backtop


Print 229 comment(s) - last by lawrance.. on Jul 22 at 10:42 PM


Steve Jobs: "Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the dark side. You have paid the price for your lack of vision. Now, young HTC...you will die."

If the Apple victory is upheld by the full ITC panel, it may be the last HTC smart phones are seen in the U.S., for some time at least.  (Source: Reuters / Pichi Chuang)
Loss of manufacturer would be a huge blow to Android

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) has struggled to compete with Android.  Its newest phone is over a year old, and looks badly dated compared to the latest slick Android hardware.  And it's being outsold over two-to-one by Android globally, according to market researchers.  But Apple has a secret weapon -- litigation.

I. What in the World Happened?

On Friday HTC Corp. (TPE:2498), one of the three largest Android phonemakers in the world was dealt a stunning preliminary loss in a lawsuit brought against it by Apple.

The loss clears the way for virtually all shipments of HTC Android smart phones into the U.S. to be blocked for an indefinite amount of time.  Android devices constitute the vast majority of HTC's sales and a large portion of those sales are in the U.S.  Given that HTC does not enjoy the fat profit margins Apple does, thanks to a lower markup, the loss of this major chunk of revenue could be enough to kill HTC or at least cripple it.

The initial determination was made by Administrative Law Judge Carl Charneski, a member of a six-judge U.S. International Trade Commission panel in Washington, D.C.  The judge ruled that HTC violated two of the ten patents Apple accused it of violating.

Namely HTC was found guilty of infringing on:
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647: "A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data."
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263: "A data transmission system having a real-time data engine for processing isochronous streams of data includes an interface device that provides a physical and logical connection of a computer to any one or more of a variety of different types of data networks."
The ruling is especially surprising as in April ITC staffers gave a recommendation against Apple's infringement allegations.

II. What's Next?

A crestfallen HTC vowed to keep fighting till the bitter end Grace Lei, general counsel for the Taoyuan, Taiwan-based company emailed Bloomberg, commenting, "[We will] vigorously fight these two remaining patents through an appeal before the ITC commissioners who make the final decision."

A decision on whether to ban imports in the meantime is forthcoming and could be delivered within weeks.  If the ITC grants Apple's request for a preliminary injunction, virtually all HTC Android handset imports into the U.S. would cease.  Carriers would only have access to whatever they currently have in the supply chain.

Now HTC could in theory try to modifying device hardware and software to remove the infringing technology, but that could seriously harm the devices' operation, according to the legal experts at FOSS Patents.

Even if HTC loses, it still has a ray of hope as fellow Android handset maker Motorola Solutions Inc. (MSI) is fighting Apple in court claiming twelve of its patents are illegal. If Motorola, also being sued by Apple, invalidates those patents, it would essentially nullify the verdict against HTC.

However, Apple has a second suit against HTC with 16 more patents, so even if Apple loses to Motorola, it could still win (again) versus HTC in theory.

While rival Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) typically looks to sign lucrative licensing agreements, but let its foe survive, Apple is expected to refuse licensing and essentially ban HTC Android handsets from America, if it wins.

III. What Would the Impact of a Loss Be?

That would be a huge blow to Android OS maker Google Inc. (GOOG).  It could also bode ominously for Motorola and fellow Android handset maker Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO:005930), who are currently being sued by Apple [1][2] on similar patents.  While each of these cases is slightly different, a victory over HTC could lend credibility to Apple's case against the remaining two top Android manufacturers.

Motorola and Samsung are least more diversified than HTC, so a loss for them might not be deadly.  But if what some believe to be Apple's wildest dreams come true -- guilty verdicts against HTC, Motorola, and Samsung -- it could amount to the death of the Android operating system, or the very least its minimalization as a bit player.

HTC has accused Apple of hampering the free market with abusive litigation, saying it's refusing to compete legitimately.

Apple CEO Steven P. Jobs, by contrast says Android handset makers are guilty of "stealing" his intellectual property, including the look of the iPhone.  He accuses, "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

Of course there's lots of court drama yet to unfold, and HTC and the other Android handset makers have the possibility of appealing, even if they're found guilty.

And they have their own running countersuits [1][2] against Apple, which could force Apple to back off, if they should be lucky enough to win.

In short, Apple may have won a battle in its bid to kill Android with litigation, but the war has just begun.

