Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents(dailytech.com)
dailytech.com
Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
http://www.dailytech.com/Judge+Finds+Apple+in+Violation+of+HTCs+Newly+Acquired+Patents/article22275.htm
136 comments
Hey, we'll still be able to buy all the computers and consumer electronics that are made in the US.
...
Oh.
...
Oh.
Yep. On one hand I'm thrilled about this ruling, since it gives HTC some teeth in negotiations on the Android-related patents Apple is suing them over. On the other hand, I just ordered a new MacBook Air (with Intel graphics, which appear to be in violation of this patent), and I'm hoping it gets to the US before any possible import ban goes into effect.
Further proof that hurting the customer is really all that these patents do.
Further proof that hurting the customer is really all that these patents do.
Considering the increasingly vocal outcry of rampant patent abuse, it's also possible that tech giants begin publicly stating their position towards US patent law: it needn't exist (or one of the many alternatives that have been proposed). If the market can metabolize that, patent law reform isn't far away.
Couldn't the tech giants cooperate and introduce a system that benefits the top 10% and exclude the long tail of smaller companies? That could be even worse.
I'd argue that the existing system does just that.
The big boys have portfolios of patents that they fling at each other until some sort of cross-licensing deal is reached, whilst smaller players just have to cross their fingers and hope that nobody decides to tax them too extravagantly.
I omit the possibility of creating non-infringing products simply because it's virtually impossible to bring any meaningful product to market without infringing on somebody's overly broad patent.
The big boys have portfolios of patents that they fling at each other until some sort of cross-licensing deal is reached, whilst smaller players just have to cross their fingers and hope that nobody decides to tax them too extravagantly.
I omit the possibility of creating non-infringing products simply because it's virtually impossible to bring any meaningful product to market without infringing on somebody's overly broad patent.
Worse? That is exactly what we have right now!
They are still suing each other. There could be a system where there is a cartel that only sues the small ones.
That's already happening. Google, MS, Apple, IBM, Intel, AMD/ATI, nVidia, AT&T and a few others already have cross-licensing deals essentially between everyone and everyone. It's just that HTC and Samsung are not part of _this_ cartel.
That is the current system's default mode of operation. What do you think MPEG LA is?
That's essentially the situation in hardware. All the big players have portfolios of patents which they swap in cross-licensing deals. As a newcomer you have no chance of breaking into the business since you don't have a portfolio of your own - you'd get sued out of business.
I would agree except that a bunch of companies just bought some patents for $4.5 billion. If patents become ineffective, the value of that purchase is $0. Very few companies are going to look on this as a positive thing.
They already purchased those patents, though. It's kind of a sunk cost. They wouldn't be losing $4.5 billion cash if patents became worthless, they'd be losing ammunition for a type of fight that they wouldn't have to deal with anymore.
That's like saying, "We can't stop fighting this war, then all our guns would be worthless."
That's like saying, "We can't stop fighting this war, then all our guns would be worthless."
That seems like a very common thing for people to say just after buying 4.5 billion USD worth of weapons.
Bad analogy. The war isn't over patents, it's general competition. It's more like the UN pushing you to sign a treaty pledging not to use nukes just after you spent a pile acquiring them.
Now if patents were only used defensively (which they're obviously not in this case, since Apple went on the attack) the analogy would then be banning ballistic missiles right after acquiring a ballistic missile defense system, which would be easier to swallow.
Now if patents were only used defensively (which they're obviously not in this case, since Apple went on the attack) the analogy would then be banning ballistic missiles right after acquiring a ballistic missile defense system, which would be easier to swallow.
You're inferring something that wasn't intended. Your peace-treaty example was exactly the type of situation my analogy was referring to.
Patents are being used aggressively because that's the nature of competition—if anyone is going to use them that way, everyone has to. But it could be in everyone's interest if that option were removed from the table, regardless how much each had previously spent amassing an arsenal simply to remain competitive.
Patents are being used aggressively because that's the nature of competition—if anyone is going to use them that way, everyone has to. But it could be in everyone's interest if that option were removed from the table, regardless how much each had previously spent amassing an arsenal simply to remain competitive.
The war is over patents, far above and beyond general competition. If that weren't the case, then we wouldn't have so many patent trolls, who have decided that it's more profitable to sue over patents than to actually make products and compete in a consumer marketplace. The Android smartphone vendors aren't just trying to shut out any potentially superior competitors from the market, they're spending billions on patents so that they can have a chance at a fraction of Apple's monstrous profits.
It's very much like saying that, which doesn't mean it's not persuasive reasoning. It may not be ultimately rational reasoning, but it appeals to many people. That's why it's called the sunk cost fallacy. :)
Yep, I was referring to the fallacy. I know people don't always make rational decisions—and there are many other considerations here besides—but I thought it worth pointing out that it's not quite so obvious that the large companies would be against patent dissolution.
Potential revenues from patents aren't a sunk cost...
The reason companies acquire and add to their massive stockpiles of patents is because, like arms races, no one wants to stop playing the game until the game is called off. Unlike arms races, patents are intellectual creations and the "game" can be ended simply by setting precedents in court and reforming existing law.
How about following existing precedents? Flook is good precedent, as reiterated in the recent Bilski decision. Just about every software patent we talk about on HN would be invalidated if that precedent were followed.
Exactly correct. And Google has unilaterally disarmed and it ain't turning out so well for them.
