HTC's patents could lead to an ban on the next iPhone & iPad(taipeitimes.com)
taipeitimes.com
HTC's patents could lead to an ban on the next iPhone & iPad
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2012/09/08/2003542211
11 comments
On the one hand, I'm pretty sick of this nonsense. On the other hand, it might be in everyone's best interest if HTC succeeds here. If millions of fanboys are denied their shiny new iPhones and Apple, which is rather well connected in Washington, finally winds up losing money due to the patent system, maybe we'll finally seem some progress towards reform.
For me, it's been fascinating to see what huge companies that are flush with more cash than ever before [1] will do with that cash during a prolonged recession.
The most common argument for continuing to lower taxes on businesses is that it will stimulate the economy because the businesses will spend the money on their employees. It looks like what actually happens is that they spend the money waging legal wars against each-other.
[1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an...
The most common argument for continuing to lower taxes on businesses is that it will stimulate the economy because the businesses will spend the money on their employees. It looks like what actually happens is that they spend the money waging legal wars against each-other.
[1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an...
I think you'd need more and better stats than a few large mobile phone companies in a turf war to really draw that conclusion.
Indeed; I need to learn more about the Long Depression (1873-79 or longer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression and obviously right when POTS was being developed) but I know that this sort of problem was big in the Great Depression.
Legal wars tend to be expensive because they involve spending a lot of money on employees, though.
On lawyers and other non-productive employees though, not in a way that would grow the economy. That's a huge broken window fallacy.
Well, law firms and court employees, at least.
I think the most likely outcome of HTC "succeeding" would just be that Apple and HTC agree to "cross-license" between each other.
My guess is that Apple will enter cross-licensing deals with each of the major manufacturers, which is actually much worse because it would effectively block newcomers from entering the market and all you end up with is an oligarchy of incumbents.
My guess is that Apple will enter cross-licensing deals with each of the major manufacturers, which is actually much worse because it would effectively block newcomers from entering the market and all you end up with is an oligarchy of incumbents.
> If millions of fanboys are denied their shiny new iPhones
Quite condescending.
Quite condescending.
I really like how you sickness on the subject leads to the most passive-aggressive and condescending statement in just one sentence. I'd love to see the patent system changed but I think it's about time we stop thinking Apple customers are fanboys (and that there are "millions" of them) or that everyone else's are not.
Regarding Washington, last time I check Apple was not even close to be the company that invest more money in lobbying. I don't know what is your base for "rather well connected" but if you have any evidence on this, it will be great to know.
Regarding Washington, last time I check Apple was not even close to be the company that invest more money in lobbying. I don't know what is your base for "rather well connected" but if you have any evidence on this, it will be great to know.
So the patent system would more likely get reworked when a favored company loses money in the lawmakers' home so that they can put their hands on otherwise banned products? Interesting definition of 'HTC succeeding' here. I still hope you're right, though.
Hopefully this will be the case that gives Cook the ability to "gracefully withdraw" from Jobs' legal intifada against Android, and we can end this silliness for good.
Can Cook turn Apple over to eat humble pie?
There is no Android vs iPhone here. At worst for Apple, they let HTC off the hook and continue against others, for as long as they can.
It doesn't sound like there could be any "let HTC off the hook". The whole point of this is that HTC is seeking an injunction against Apple. Even if Apple withdrew all complaints, HTC could still seek that injunction.
Apple won round one and really screwed HTC http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-htc-apple-paten... . It's not in HTC's interest to pick a fight will mighty Apple at all, so the best scenario for HTC would a deal with Apple. Apple can sue them again and again and again for patent after patent. Even the legal fees will be felt by HTC
Remember: HTC's loyalties are with their shareholders, not to fight a war against Apple on behalf of Google or Android fans. If their board determined that selling bottled water was better than making phones, they have a duty to pivot. Google (Motorola) is different, they have a much larger stake in Android.