Author's Note:  We tried to contact Apple multiple times about this story as it progressed over the last few months, but thus far have had no luck getting ahold of anybody that's willing to tell us their side of this story.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

WTF?
By borismkv on 7/15/2011 7:12:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647: "A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data." U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263: "A data transmission system having a real-time data engine for processing isochronous streams of data includes an interface device that provides a physical and logical connection of a computer to any one or more of a variety of different types of data networks."


Does anyone understand any of this? Reading the full patent is like trying to read Russian...




RE: WTF?
By BugblatterIII on 7/15/2011 7:17:35 PM , Rating: 5
The first patent applies to pretty much every computer program ever written.

The second applies to any device that plugs into any other device.

If these patents are valid then Apple now owns the planet. Sorry, the iPlanet.


RE: WTF?
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2011 7:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much.


RE: WTF?
By drycrust3 on 7/16/2011 4:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
Why just Android phones? Why not Windows and Symbian phones as well? Why just mobile phones and not tablets and notebooks with Wifi? Why not those in car GPS navigational units?


RE: WTF?
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 4:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Windows Phone 7, WebOS, and Symbian are different enough from iOS where such litigation wouldn't stick. Microsoft specifically did an excellent job creating a functional and attractive mobile operating system that was also very different from iOS. Had Google struck out a similar path instead of making a quickie iOS knock-off with Android, while patenting their tech and licensing tech from other companies along the way, then they wouldn't be in this mess. Instead they're either paying out to or are in court with Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle, and they're likely going to lose to all of them.


RE: WTF?
By drycrust3 on 7/16/2011 4:43:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data.

This means that even your TV remote infringes upon the patent. Windows Phone, Symbian, WebOS, et al, receive data and then use that data to make a decision, so that infringes upon the patent.


RE: WTF?
By michael2k on 7/16/2011 8:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
Unlikely. The patent described is pretty narrow, unless your remote can perform regex, JavaScript XSLT, and browse the web.


RE: WTF?
By Solandri on 7/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By bug77 on 7/17/2011 6:58:44 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The patent was granted in 1999. Javascript, XML, and the web hadn't even been invented then...


Out of curiosity, when do you think each of these was invented?


RE: WTF?
By jordanclock on 7/17/2011 11:37:27 AM , Rating: 4
Javascript? 1995. XML? 1996. World Wide Web? 1991.


RE: WTF?
By michael2k on 7/17/2011 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 1
Funny that the patent was applied for in 1996, that the first web browser was running on NeXT which got bought in 1996 by Apple.

I think this patent has more validity than many would like to believe. When was the first time you saw alpha@gmail.com and it became a mailto: link without actually tagging it? Or the first time (555) 512-5518 became a callable phone number without a tag? Or http://www.google.com became a link without first tagging it in anchor tags? Firefox 5 does it today, now, but in 1996? That's the point of the patent, it wasn't obvious until someone else did it (and I don't know that anyone except Apple saw it in 1996).


RE: WTF?
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/17/2011 5:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that the first web browser was running on NeXT which got bought in 1996 by Apple
Huh? If I read this right, you are saying the first browser was running on neXT?


RE: WTF?
By michael2k on 7/17/2011 9:17:32 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, WorldWideWeb was a browser written on NeXT in 1990.


RE: WTF?
By RandomUsername3245 on 7/18/2011 9:28:20 AM , Rating: 2
FYI it was written by a scientist at CERN who was using a NeXT workstation. He had nothing to do with NeXT computer other than being a user. Also, the first *graphical* web browsers were Erwise, ViolaWWW, or NCSA Mosaic (depending on how you define graphical).


RE: WTF?
By kitonne on 7/20/2011 2:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
Programmer's Editor PFE had highlighted syntax as far back as 1992 If I remember correctly - no intervention required. In 1991 there were DOS programs with highlighted keywords and click to navigate (see the shell for DOS 5.0 HELP system for a nice example, 1990).


RE: WTF?
By michael2k on 7/17/2011 3:48:19 PM , Rating: 3
Did you read the patent? It describes a system that detects a phone number in a document and provides the user a UI to select multiple actions such as call or add to your addressbook. This was non obvious and novel in 1996. The closest I've seen is Office Spellcheck, but the version released as Office XP doesn't have this feature wherein the word is automatically underlined and clicking on it gives you several suggested corrections.

That's what this patent is about. In 1996.