Wait, in the news today: "Google Looks to InterDigital to Strengthen Patent Portfolio". So like everybody else they are buying even more ammo for the gun they keep in the nightstand drawer.
Wait, in the news today: "Google Looks to InterDigital to Strengthen Patent Portfolio". So like everybody else they are buying even more ammo for the gun they keep in the nightstand drawer.
Make the reform law not apply to old patents, only new patents. So when the existing patents expire we only use the new rules. This is a win-win.
That is unilateral disarmament and a huge barrier to entry for every new startup.
What Congress considers patent reform and what you, and many on this site, consider patent reform hold to two distinct philosophies.
Congress is part of the problem. Even if they fixed patents, they would just screw something else up. The checks and balances of the US government aren't working. We need a free market of governments, so that if we don't like one, we just switch to a better one. Competition would provide the check and balance, like it does for everything else. This isn't possible at present because it is impractical or impossible for most people to switch governments. But imagine how quickly governments would fix this stuff if the people just left for somewhere better. It would be fixed instantly.
Remember that government is the monopoly of the application of force.
When you have a competitive market in force...
When you have a competitive market in force...
Then governments would be less forceful because people do not like to be forced to do stuff.
I read that to imply that war is application of governmental free markets. You would still need some governing government to ensure that all the free market governments don't eliminate eachother. And now you're back to the same thing.
...you have the world as it is. You can already move to change governments, only now you have to move farther than you used to. Notice how most of the oppression in the US is from the federal government, not state or municipal ones. We are predisposed to support government as a holdover from our instincts about tribal politics, but tribes never got anywhere near as big as 1/4 billion people. That immense power abuses result should surprise no one.
Well isn't this a pickle, according to ars the two patents that the judge have been found infridged have been ruled invalid...
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/07/itc-judge-says-mac...
... [Litigating Apple] noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art. Apple can ask the ITC to review the infringement decision in light of the USPTO's invalidation of those patent claims as ipso facto an invalid patent claim cannot be infringed. ...
ars's source: http://www.litigatingapple.com/blog/2011/7/24/why-htcs-court...
And the soap opera continues.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/07/itc-judge-says-mac...
... [Litigating Apple] noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art. Apple can ask the ITC to review the infringement decision in light of the USPTO's invalidation of those patent claims as ipso facto an invalid patent claim cannot be infringed. ...
ars's source: http://www.litigatingapple.com/blog/2011/7/24/why-htcs-court...
And the soap opera continues.
It's pretty undeniable that the whole patents thing is now one giant clusterfuck.
The problem is, as technology advances, previously "genius" ideas become trivial due to more people being able to solve problems.
There was a time in history when things such as spoons were considered an amazing idea, but how utterly fucked would humanity's development have been if stone-age people allowed themselves to be crippled by greed and a the blind seeking of money.
The problem is, as technology advances, previously "genius" ideas become trivial due to more people being able to solve problems.
There was a time in history when things such as spoons were considered an amazing idea, but how utterly fucked would humanity's development have been if stone-age people allowed themselves to be crippled by greed and a the blind seeking of money.
It's not just that technology advances; patents eventually expire. The problem is that the electronics industry advances an order of magnitude faster. A patent in the farm-tractor industry takes two years to start making money and is still non-obvious 25 years later. A patent in the handheld electronics or algorithms industry takes two weeks to start making money and can be obsolete 25 months later. It's still a giant clusterfuck, but it's close enough that it only needs a major reform.
We'd all be eating porridge with a spork.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=DlttAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&...
It appears that's allowable now, since the patent has expired.
It appears that's allowable now, since the patent has expired.
The spork would undoubtedly have been found infringing and sued out of existence. We'd be eating it with a fork.
Or a paddle/spatula. They might have been able to argue that it wasn't a spoon because there were no raise edges.
Or chopsticks.
Assuming someone hasn't patented a stick.
(Or come to think about it, the chewing process.)
Assuming someone hasn't patented a stick.
(Or come to think about it, the chewing process.)
Sticks may be fine, as long as you don't use it to play fetch with your dog later:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&...
The level of IP related discourse on HN is reminiscent of talking politics with people who spend all their time listening to talk radio. I mean of course Ronald Reagan singlehandedly killed communism and minorities caused the housing crisis but did you know that the entire patent and copyright system could be removed tomorrow and everything would be just hunky dory?
Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted.
The solution is not to abolish patents, the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO and/or change the system so that rubber stamping applications with approved is not incentivized.
You could fund it by taxing the patents themselves. Think your patent is worth $10 million? Ok, you owe the USPTO $100K and the legal damages you can claim from violation of that patent are capped at $10 million (this allows the competition to effectively public domain patents by buying them out).
Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted.
The solution is not to abolish patents, the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO and/or change the system so that rubber stamping applications with approved is not incentivized.
You could fund it by taxing the patents themselves. Think your patent is worth $10 million? Ok, you owe the USPTO $100K and the legal damages you can claim from violation of that patent are capped at $10 million (this allows the competition to effectively public domain patents by buying them out).
Taxing a patent directly in the way you suggest is a terrible idea. Then smaller innovators who might benefit from patent protection are priced out by larger players directly! The value of the patent becomes proportional to the wealth of the patent holder, not the value of the innovation being protected.
Small innovators don't have the legal muscle to play hardball with large players anyway. More small companies died after getting distracted with a patent lawsuit than were saved by one.