Remember: HTC's loyalties are with their shareholders, not to fight a war against Apple on behalf of Google or Android fans. If their board determined that selling bottled water was better than making phones, they have a duty to pivot. Google (Motorola) is different, they have a much larger stake in Android.
Once Apple will announce LTE on iPhone all hell will break loose. HTC has two related patents, Samsung - 79. Source: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/042612-lte-patent-wars...
I thought the LTE patents are covered under FRAND. Isn't Samsung being investigated for FRAND abuse.
Nokia owns loads of patents for GSM which the standards bodies negotiated terms on; I'm sure it will happen here as well.
Apple has already settled with Nokia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia...
Yes, but Apple being sued over patents is OK, it's only when they sue somebody else that there's a problem.
It's just like with Chinese labour. Everyone else uses them, but Apple using them is wrong, even if they pay more than everyone else and the workers prefer to work in the Apple device factories.
Didn't you get the memo?
It's just like with Chinese labour. Everyone else uses them, but Apple using them is wrong, even if they pay more than everyone else and the workers prefer to work in the Apple device factories.
Didn't you get the memo?
The problem is that Apple was the one who started using patents offensively, as far as I know.
Sorry, but that'd be Nokia and Motorola.
It seems to be:
Nokia sues Apple
Apple countersues Nokia
Nokia sues Apple again
Apple files ITC complaint against Nokia
Apple drops some suits
Apple countersues Nokia again
Apple sues HTC
Dear Judges of the World,
Please declare all relevant patent holders to modern mobile phone and tablet technology must grant Compulsory Licences.
Regards,
The World
This is getting ridiculous - very few of these patents are really innovative anyway!
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_licensing
Please declare all relevant patent holders to modern mobile phone and tablet technology must grant Compulsory Licences.
Regards,
The World
This is getting ridiculous - very few of these patents are really innovative anyway!
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_licensing
Absolutely. And the licensing had better be cheap for new entrants to the market.
The important implication of stories like this is not "Giant Company #1 may be hampered by Giant Company #2's intellectual property."
Rather, it's "somewhere, someone who could make the Next Big Thing has just read this and decided not to bother, since making any device with a screen and menus and network access would probably get you sued."
This is exactly the opposite of what intellectual property (at least in the U.S.) is for: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
The important implication of stories like this is not "Giant Company #1 may be hampered by Giant Company #2's intellectual property."
Rather, it's "somewhere, someone who could make the Next Big Thing has just read this and decided not to bother, since making any device with a screen and menus and network access would probably get you sued."
This is exactly the opposite of what intellectual property (at least in the U.S.) is for: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Can they? Judges have to go by existing laws, not invent them.
I honestly don't know; more prominent lawyers/judges etc could comment on it at least to encourage governments to step in. A lot of time and money is being wasted here.
Am I the only one who is utterly tired of reading this sort of stuff?
All it proves is that smart phone vendors are universally asshats and this market is dangerous, risky and volatile so I don't want to be involved.
All it proves is that smart phone vendors are universally asshats and this market is dangerous, risky and volatile so I don't want to be involved.
What I don't understand is how companies can hold patents on something that is so clearly a standard that is required to be used by anyone that wants to connect to an LTE based network. If anything these patents should be licensed under FRAND, and should be licensed by the manufacturer of the modem not by every single device manufacturer that happens to include an LTE enabled modem in their device.
I don't quite understand how someone can own patents on a standard and selectively allow and disallow people from using that standard. Why hasn't this been banned? Why are there no completely open standards for communication between a wireless base-station and a wireless node?
Are there any patents on VHF/UHF communications using FM/AM modulation? Were there any patents that have expired that I am not aware of because I am fairly young compared to the technology (avid HAM radio user ... not nearly as well educated on its history)? Where these same patent battles happening when people were building radio's?
I don't quite understand how someone can own patents on a standard and selectively allow and disallow people from using that standard. Why hasn't this been banned? Why are there no completely open standards for communication between a wireless base-station and a wireless node?