RE: WTF?
By sprockkets on 7/17/2011 4:55:06 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, and pretty much every f*cking computer program acts just like that: Accepts input, parses it, then returns output.

Claiming this is new and innovative because it describes email or phone numbers in the invention section is just subterfuse/smoke and mirrors. That is NOT what is claimed in the claims section.

And since our patent examiners don't know sh*t about anything, stuff like this gets granted. That and the method on swinging on a swing.


RE: WTF?
By michael2k on 7/17/2011 9:30:19 PM , Rating: 3
You're misreading the patent.
1) If it was merely generate output from input, you'd be correct. However the patent is much narrower.
2) It's clearly specific on the input being structured, as opposed to unstructured, and the output too.
3) In 1996, nothing I've ever seen or read about implements this. A browser parses HTML files and generates HTML output. It doesn't generate additional HTML tagged content, which is what this patent would indicate, in 1996. It's like a music program that, when playing an MP3, gave you options to assign a 30s clip as a ringtone without user intervention, or a video program that could generate a representative thumb of the clip automatically. Non obvious implementations

There's no example I can think of prior to 96. IntelliTXT, Office 2003 spellcheck, and FireFox's auto linking are all much later.


RE: WTF?
By Aloonatic on 7/17/2011 5:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, sounds like a spell/grammar check and thesaurus that's in many programs.

It also sounds like those annoying adverts things that put pop-up balloon things on every 5th word on web pages. It's be a shame if patents meant that only Apple devices could be plague by that :oD.

It'll be interesting to see how these patents affect Google's Chrome OS.


RE: WTF?
By NellyFromMA on 7/18/2011 8:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
Happy Monday laughter for all!


RE: WTF?
By SKiddywinks on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/17/2011 12:56:34 AM , Rating: 4
And Moto/Samsung.....


RE: WTF?
By johnequickiii on 7/17/2011 6:41:00 PM , Rating: 5
Because Android is the one kicking Apple's @$$, and we can't have ANYONE doing better than Apple, now can we?


RE: WTF?
By KentState on 7/15/2011 7:47:36 PM , Rating: 5
The patents are also from the mid 90's without a smartphone in mind. What both describe is more theoretical than applied. After reading through the more detailed sections, this could apply to almost any electronic device in my house from video game consoles, to various computer components, streaming devices and so on. Seems with how fast technology moves, you can patent any idea and one day it may be relevant.


RE: WTF?
By MartyLK on 7/15/2011 7:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Better not let iPlanet see you out without an iPhone in hand.


RE: WTF?
By Lochias on 7/15/2011 8:08:25 PM , Rating: 1
A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data

"The first patent applies to pretty much every computer program ever written."

Well, yes. Lots of computer programs (and patents) relate to detection and actions. So?

No one is claiming an exclusive right now to detect and act. What is claimed is set out in a list and related to the specific method of this invention, which no one has quoted or chosen to discuss.

----

A data transmission system having a real-time data engine for processing isochronous streams of data includes an interface device that provides a physical and logical connection of a computer to any one or more of a variety of different types of data networks.

"The second applies to any device that plugs into any other device."

And says what about them?
This exchange is weird, don't you think? We are talking about two methods offered ten years ago, more or less, and not opening the box to see what they are.

I am sure that you are not suggested that no one, ever, should be able to get a patent related to one device plugged into another, ever again.


RE: WTF?
By Tanclearas on 7/15/2011 11:37:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I am sure that you are not suggested that no one, ever, should be able to get a patent related to one device plugged into another, ever again.


Yes. That is exactly correct. No one should ever be able to get a patent related to one device simply plugging into, or communicating with, another device. No such generic (and obvious) patent should ever be valid.

Now, if someone actually creates, and implements, a method to connect one device to another, specifically using Jell-o... well, then give that person a patent (with me as a "co-patentor") for coming up with such an ingenious, and delicious, idea.


RE: WTF?
By psaus42 on 7/16/2011 5:15:43 AM , Rating: 4
Tanclearas, this is still under NDA! We haven't been awarded our iJello-communicato patent yet.
But the next batch of sweet communication will be served in 20 minutes, if you're hungry.


RE: WTF?
By chick0n on 7/16/2011 7:09:57 AM , Rating: 5
That's why they should fired everybody in the Patent office and invalidate all the bullshit patents right now.

and this Judge is a complete moron.

Apple is such a pussy they know they can't beat Google they just picking on HTC. Don't worry tho, Apple will lose this case just like how they lose the jailbreaking case.