He's not saying that small inventors couldn't profit. Just that their profits as a result of monopoly rights should be capped at a dollar amount. Patent rights are already capped in time: 20 years from the time of filing. After that, inventors no longer have the monopoly. The problem is that in high-tech fields, 20 years is too long. We don't want individual inventors to hold back progress for 20 years. Capping returns seems like a good solution. Inventors are still compensated, but within reason.
He isn't saying that, but it would be the result of his suggestion. It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money, since the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand. The cost of getting a patent is already a hardship on non-corporate inventors. They won't be able to afford a lot on top of that — the ROI would just not be there. If Joe Inventor patents his technique for creating geese that lay golden eggs but can only afford to pay $5000 on top of the filing fees, then I can rip it off and end up having to pay him fractional pennies out of every dollar I make off my infringement.
"It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money"
Much less so then the current system. Much of the uncertainty and potential liability for small businesses would disappear. Unless your small business is a patent troll but then that's a feature not a bug.
"the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand."
This is both false (you are bounded by the cash on hand and the value of things you can use as collateral for loans or equity) and no different then the current case where you are bounded in the number of lawyer hours you can afford.
If I find an enormous diamond that is worth $20 million dollars but it costs more to have it properly appraised and marketed then I have cash on hand, trust me I will raise that money and sell it near full market price. I may not get 100% of the proceeds but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the apprisal system is incredibly biased against people that find diamonds.
Much less so then the current system. Much of the uncertainty and potential liability for small businesses would disappear. Unless your small business is a patent troll but then that's a feature not a bug.
"the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand."
This is both false (you are bounded by the cash on hand and the value of things you can use as collateral for loans or equity) and no different then the current case where you are bounded in the number of lawyer hours you can afford.
If I find an enormous diamond that is worth $20 million dollars but it costs more to have it properly appraised and marketed then I have cash on hand, trust me I will raise that money and sell it near full market price. I may not get 100% of the proceeds but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the apprisal system is incredibly biased against people that find diamonds.
Smaller innovators could be protected in several ways.
First, you could defer any taxation for a couple years. That allows time for the inventor to find buyers or acquire (via loans, insurance, etc.) funding to handle the tax.
Second, you can break up the value and taxes into smaller periods. Like 3 or 5 year periods.
Third, the actual % taken of the value of the patent can scale progressively.
et cetera
I think you're missing the strengths of what I'm proposing: (1) it kills the patent troll business model and massively decreases potential liability for small businesses. (2) it fully staffs and funds the understaffed and underfunded USPTO. (3) it legitimately protects and rewards innovation.
First, you could defer any taxation for a couple years. That allows time for the inventor to find buyers or acquire (via loans, insurance, etc.) funding to handle the tax.
Second, you can break up the value and taxes into smaller periods. Like 3 or 5 year periods.
Third, the actual % taken of the value of the patent can scale progressively.
et cetera
I think you're missing the strengths of what I'm proposing: (1) it kills the patent troll business model and massively decreases potential liability for small businesses. (2) it fully staffs and funds the understaffed and underfunded USPTO. (3) it legitimately protects and rewards innovation.
The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law. They exist on shaky ground in that we assume that they produce more good than harm -- not a well grounded assumption imho. A case can be made that in most cases they are used by entrenched players against the small upstart.
Fact: We can't assume we'll ever get an ideal system and must choose among flawed ones. So we must do an analysis at that level and not some sort of comparison among ideals.
Fact: We can't assume we'll ever get an ideal system and must choose among flawed ones. So we must do an analysis at that level and not some sort of comparison among ideals.
>The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law. They exist on shaky ground in that we assume that they produce more good than harm -- not a well grounded assumption imho.
Except those laws are what allows the entire software industry(both closed source and FOSS). Without the protections of IP, none of the copyleft licenses(either Apache or GPL) have any power. Neither does any closed source license.
So no, intellectual property by itself isn't bad. It's absolutely required.
EDIT: Not sure why this is downvoted. The GPL itself relies on copyright powers to have any force. Remove copyright, the GPL loses all it's power. Any software license becomes useless, too.
Except those laws are what allows the entire software industry(both closed source and FOSS). Without the protections of IP, none of the copyleft licenses(either Apache or GPL) have any power. Neither does any closed source license.
So no, intellectual property by itself isn't bad. It's absolutely required.
EDIT: Not sure why this is downvoted. The GPL itself relies on copyright powers to have any force. Remove copyright, the GPL loses all it's power. Any software license becomes useless, too.
Yeah. There's a big difference between patents and copyrights. It's clear to me copyright is necessary for creative works - you couldn't make a living as a writer, musician, or software company if other people could just copy your finished work.
But patents are a different beast. From what I can tell they've become an impediment to progress instead of an aid.
But patents are a different beast. From what I can tell they've become an impediment to progress instead of an aid.
"The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law."
How do movies and tv work without IP? The answer is obvious -- 90% of tv is gone, hope you like community access shows. Movies would be shown in locked down theaters only -- no dvds, no streaming services. Games in locked down arcades only.
How do movies and tv work without IP? The answer is obvious -- 90% of tv is gone, hope you like community access shows. Movies would be shown in locked down theaters only -- no dvds, no streaming services. Games in locked down arcades only.
"the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO"
This is categorically impossible for software patents.
We will never have enough patent examiners with the necessary expertise much less time to make valid decisions on software patent applications. Look at the backlog. Any one on this board who designs software solutions and has ever read a patent knows this is true.
Thus it doesn't matter whether you like the idea of software patents in theory, in practice it is simply not a viable mechanism, period.
This is categorically impossible for software patents.