Are there any patents on VHF/UHF communications using FM/AM modulation? Were there any patents that have expired that I am not aware of because I am fairly young compared to the technology (avid HAM radio user ... not nearly as well educated on its history)? Where these same patent battles happening when people were building radio's?
I agree it's weird that the scope of the patents aren't limited to the actual modems and that the modem manufacturers haven't handled the licensing. But, maybe things are too fragmented... the modem chipset doesn't include the antenna or the SIM card. Possibly the patents cover things that are only possible once assembled. Given different antenna designs you couldn't expect the modem manufacturer to provide a blanket license them all. If that makes any sense. Similarly a floppy disk drive manufacturer doesn't provide universal licenses for all possible software that could be stored on a floppy used in the drive.
But your point about UHF/VHF is very interesting and I'd also be interested in learning more. There were at least a few famous big battles over radio (Tesla/Marconi/Edison) and TV (Farnsworth/RCA) but these are inventor vs company (probably more entertaining than bigcorp vs bigcorp). I'm sure the transition to color TV was quite ripe for company vs company battles. There was also the big change in patent law/precident mid last century. In an entrepreneurship course taught by a patent attorney, he described it as patents suddenly having big value while having been nearly worthless previously.
But your point about UHF/VHF is very interesting and I'd also be interested in learning more. There were at least a few famous big battles over radio (Tesla/Marconi/Edison) and TV (Farnsworth/RCA) but these are inventor vs company (probably more entertaining than bigcorp vs bigcorp). I'm sure the transition to color TV was quite ripe for company vs company battles. There was also the big change in patent law/precident mid last century. In an entrepreneurship course taught by a patent attorney, he described it as patents suddenly having big value while having been nearly worthless previously.
I feel exactly the same about smartphone UI.
[deleted]
Do you really think that Apple wont settle if they don't think they will win? I'm pretty sure whatever patents HTC has can't be worth a mere drop of iPhone sales profit.
Apple are more likely to buy HTC outright for the patents in question than not sell the iPhone.
Apple are more likely to buy HTC outright for the patents in question than not sell the iPhone.
Isn't part of the patent system, that one could license the said technology for a given price? It's really sad, that that the first step is not negotiation and revenue, but lawyering and "ban it to hell!".... I don't care who started it.
For some sorts of copyright, that is the case, like for music.
A company can legally deny another company a license to a patent or set an unreasonable price for it. Normally it is in a company's best interest to license the patent, but they are not legally required to do it.
A company can legally deny another company a license to a patent or set an unreasonable price for it. Normally it is in a company's best interest to license the patent, but they are not legally required to do it.
If closing Apple is the end game, can they take on the world... and win?
“I don’t care if they bought these patents to sue you or not,” Pender told McKeon. “They are a property right.”
Surely he should care if people are purchasing patents purely for litigation. There are not many other items that you can legally purchase for the sole purpose of using the courts to stop someone from doing something that would otherwise be perfectly legal.
Surely he should care if people are purchasing patents purely for litigation. There are not many other items that you can legally purchase for the sole purpose of using the courts to stop someone from doing something that would otherwise be perfectly legal.
But it's not perfectly legal if the patent is valid. The infringement would just be against the original company if said company hadn't been bought.
Or are you suggesting that when a company is acquired all it's patents should become null and void?
Fair point, I wasn't really thinking that one through at all. Of course it is still infringement both before and after purchase and the previous owner may have been just as likely to litigate as the previous one.
And I wasn't suggesting that a companies patents should become null and void after purchase, however my logic was still horribly flawed here. I really should avoid the internets when tired.
Although I do think, as I have stated elsewhere, that a right to a monopoly should not be treated the same as any other property asset and should maybe have some limits in transferability and stuff like that.
And I wasn't suggesting that a companies patents should become null and void after purchase, however my logic was still horribly flawed here. I really should avoid the internets when tired.
Although I do think, as I have stated elsewhere, that a right to a monopoly should not be treated the same as any other property asset and should maybe have some limits in transferability and stuff like that.