RE: WTF?
By mcnabney on 7/16/2011 3:44:43 PM , Rating: 3
All the patent office does is check if a prior patent exists. They let the courts sort out if a patent is valid or not. This is a huge problem, but that is how the system is. There should be a specific court that exists only to obliterate patents. Prior-art is all that is required to invalidate a patent.

For example, you could file for a patent for 'mode of transportation with 4 wheels', and if a similar patent doesn't exist they will grant you the patent. Then you could sue every car manufacturer in the world, but you would eventually lose in court because of prior art. However, the patent office is not the one that will stop you.


RE: WTF?
By theapparition on 7/18/2011 9:18:10 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly correct. I couldn't have put it better myself.


RE: WTF?
By Adul on 7/19/2011 1:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
software patents should be limited to 2 to 3 years tops if not get rid of them all together.


RE: WTF?
By Manch on 7/15/2011 8:56:01 PM , Rating: 4
Steve Jobs--You're living on it wrong......


RE: WTF?
By quiksilvr on 7/16/2011 8:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
*brain implodes on sheer stupidity of ITC judge*

This will be ridiculously easy to appeal. HTC will just need to call Sony, Motorola, HP, Dell, Samsung, LG, Asus, Acer, Archos and pretty much every hardware manufacturer on the planet on the bullsh|t of this.


RE: WTF?
By michael2k on 7/16/2011 8:56:41 PM , Rating: 3
Really, can you give an example prior to 1996, when the patent application occurred, of a computer autodetecting, say, an email address in a body of text and presenting to the user a link to launch an email client? Even a browser that could autodetect the term http://.*\..*\..* and present a link counts, in the absence of tags.


RE: WTF?
By SkeptiCoder on 7/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By Fritzr on 7/17/2011 11:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
The web browser reads the markup language and looks for the various types of link tags.

Now present that browser with
"Click on http://dailytech.com to read your favorite tech site"
and the browser will display plain text, no link.

The question was asking for software or device that would detect the embedded url and display the text with the embedded live link.

One answer would be the program that Daily Tech uses for comments. It picked up the address and converted it to a link with no markup tags necessary ... of course this comment section probably did not do that in 1999.

This autodetect can be a problem which is why browsers today still do not do this. It is not easy to enter that sentence here with the url being ordinary plain text that looks exactly like the rest and is not a live link.


RE: WTF?
By barnie on 7/18/2011 6:39:53 AM , Rating: 2
Did you read the claims? There's nothing in the patent that excludes hyperlinks in web browsers, and they do use exactly the methodology described in the patent to highlight the links and to follow them on mouse click.

There may have been an invention there, but the patent is way too broad and none of the claims refers to that invention. It's like inventing a way of using the steam engines to decrease tensions between two states and being granted a patent on the idea of trying to solve world peace (which is, by the way, a pretty obvious one).


RE: WTF?
By michael2k on 7/17/2011 3:34:37 PM , Rating: 3
A web browser that does it without anchor tags? Today Firefox 5 does it. In 1996? Not a chance. This is Netscape 3.0 we're talking about.

The patent clearly describes determining context and providing action-able items without tags (ala mailto or href tags).

You've failed.


RE: WTF?
By zephyrprime on 7/19/2011 2:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
There could easily be prior art for this. 1996 was the stone ages. I was already using the web and email for a couple of years by that point in time. AOL, Eudora, or Navigator could have had a feature like this. Or heck, maybe even compuserve email could have any something for detecting email links.


RE: WTF?
By Methal on 7/17/2011 12:06:16 PM , Rating: 5
Apple is guilty of the same thing. They stole everything they have from IBM, who stole it from Xerox. There is no original computer company out there. Apple is a retards computer built by retards, for retards. The minute I find out someone has an Iphone, or apple computer, I know that person is a retard. Same goes for those granola eating hippies who drive electric go-carts, and "hybrids"

all retards.


RE: WTF?
By superstition on 7/20/2011 1:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
Comments like this make DailyTech the intellectual Eden that it truly is.


RE: WTF?
By Lochias on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By Targon on 7/15/2011 8:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the patents, they are so general that finding prior art should be easy, if enough source code from that era could be tracked down. Seriously, it is basically a "We have a list and we use that list to check ANYTHING we want to and then have a list of triggers for what we find".