We will never have enough patent examiners with the necessary expertise much less time to make valid decisions on software patent applications. Look at the backlog. Any one on this board who designs software solutions and has ever read a patent knows this is true.
Thus it doesn't matter whether you like the idea of software patents in theory, in practice it is simply not a viable mechanism, period.
Thanks for stating your contested opinion/conclusion as categorically fact that we all know as true, period.
Your argument basically amounts to "well the dog pooped on the carpet, that's what dogs do, what can we do it about it except get rid of the dog?"
Real world: people respond to incentives.
(1) Currently the patent troll model is heavily incentivized.
(2) Currently, there's a huge incentive to file obvious and frivolous patent applications.
(3) Currently the USPTO is underfunded.
Obvious solutions...
(1) Disincentivize the patent troll model. You can do this by limiting the amount they can recoup from litigation or by increasing their costs. I'm suggesting both.
(2) Disincentivize obvious and frivolous patent applications. Obvious solutions are to stop approving these and to have some additional penalties for failed applications (esp. repeat offenders). I'd suggest both.
(3) Increase funding to the USPTO. You could do this with money from income taxes and the general budget (laff) but I'm suggesting using the highly lucrative patents themselves to finance the office.
Your argument basically amounts to "well the dog pooped on the carpet, that's what dogs do, what can we do it about it except get rid of the dog?"
Real world: people respond to incentives.
(1) Currently the patent troll model is heavily incentivized.
(2) Currently, there's a huge incentive to file obvious and frivolous patent applications.
(3) Currently the USPTO is underfunded.
Obvious solutions...
(1) Disincentivize the patent troll model. You can do this by limiting the amount they can recoup from litigation or by increasing their costs. I'm suggesting both.
(2) Disincentivize obvious and frivolous patent applications. Obvious solutions are to stop approving these and to have some additional penalties for failed applications (esp. repeat offenders). I'd suggest both.
(3) Increase funding to the USPTO. You could do this with money from income taxes and the general budget (laff) but I'm suggesting using the highly lucrative patents themselves to finance the office.
Says the guy who says very categorically, "Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted."
No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy.
(1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents.
(2) You beg the question.
(3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.
No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy.
(1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents.
(2) You beg the question.
(3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.
This is actually a pretty favorable outcome for HTC, as the reported industry average for invalidations during IP review is around 90 percent.
This is one of the biggest problems with the modern patent system.
This is one of the biggest problems with the modern patent system.
This quote stuck out at me too. Oddly enough, I went back today and it appears to have been removed from the story. Strange...
I was just going to comment on this quote. Glad someone beat me to it.
I wonder if it's actually one of the biggest problems, though? What are the average number of invalidations for other industries? Do other industries also suffer from "The Lodsys Problem" to the same extent as software? I'd also like to see a reference for that number!
My inclination is that, yes, software patents are terrible and should be abolished. Also, regardless of how 90% compares to other industries - it's a strong indicator that the way patents are granted in the first place is very broken.
I wonder if it's actually one of the biggest problems, though? What are the average number of invalidations for other industries? Do other industries also suffer from "The Lodsys Problem" to the same extent as software? I'd also like to see a reference for that number!
My inclination is that, yes, software patents are terrible and should be abolished. Also, regardless of how 90% compares to other industries - it's a strong indicator that the way patents are granted in the first place is very broken.
From the article:
As NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) is a licensee, units with its GPUs are not in violation.
However, models with graphics by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) or integrated
graphics from Intel Corp.'s (INTC) (such as the newly refreshed MacBook Air
lineup) are in violation.
Given this is a HW and SW patent, and my superficial reading leads me to believe that this may infringe on HW -- this isn't your typical SW patent issue. It's HW too. Are people ready to say that HW patents, such as those held by Intel and ARM, should also go bye-bye?
If they're of the same general quality as software patents, then yes. I sure as hell don't want anyone holding a patent on "a process and system for fashioning transistors from silicon".
It annoys me that the tech community always focuses on software patents, as if hardware ones are automatically more legitimate.
The original purpose of the patent system was to improve consumers lives by:
a) Incentivizing innovations that would not otherwise be profitable.
b) Incentivizing disclosure of invention details that would otherwise be kept secret.
These are a pretty rare combination of circumstances for most inventions, whether software or hardware. a) is demonstrably rare since patents are constantly infringed, yet Apple (for example) still somehow manages to get by. b) does not apply to any technology that is distributed, since anyone can take it apart and see how it works.
On the other side, patents of any type actively harm consumers:
a) Products from large companies are driven up in cost due to litigation.
b) Potential innovation from small companies is stifled by fear of litigation.
I'm sure there's some use for a patent system, but it is very small. The US would be a far better place with no patent system than with the one we have now.
The original purpose of the patent system was to improve consumers lives by:
a) Incentivizing innovations that would not otherwise be profitable.
b) Incentivizing disclosure of invention details that would otherwise be kept secret.
These are a pretty rare combination of circumstances for most inventions, whether software or hardware. a) is demonstrably rare since patents are constantly infringed, yet Apple (for example) still somehow manages to get by. b) does not apply to any technology that is distributed, since anyone can take it apart and see how it works.
On the other side, patents of any type actively harm consumers:
a) Products from large companies are driven up in cost due to litigation.
b) Potential innovation from small companies is stifled by fear of litigation.
I'm sure there's some use for a patent system, but it is very small. The US would be a far better place with no patent system than with the one we have now.
