used infinite times without any noticeable wear and tear by using blah blah blah..." In hardware I can't.
In hardware you absolutely could, besides a door hinge wouldn't be software, it would be hardware (physical), so you're wrong!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
You give 100 engineers the same problem and each works independently you will have up to 100 different solutions to the same problem...the first guy to patent HIS solution will have a monopoly even if the other 99 solutions are coded different and go a different way to yield the same end result.
Wrong, yet again! There have been cases where an actual implementation of a solution, while appearing on the surface to work the same, are actually implemented via a different method to get the end result. (BT's Hyperlink patent is a perfect example of where this happened.)
As long as the differences are in key necessary areas covered by the patent, there is no infringement.
I hate elements of software patents as much as the next guy (particularly their length of validity), but lets not distort things just to try and prove our point.
HTC already resolved this and vowed to continue to protect themselves with the help of Google of course. It's a losing battle for Apple. It's really too bad. Reminiscent of Windows vs Apple. We know who won that.
Makes you wonder why they didn't just do that in the first place, rather than copying?
Perhaps because they didn't feel they were copying?
Apple dragged out 10 of their most applicable patents claiming HTC was stealing them all. The court dismissed 9 of them, and even several claims from the only one that still held up at the end. In essence HTC was overwhelmingly correct when they claimed they were not infringing on those Apple patents.
Surely you wouldn't expect HTC to remove the functions Apple claimed by all 10 patents simply because they said they applied. Now that it's clear what does need to be changed or removed, they will.
HTC already resolved this and vowed to continue to protect themselves with the help of Google of course. It's a losing battle for Apple. It's really too bad. Reminiscent of Windows vs Apple. We know who won that.
HTC was quoted as saying that they "removed the feature". If that's their way of doing it, then it will have an effect on them and Android as a whole, as they will all eventually be forced to remove it.
Perhaps because they didn't feel they were copying?
Apple dragged out 10 of their most applicable patents claiming HTC was stealing them all. The court dismissed 9 of them, and even several claims from the only one that still held up at the end. In essence HTC was overwhelmingly correct when they claimed they were not infringing on those Apple patents.
Surely you wouldn't expect HTC to remove the functions Apple claimed by all 10 patents simply because they said they applied. Now that it's clear what does need to be changed or removed, they will.
I think you're mixing up the ITC and the courts. The ITC didn't "throw out" 9 patents. It ruled that the case wasn't clear enough on those 9 to permit an injunction (which is what the ITC is responsible for). This case still has to go through the courts and that's where those patents would be deemed valid or invalid. Very big difference.
I think you're mixing up the ITC and the courts. The ITC didn't "throw out" 9 patents. It ruled that the case wasn't clear enough on those 9 to permit an injunction (which is what the ITC is responsible for). This case still has to go through the courts and that's where those patents would be deemed valid or invalid. Very big difference.
I was pretty sure that was a Judge that made that determination. Granted it was an ITC court, which won't be the final word.
Comments
A few factors determine how much this affects HTC:
1) is this ruling limited to android versions 2.2 and prior?
That is my understanding. It is very possibly based on the detail that 2.2 was the current version at the time the suit was filed.
That said, if it was a violation in 2.2 and it is in 2.3 and beyond it will be almost certainly deemed a violation if it is exactly the same tech. Which means that Google etc would need to change it before said version goes public.
So given this, while this ruling might not have a noticeable impact on the items listed, it could cause delays with newer products and that will be an impact.
Since pretty much every modern OS includes 'data detectors' that perform the same or similar functions to what Apple is claiming, I would suspect that it wont take much effort at all.
While this could be true, it is possible that those other companies licensed the tech from Apple and thus aren't at risk. It's also possible that their method of detection is different and due to this they are being left alone.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...nt-ruling.html
When it comes to software patents the source code for an implementation should be just as important as the implementation itself.
There are so many ways to design a mousetrap, door hinge, engine, etc etc etc and the patents on each implementation are required to be rather specific. With software the code should matter much more than "method and implementation for..."
Wrong, a patent (as long as it isn't a design patent) is about the "method and implementation" ONLY.
I can patent an ingenious no wear door hinge and specify it so no one can copy MY door hinge...if someone else comes out with a no wear door hinge that isn't like my no wear door hinge and doesn't infringe upon my specific patent for it I cannot sue them simply because they made a door hinge that doesn't wear. In software I can patent "A method and/or apparatus whereby a door hinge can be used infinite times without any noticeable wear and tear by using blah blah blah..." In hardware I can't.
In hardware you absolutely could, besides a door hinge wouldn't be software, it would be hardware (physical), so you're wrong!
You give 100 engineers the same problem and each works independently you will have up to 100 different solutions to the same problem...the first guy to patent HIS solution will have a monopoly even if the other 99 solutions are coded different and go a different way to yield the same end result.
Wrong, yet again! There have been cases where an actual implementation of a solution, while appearing on the surface to work the same, are actually implemented via a different method to get the end result. (BT's Hyperlink patent is a perfect example of where this happened.)
As long as the differences are in key necessary areas covered by the patent, there is no infringement.
I hate elements of software patents as much as the next guy (particularly their length of validity), but lets not distort things just to try and prove our point.
HTC already resolved this and vowed to continue to protect themselves with the help of Google of course. It's a losing battle for Apple. It's really too bad. Reminiscent of Windows vs Apple. We know who won that.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...nt-ruling.html
Makes you wonder why they didn't just do that in the first place, rather than copying?
Makes you wonder why they didn't just do that in the first place, rather than copying?
Perhaps because they didn't feel they were copying?
Apple dragged out 10 of their most applicable patents claiming HTC was stealing them all. The court dismissed 9 of them, and even several claims from the only one that still held up at the end. In essence HTC was overwhelmingly correct when they claimed they were not infringing on those Apple patents.
Surely you wouldn't expect HTC to remove the functions Apple claimed by all 10 patents simply because they said they applied. Now that it's clear what does need to be changed or removed, they will.
HTC already resolved this and vowed to continue to protect themselves with the help of Google of course. It's a losing battle for Apple. It's really too bad. Reminiscent of Windows vs Apple. We know who won that.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...nt-ruling.html
HTC was quoted as saying that they "removed the feature". If that's their way of doing it, then it will have an effect on them and Android as a whole, as they will all eventually be forced to remove it.
There's also this:
http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/...ion=highlights
Deleted comment made in wrong thread
Perhaps because they didn't feel they were copying?
Apple dragged out 10 of their most applicable patents claiming HTC was stealing them all. The court dismissed 9 of them, and even several claims from the only one that still held up at the end. In essence HTC was overwhelmingly correct when they claimed they were not infringing on those Apple patents.
Surely you wouldn't expect HTC to remove the functions Apple claimed by all 10 patents simply because they said they applied. Now that it's clear what does need to be changed or removed, they will.
I think you're mixing up the ITC and the courts. The ITC didn't "throw out" 9 patents. It ruled that the case wasn't clear enough on those 9 to permit an injunction (which is what the ITC is responsible for). This case still has to go through the courts and that's where those patents would be deemed valid or invalid. Very big difference.
I think you're mixing up the ITC and the courts. The ITC didn't "throw out" 9 patents. It ruled that the case wasn't clear enough on those 9 to permit an injunction (which is what the ITC is responsible for). This case still has to go through the courts and that's where those patents would be deemed valid or invalid. Very big difference.
I was pretty sure that was a Judge that made that determination. Granted it was an ITC court, which won't be the final word.
Lots more to come folks.