So, look on the hard drive, and check inside each file, then if you see something that is on a reference list, trigger the following action. Yea, that isn't something obvious, or was missing from prior programs. Oh, it uses an API, which guess what, any PROGRAM can have internally as a generic link to the OS, it does not have to be a special API in the OS to be covered from my brief reading of the patent text.

It's all BS, and if they tried that crap on Microsoft, they would be flayed by Microsoft lawyers, which is why you have not seen them attempt to hit Microsoft with this patent.


RE: WTF?
By Duwelon on 7/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: WTF?
By MartyLK on 7/15/2011 10:45:45 PM , Rating: 5
Too bad for them he's dead.


RE: WTF?
By quiksilvr on 7/16/2011 8:02:07 AM , Rating: 3
Why is everyone dying 20 years ahead of schedule?!

COME BACK PATRICK SWAYZE! We loved Ghost, we don't want to be one!


RE: WTF?
By BugblatterIII on 7/16/2011 1:08:36 PM , Rating: 3
Defeatist


RE: WTF?
By fteoath64 on 7/16/2011 10:46:55 AM , Rating: 1
And Apple thinks HTC and others cannot hire top-notched patent lawyers to throw this out ?. It is as easy as Apple-pie. And they can symbolically throw Apple-pie on the i-fanboys outside the court just to make a point.

Sorry but Apple has real crap lawyers if you asked me.


RE: WTF?
By bupkus on 7/17/2011 1:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you asked me
Uhhh... do I really need to say it?


RE: WTF?
By HimeNoHogosha on 7/15/2011 8:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
To me the first patent is summarized as a method of recognizing "structures" in "computer data" and creating relevant "links or actions" for the structures. The words that stuck out to me were "such as a parser or fast string search function". So I thought for example on my iPhone in my emails if there is a phone number in plain text it will become highlighted and I can tap it to dial the number. Or an address will become highlighted and I can tap it to map it. Or I can tap a UPS tracking number and I will be taken to a safari page of the package status.

Maybe?


RE: WTF?
By TacticalTrading on 7/16/2011 10:11:57 AM , Rating: 2
The way this thing is describe, using the term "Structures" and "parser." I'm thinking more along the lines of a HTML parser (which would be quite relevant in Feb 1996 when the patent was filed.)
"<a href=..."
Now that is a "structure"

Well... Al Gore may have invented the internet, but apparently, Apple and Steve Jobs hold the patent for it...

Using the Apple approach, HTC's defense should be:
If the Judge, and or anyone in his family, and or anyone related to him, and or anyone that works for him, and or anyone on the jury, has an iPhone, and thinks their iPhone is better than any HTC phone (made since 1996) then there is a conflict of interest. Therefore we have a mistrial.

NEXT!


RE: WTF?
By Jeffk464 on 7/15/2011 8:35:40 PM , Rating: 5
Mother effer, why can't apple just leave the consumer market alone. It will be a cold day in hell when I buy anything from apple.


RE: WTF?
By Jeffk464 on 7/15/2011 8:42:33 PM , Rating: 4
Keep in mind I haven't toughed an apple product since the early 90's, so I guess no big loss to apple. I remember not being able to run software that everybody else could run, yeah apple.


RE: WTF?
By Duwelon on 7/15/2011 10:24:47 PM , Rating: 5
Same here. This kind of arrogant stupidity is why i'll never own an apple product. I'll get another blackberry to replace my droid before I ever touch an iphone.


RE: WTF?
By ajcarroll on 7/15/2011 10:09:48 PM , Rating: 4
The first patent is actually fairly narrow in scope and does not "apply to pretty much every computer system" it does however strike at the heart of smartphone operating systems, It is all about having a process parse text, looking for structured things AND figuring out their type -( think recognizing a phone number or date) AND despatching an appropriate action to handle it.

More specifically its the feature that allows you to tap on a phone number in an email and and have it initiate the call, or recognize a date and add it to your calendar etc.

So in the over all scheme of things its narrow, however in touch based OSes its a pretty fundamental feature.

Interestingly the patent talks about a server process, so its conceivable, that if android was refactored so such logic was. applicaion specific, rather than handled directly by the OS they **might** be. able to avoid infringing.

The team at apple that worked on this from the early 90s was called, I think the Advanced Technology Group - they were extremely talented guys - gurus in human interface design.