I think I'd keep drug patents. Not sure if much else. Drugs take a long time and a lot of money to create. But copying a drug is cheap is quick. But I'm not sure if anything else meets the bar.
[deleted]
It's amusing that when there is a ruling in HTC's favor the headline is: "Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents"...but when there was a ruling in Apple's favor it was: "Apple's Plot to Kill Top Android Maker HTC Nears Fruition With Win"
The latter being illustrated with a picture of Steve Jobs as the Emperor from Star Wars. Classy.
The latter being illustrated with a picture of Steve Jobs as the Emperor from Star Wars. Classy.
As others have noted, it's because Apple decided to get their hands dirty first claiming intellectual property with ridiculously broad patents. In that sense HTC is being perceived as defending itself to the bully on the playground by throwing back punches.
Jobs-as-Palpatine, really?
First, HTC didn't even have these patents until recently.
Second, Android clearly went with a strategy of cloning the iPhone, of course Apple struck first. Is Apple the bad guy for also wanting to close the fake Apple stores in China?
The question isn't who struck first, the question is whether each parties patents are valid or not and whether they are infringed or not. Defending poor journalism doesn't get us closer to that.
Second, Android clearly went with a strategy of cloning the iPhone, of course Apple struck first. Is Apple the bad guy for also wanting to close the fake Apple stores in China?
The question isn't who struck first, the question is whether each parties patents are valid or not and whether they are infringed or not. Defending poor journalism doesn't get us closer to that.
If you think that Android devices are just clones of the iPhone, and that it gives Apple just cause to strike first, I'm not even going to bother writing a real response.
Trust me, you didn't.
Android is not "just a clone" but it's clear that they decided to aggressively clone the iphone's features. If you don't think that's obvious, you missed what Android looked like 6 months before the iphone debut and 6 months after.
Now whether those features are protectable as IP or not is another matter but if they are it's no surprise that Apple would want to enforce such protections.
Android is not "just a clone" but it's clear that they decided to aggressively clone the iphone's features. If you don't think that's obvious, you missed what Android looked like 6 months before the iphone debut and 6 months after.
Now whether those features are protectable as IP or not is another matter but if they are it's no surprise that Apple would want to enforce such protections.
Aggressively clone as in...? A top statusbar? A touchscreen? A virtual keyboard? A grid layout of applications? Custom applications? Hate to break it to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those, Android included most of them before the iPhone announcement (from the little that we know of its development at Google beginning in 2005), and the first Android phone (G1) didn't resemble the iPhone more than any other smartphone on the market. Most people that I knew were comparing it to the Sidekick when it first released.
"Aggressively clone as in...? "
As in completely overhauled the device from a blackberry knock off to an iphone knock off:
http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-l...
"Hate to break it to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those"
I'm not making any claim that (1) iOS was first for any of those or that (2) whatever claims Apple is making are protectable or not or (3) whether google violates those claims or not.
What I'm saying is that: (a) some claims and protections have been granted, (b) it's Apple's right to protect them until/unless these protections are overturned/invalidated, and (c) I have no sympathy for people violating legitimate claims. This whole sub-thread is about "striking first" makes Apple a bully which is total bullshit. They're striking first because they're the person getting copied, that's how the dynamic works.
"the first Android phone (G1) didn't resemble the iPhone more than any other smartphone on the market. Most people that I knew were comparing it to the Sidekick when it first released."
That's rich, every review of the G1 I can find compares it directly with the iphone. Custom time limit a google search.
As in completely overhauled the device from a blackberry knock off to an iphone knock off:
http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-l...
"Hate to break it to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those"
I'm not making any claim that (1) iOS was first for any of those or that (2) whatever claims Apple is making are protectable or not or (3) whether google violates those claims or not.
What I'm saying is that: (a) some claims and protections have been granted, (b) it's Apple's right to protect them until/unless these protections are overturned/invalidated, and (c) I have no sympathy for people violating legitimate claims. This whole sub-thread is about "striking first" makes Apple a bully which is total bullshit. They're striking first because they're the person getting copied, that's how the dynamic works.
"the first Android phone (G1) didn't resemble the iPhone more than any other smartphone on the market. Most people that I knew were comparing it to the Sidekick when it first released."
That's rich, every review of the G1 I can find compares it directly with the iphone. Custom time limit a google search.
Misleading image is misleading. This is what the first Android phone looked like: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2008/10/androi...
Plenty of handsets had full touch-screens before the iPhone came out. The only difference being that the iPhone decided to ditch any hardware keyboard option. Oh wait, what's that on the knockoff? A hardware keyboard option, and almost every other button from the pre-release prototype as well.
Please. The arguments are childish now. Every manufacturer takes inspiration from devices on the current market. Apple included. Only they decided to go and start suing everyone left and right.
Plenty of handsets had full touch-screens before the iPhone came out. The only difference being that the iPhone decided to ditch any hardware keyboard option. Oh wait, what's that on the knockoff? A hardware keyboard option, and almost every other button from the pre-release prototype as well.
Please. The arguments are childish now. Every manufacturer takes inspiration from devices on the current market. Apple included. Only they decided to go and start suing everyone left and right.
I'm curious why that image is "misleading." Is that not a photo of an early pre-release Android prototype?
The second image, not the first.
"Only they decided to go and start suing everyone left and right."
The idea that Apple was the first person to sue anyone in mobile is laughable.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9ucqq8ZMD1qa34geo1_r3_500...
The idea that Apple was the first person to sue anyone in mobile is laughable.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9ucqq8ZMD1qa34geo1_r3_500...
So... what's your point, really? What's wrong with taking a successful product, and making a similar product to compete with it? Android may have quickly morphed into something more iPhone-like in the wake of the initial iPhone launch, but why is that seen as "cheating"? Why is "clone" a bad word? I think it's a great word. You don't like Apple's walled-garden approach? Fine, now you have competition, alternatives, and choice.
And hell, it's not like Android has been playing catch-up to iOS in the years since. There are some pretty awesome things in the base Android system that you still can't do on iOS (accounts manager, overriding the default app for just about any stock Android app, removable storage, etc.), or things that Android had first (multitasking), or things that aren't even in a stable iOS release yet (proper notifications) that Android has had for quite a while.
Now whether those features are protectable as IP or not is another matter but if they are it's no surprise that Apple would want to enforce such protections.
I just don't buy that world view. Yes, Apple is required to do whatever it takes to legally increase shareholder value. But in this case, it just amounts to an attempt at stifling competition. It's bad for the other companies, and it's bad for the end customers. Hell, it could be bad for Apple, too, if there's an import ban.
And hell, it's not like Android has been playing catch-up to iOS in the years since. There are some pretty awesome things in the base Android system that you still can't do on iOS (accounts manager, overriding the default app for just about any stock Android app, removable storage, etc.), or things that Android had first (multitasking), or things that aren't even in a stable iOS release yet (proper notifications) that Android has had for quite a while.
Now whether those features are protectable as IP or not is another matter but if they are it's no surprise that Apple would want to enforce such protections.
I just don't buy that world view. Yes, Apple is required to do whatever it takes to legally increase shareholder value. But in this case, it just amounts to an attempt at stifling competition. It's bad for the other companies, and it's bad for the end customers. Hell, it could be bad for Apple, too, if there's an import ban.
"What's wrong with taking a successful product, and making a similar product to compete with it?"
Zero. I'm very thankful that Android exists and webOS and WP7, competition is good.
"But in this case, it just amounts to an attempt at stifling competition."
I think it's a bit myopic to look at only this. You have to ask yourself the very important question of whether the iphone would even exist to be copied if there were no protections to keep people from copying too closely. If not, then there's a good argument that we'd all be much worse off.
Zero. I'm very thankful that Android exists and webOS and WP7, competition is good.
"But in this case, it just amounts to an attempt at stifling competition."
I think it's a bit myopic to look at only this. You have to ask yourself the very important question of whether the iphone would even exist to be copied if there were no protections to keep people from copying too closely. If not, then there's a good argument that we'd all be much worse off.
We don't have to ask ourselves. Apple products are cloned everyday, particularly in Asia. Yet Apple is still killing it, even in China. How can this be!?
It turns out it is hard to successfully clone Apple products. And even with a perfect clone, you still have to compete with their incredible brand and consumer loyalty.
Apple does not need our protection. Small businesses do. Unfortunately they are the real victim of the patent system.
It turns out it is hard to successfully clone Apple products. And even with a perfect clone, you still have to compete with their incredible brand and consumer loyalty.
Apple does not need our protection. Small businesses do. Unfortunately they are the real victim of the patent system.
Perhaps because it's defensive? If HTC struck first and tried to kill the iPhone, I'd wager the headlines would have been reversed.
But it's not defensive if they acted in bad faith to begin with. The billboard adds for htc phones looked like ad's for iPhones until you got close enough to read the copy. The implication being 'an iPhone, but cheaper'. I have no problem with someone coming up with something better, but I was surprised that they were able to get away with something so clearly mimicking the look and feel of an iPhone.
Billboard ads have nothing to do with patents. Neither does the look and feel.
Sorry. My original argument wasn't very clear, I didn't mean to argue that the look and feel is patentable. It's not, obvioisly. I suppose what I meant that I could imagine Steve Jobs seeing an advert like that, picking up the phone to the lawyers and saying 'what can we do about this' and these various patent suits are the result. I am not arguing for this use as a justification for software patents, just making an observation that HTC don't have 'clean hands' in the greater scheme of things.
What adverts are you speaking of? I don't recall seeing an HTC phone that blatantly ripped off the iPhone's design (and actually HTC had been doing touch based phones since before Apple, see the HTC’s Touch P3450 for an example).
The particular ones I remember were Bus shelter ads in the UK about a year ago. I think I might have made a mistake and be thinking of ads for a Samsung phone. From a distance, with the specific app grid layout and general colour distribution in the image they looked a lot like iPhones. See the image in this article:
http://mynokiablog.com/2011/04/19/itc-staff-recommends-sidin...
PS I haven't read the article, just found the image on google image search.
Whoever claimed tech journalism was unbiased?
Certainly not I. But there is a line somewhere between "biased reporting" and "juvenile pandering" that I keep seeing sites prance back and forth over, perennially indecisive about whether they want to be real grown-up news or not, to the detriment of the whole enterprise.
Agreed, to a certain extent, though I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to call it juvenile. All news outlets have an agenda. Some try harder than others to keep that agenda out of their headlines. Others... don't. I'm not saying it's great, but it's to be expected, I think. While I wouldn't really call HTC an "underdog" in the normal sense of the term, painting them as such in a fight against Apple isn't totally off-base.
Fair enough, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that painting Steve Jobs as shooting lightning from his fingertips is a little on the juvenile side.