The idea that the OS itself could centrally parse stuff on the screen, figure out, semantically what it is (eg phone number, address, date etc) then despatch it to an appriate action such as call a number, add it to an address book etc. was ground. breaking in the 90s. My gut feel is it will pass muster as not being obvious, the question is whether HTC can claim prior art that predates the mid 90s.

This has a long way to go - its possible google will redesign it, so that applictions must explicitly handle stuff themselves - although awkward - they may be able to bake it into their APIs so each app kind of uses a library to do it themselves.....


RE: WTF?
By Stacey Melissa on 7/15/2011 11:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
The first patent sounds an awful lot like it would apply to a spellchecker. Parse text input, and then highlight matched patterns, and offer to perform actions on those items? That's what a spellchecker does.


RE: WTF?
By snakeInTheGrass on 7/15/2011 11:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
A spell checker actually is acting on mis-matched patterns (words), not providing context-specific actions based on various patterns like a phone number (call / add to contacts), date (add to calendar), etc. I think software patents are crap in general, but given that they're legally supported today, I imagine Apple would have a leg to stand on assuming no prior art. I certainly remember seeing 'smart text' handling or whatever they called it the first time and thinking it was pretty cool.


RE: WTF?
By Stacey Melissa on 7/16/2011 3:45:38 AM , Rating: 1
There's also MS Office's Smart Tag feature, which has been around since Office XP. That was released a couple years after the Apple patent was granted. And there's IntelliTXT, like used for some ads on this site. That company has been around for eight years.

Both too recent to qualify as prior art. But grammar check has been around for decades. It does provide context-specific actions based on patterns it finds. For example, it would flag a double negative and offer to fix it.

I think Apple's patent is too vague and too obvious. There is no way to find and offer actions for inputted text patterns, except via parsing.


RE: WTF?
By ajcarroll on 7/16/2011 6:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
whether or not it covers spell checkers is an interesting question. My guess is no. For a spell checker to work, the application itself has to participate, as it has to allow its internal data structures that represent the document to be modified.

my interpetation of the apple patent is its more about a separate bit of logic, independant to the apps that running stepping in extracting out something that has semantic meaning, (phone number,date, address etc) and allowing the user to select some other action, that is unrelated - such as pass an address in an email to say an mapping system.

Its also doesnt make any clams that they own parsing of text - its not so much about details like 'gee i can parse text' but rather some process parses otherwise plain text, figures out tht some sequence is some type of thing eg. 'phone number', 'address', 'date' etc. then allowing the user to select from the applicable actions, and firing off the applicable actuon.

I also suspct that given its so specific about all the moving parts involved, it may well possible for google to rethink, architecturally how android ties these things together.

for example, suppose an email application, rather than blindly displaying raw text, first made a call to some library, that parsed the text, and then registerd the action handlers - certainly a lot more effort for the programmers writing the email client - but from the end users perspective, it would be the same experience... i dont know enough to know whether that alone would side step the apple patent, or whether theyd have to go further - but its possible, that google may be able to refactor how android deals with widgets etc to avoid this.


RE: WTF?
By bug77 on 7/16/2011 7:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
its more about a separate bit of logic, independant to the apps


You have just described a function in a library. If Apple claims they've invented that, too, I've got some prior art for them.


RE: WTF?
By bug77 on 7/16/2011 5:54:53 AM , Rating: 2
Contextual menus anyone?

Anyway, if this is as clear-cut as it seems to be, HTC's lawyers will quickly fix it. But if there's more than meets the eye, Apple may have a case.


RE: WTF?
By VooDooAddict on 7/16/2011 12:38:00 AM , Rating: 2
PalmOS devices had behavior like this on their devices before they were ever network ready. You'd sync email to them via a serial cable and then could add addresses and numbers to your contact lists.

Now did this predate the patent? I'm not certain as it was at some point in the 90's, I just don't know when exactly.

Did they sue Palm for it then? I remember a suit over similarity to the Newton(sp?) ... but didn't they loose that? And were these patents part of that?


RE: WTF?
By Assimilator87 on 7/16/2011 1:27:52 AM , Rating: 3
Wait, does Rambus secretly own Apple? =O


RE: WTF?
By chris2618 on 7/16/2011 3:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
The first one may be narrow but its obvious. It essentially does automatically what a human does.


RE: WTF?
By lyeoh on 7/16/2011 12:01:10 PM , Rating: 3
That's the problem with the patent system. The obvious "break eggs to make an omelette" ones make money. The really innovative ones often expire before enough people "get it" (just google for Douglas Engelbart and Mother of All Demos).