Just business as usual. Two giant corporations using the courts (or in this case the ITC) to set the price of a cross-license patent agreement.
These sorts of cases aren't usually very interesting. They almost always get settled with no disclosure of the final settlement.
These sorts of cases aren't usually very interesting. They almost always get settled with no disclosure of the final settlement.
So if Apple is infringing because they used AMD hardware, aren't everyone who owns a machine with AMD hardware also infringing?
While the whole patent system is tending toward absurdity, it's really absurd that you can be sued for infringement by using a product that infringes even if you have no idea or even a way of knowing that...
While the whole patent system is tending toward absurdity, it's really absurd that you can be sued for infringement by using a product that infringes even if you have no idea or even a way of knowing that...
It might be the reason that Apple are infringing on the patent is that they are selling, not just using, a product which contains something which infringes the patent.
Using something with unlicensed patented technology exposes you to liability as well. Otherwise you could just make shell companies to add the final software piece to a product and cleanse the liability from all the other players.
HTC has some leverage but I have a feeling, after seeing OS 10.7, that Apple cares less about the Mac then their iOS devices. Would they sacrifice the Macs for the chance to block Android?
More importantly, the same problem applies to anything not using nVidia GPUs, which is most low-end desktop PCs (Intel integrated GPUs) and a lot of high-end desktop PCs (anything with AMD).
So now we can't have a PC with the best GPU and CPU because Intel and nVidia are suing each other over IP, and we can't have a cheap PC because Intel is infringing on S3 patents, and we can't even give up and get a top-of-the-line AMD/ATI CPU.
Argh.
So now we can't have a PC with the best GPU and CPU because Intel and nVidia are suing each other over IP, and we can't have a cheap PC because Intel is infringing on S3 patents, and we can't even give up and get a top-of-the-line AMD/ATI CPU.
Argh.
Not to nitpick, but while Intel owns the high end CPU market, the current ATI/AMD top end GPUs are much better than nVidia's offering. Unless, that is, I missed a major nVidia release lately...
You're right, modulo whether your favorite GPGPU API is supported.
Is it still a sign of a broken system even if it means the guy I wanted to lose actually loses?
Shakes magic 8-ball Signs point to yes.
Shakes magic 8-ball Signs point to yes.
I find this comment in the article to be very interesting:
"the reported industry average for invalidations during IP review is around 90 percent."
It would be very interesting to have a look at stats on patent invalidation reviews. If there's solid data showing that the invalidation rate is around 90% this might be useful as evidence that the USPTO is not doing their job by issuing patents that should never have been issued.
A number like 90% should embarrass anyone who might wish to argue that the system is not broken.
"the reported industry average for invalidations during IP review is around 90 percent."
It would be very interesting to have a look at stats on patent invalidation reviews. If there's solid data showing that the invalidation rate is around 90% this might be useful as evidence that the USPTO is not doing their job by issuing patents that should never have been issued.
A number like 90% should embarrass anyone who might wish to argue that the system is not broken.
Nothing in the article suggests HTC's patent is ridiculous like what was portrayed recently in the TAL program about Intellectual Ventures.
There doesn't seem to be anything inherently absurd about patenting an image compression system. I mean, imagine it was a small company that invented a new compression system that was 20% better then all the competition. Would they too be chastised if they tried to protect themselves from large corporations that ignore intellectual property law?
Patent are supposed to incentivize innovation and give the patent holder an edge against the competition as a sort of prize for his work. This "edge" was sold to HTC, and now HTC has every right to protect it. Seems like Apple should just either suck it up and pay a licensing fee, or change their hardware/software to get around using this technology.
The problem with the patent system is the disgusting legal harassment done by patent trolls - where smallish companies are sued over absurd patent and because they don't have the financial means to legally defend themselves they're pressured into settling; this case doesn't seem to exhibit any of those problems.
There doesn't seem to be anything inherently absurd about patenting an image compression system. I mean, imagine it was a small company that invented a new compression system that was 20% better then all the competition. Would they too be chastised if they tried to protect themselves from large corporations that ignore intellectual property law?
Patent are supposed to incentivize innovation and give the patent holder an edge against the competition as a sort of prize for his work. This "edge" was sold to HTC, and now HTC has every right to protect it. Seems like Apple should just either suck it up and pay a licensing fee, or change their hardware/software to get around using this technology.
The problem with the patent system is the disgusting legal harassment done by patent trolls - where smallish companies are sued over absurd patent and because they don't have the financial means to legally defend themselves they're pressured into settling; this case doesn't seem to exhibit any of those problems.
In the real world this small company would be counter sued with any random patent eg pattern matching. With reason or not the costs skyrockets... Guess who loses?
Yes, that would be the problem I described in my last paragraph, but that has no bearing on the facts of this case. Just because they could be counter sued (though I'm not completely convinced it's that east), doesn't mean the original law suit has no merit. Large companies routinely ignore the intellectual property rights of others (in part due to so many of them being bogus), but that doesn't make it okay. HTC is completely within it's right to demand compensation for technology they own, if their claim is legitimate. There is nothing in this article that suggests their claim is absurd or unjustified. Maybe the patent is on some amazing piece of compression technology that took years to develop. People are just jumping to the conclusion that it's yet another "toast" or "pop-up text" patent.
Wouldn't creating a patent alliance render the evils of this system ineffective? Members of the alliance would work together to acquire patents, and these patents will be used as patent lawsuit deterrents. Any non-member company who sues a member of the alliance will have to face a dozen lawsuits from other alliance members. (Alliance members should sign a legal agreement not to sue other members on patent-based issues.)
Of course for this to be effective a huge number of patents is needed, but there are probably a lot of big companies willing to give big bucks to avoid the patent menace, and they can raise enough money to acquire a huge number of patents. Plus each company will come with its own patents.
I guess others have already thought of this and found it impractical, which makes me wonder why it is so.
Of course for this to be effective a huge number of patents is needed, but there are probably a lot of big companies willing to give big bucks to avoid the patent menace, and they can raise enough money to acquire a huge number of patents. Plus each company will come with its own patents.
I guess others have already thought of this and found it impractical, which makes me wonder why it is so.
That sounds kind of like the [Open Invention Network](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network).
I think it would be very difficult to do this without running afoul of antitrust law.
Maybe we can get to the "mutually assured destruction" phase of patents where everyone has so many ridiculous patents that any lawsuit is sure to ruin everyone?
Of course, that doesn't stop patent trolls (terrorist rent seekers) with no skin in the game, but at least this drama would end.
Of course, that doesn't stop patent trolls (terrorist rent seekers) with no skin in the game, but at least this drama would end.
There's an idea, start calling patent trolls "patent terrorism" to leverage the current climate of fear for our own purposes.
I think the Patriot Act could actually help us here.
Maybe even Apple will realize that the current patent system isn't really doing them any favors, either, overall.
When even companies that stand to benefit from the current patent system start complaining about the patent system, that's when we'll see some radical change.
When even companies that stand to benefit from the current patent system start complaining about the patent system, that's when we'll see some radical change.
> Maybe even Apple will realize that the current patent system isn't really doing them any favors, either, overall.
I suspect all the big manufacturers realize that. They just don't have an option - someone is going to sue, so everyone feels they have to.
I suspect all the big manufacturers realize that. They just don't have an option - someone is going to sue, so everyone feels they have to.
Then I assume all the big companies have no problem supporting Google to push for an overhaul (or dare I say the abolishing?) of the patent system.
Good luck. There's more than just the US patent system at play here.
One of the few articles who recognises these patent law suits as what they are: means of gaining leverage and cutting into the winnings of other companies in the same market. Also a lot of references to further reading. Great article!
Curious, it happens that Apple just recently phased out their last Macs that still used nVidia chips (and thus their only non-infringing models). Anyone know the reasoning for the switch?
Long story short it was to reduce the number of chips and thus cost, area, and heat (which leads to noise). There are good articles on this on AnandTech or Ars Technica but I can't find them.
Well Appe will just use Nvidia chips in the new set of mac airs. I think the author overstates the damage by saying the ruling will impact the entire mac line up.
ITC judge says Macs infringe on S3 patents, but it may not help HTC.
"Litigating Apple noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art."
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2815852
"Litigating Apple noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art."
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2815852
Sadly it looks like there's an arms race brewing. Hopefully some sanity is restored before these companies start destroying each other.
Paradoxically, the ideal result seems to be only the lawyers coming out ahead.
Could Apple do anything about this? It seems to be an AMD and Intel problem
Of course. They can license all their patents to HTC in exchange for a license to all of HTC's patents.
Everyone wins except the new upstart company without eight billion dollars worth of bullshit patents. We don't need any new computer companies, though, there are enough already. The system works!
Everyone wins except the new upstart company without eight billion dollars worth of bullshit patents. We don't need any new computer companies, though, there are enough already. The system works!
You're not taking patent trolls into account.
I expected to see Economic Wars soon[1], but so far it seems we're getting Patent War. Anyway, is getting interesting.
[1] - yes, I've just read "Black Oceans" by Dukaj ;).
[1] - yes, I've just read "Black Oceans" by Dukaj ;).
Somehow this old tale from 1992 springs to mind:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/humour/Computer_Au...
Mutually Assured Destruction.
[deleted]
We live in a capitalistic society. I'd like to think that means IF !STOLEN THEN PAID and its contrapositive IF !PAID THEN STOLEN. Patents say IF USED THEN STOLEN. Companies tend to license these patents into their capitalistic form for many reasons, but the fact that they have a decision in the matter allows for monopolistic behavior.
I believe all patents should come with a required provision that lists a fair market value for licensing it which anyone can use, thus IF !STOLEN THEN PAID. In turn, this forces the USPTO to actually quantify (to some degree of error) the "useful" requirement of a patent and, by small extension, if it is "statutory" (product or productizable) and "nonobvious" (existing competition?). I think it also forces the requestor to give some detail on the intention of the patent rather than making an arbitrary claim to an underlying concept.
It's all about the money; they need to stop pretending and judge it that way. As it reads now, the current patent system was a premature optimization which planned for a society out of Star Trek instead of, well, lets not go there today.
I believe all patents should come with a required provision that lists a fair market value for licensing it which anyone can use, thus IF !STOLEN THEN PAID. In turn, this forces the USPTO to actually quantify (to some degree of error) the "useful" requirement of a patent and, by small extension, if it is "statutory" (product or productizable) and "nonobvious" (existing competition?). I think it also forces the requestor to give some detail on the intention of the patent rather than making an arbitrary claim to an underlying concept.
It's all about the money; they need to stop pretending and judge it that way. As it reads now, the current patent system was a premature optimization which planned for a society out of Star Trek instead of, well, lets not go there today.
Once nobody can buy computers or phones in the U.S. anymore THEN, just MAYBE, Congress will decide to fix this Patent mess.