For example if someone comes up with an innovative, cheap, quick, effective and efficient way of separating the egg contents from the egg shell that avoids contaminating the contents with crap on the egg shell, and somehow making an omelette in the process, it would still infringe on the first obvious and general patent.

A lot of software patents are like that. See Amazon's 1-click patent.

It's got so bad that I think abolishing patents might actually be a positive thing.

If you want to reward innovation and encourage disclosure of inventions, you could award Prizes for Innovation instead. Have different prize categories - e.g. for individuals and organizations, one category judged by experts in the field, another by members of the public. It's easier to judge the merit of an invention in hindsight.

So what if you don't end up with a monopoly worth billions of dollars? I don't think that's a minus, probably even a good thing. When so many companies spend more on advertising than R&D, I doubt they'd really go under just because everyone can copy everyone else.


RE: WTF?
By foolsgambit11 on 7/17/2011 3:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
You don't need to do away with patents altogether, but a tech patent from the mid-90's shouldn't still be protected. It's the time limit that is the issue. I'd say about 5 years is the absolute longest period of time a technology patent should be granted for.


RE: WTF?
By Gondor on 7/16/2011 3:39:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The first patent is actually fairly narrow in scope and does not "apply to pretty much every computer system" it does however strike at the heart of smartphone operating systems, It is all about having a process parse text, looking for structured things AND figuring out their type -( think recognizing a phone number or date) AND despatching an appropriate action to handle it. More specifically its the feature that allows you to tap on a phone number in an email and and have it initiate the call, or recognize a date and add it to your calendar etc. So in the over all scheme of things its narrow, however in touch based OSes its a pretty fundamental feature.


Wow, you mean it describes what my web browser / e-mail client was capable of doing well prior to Apple filing in this "patent" ? It interpreted http:// and ftp:// URLs and launched an appropriate action when I clicked the highlighted "link" in my e-mail message. I believe this was before to February 1st 1996 and most definitely long before 1999 or the year Apple came up with first iPhone. Prior art much ?

This just goes to show what an abomination modern patent system has become. It should be thoroughly revised and lawsuits of this kind should be dismissed automatically, plus a hefty fine given to plaintiffs in order to discourage such blatant abuse of legal system.


RE: WTF?
By ajcarroll on 7/16/2011 6:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
Actually no. It does not cover that. any app can interpret its data however it likes, thus a web brower can decide to interpet URLs, phone numbers etc.

What their patent is all about is that you could write a web browser that renders HTML, including plain text in the HTMl, you could also write an email client that displays the text of a webmail. What the patent covers is a separate bit of logic independant to the web browser or email client that independantly parses the text, figures out that some sequence has meaning; eg. is a date, a phone number etc. then adjusts how its rendered so that the piece of data (date, phone, number) etc. so that its further decorated, so the user can select ot, and then rather than pass that selection (clicking,touchinng) to the underlying app, it instead prompts the user with the regosterd actions (say 'Dial' , 'Add to Calender' etc) and despatching that action.

Obviously its a crucial feature in modern touch OSs, but its a very specific patent.

I agree that software patents need to be re-thought for many reasons, in this case, as far as softare patents goes, I think this is a very narrow feature, so I think its a legit patent (as far as patents go)

It doesn't stop you creatin a phone, thst has a web browser, email, can play games etc. what it covers is the OS stepping in and figuring out that some sequence of text has meaning and providing a pluggable mechanism so that users can pick actions - the key part is the rest of the system does not need to know - it can just display text and thr Os steps in


RE: WTF?
By Targon on 7/16/2011 9:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
Voice recognition systems for example...they can pick out numbers out of a audio stream and dial the number...hell, being able to use voice commands in a car with hands-free calling, "Call 555-1212" is different from "Call person", and calling a person requires doing a lookup in the address book to pick up the proper phone number.

Some things should be invalidated by how obvious they are, or were at the time the patent was requested. Too many things are simple extensions that really were obvious simple extensions of existing and public technologies. Would I be able to get a patent on a new type of screw that had a different shape for the "driver"? No, because it is an obvious thing that anyone could come up with a new shape.


RE: WTF?
By TacticalTrading on 7/16/2011 11:06:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Call 555-1212" is different from "Call person"


Not really. From a programing stand point, You are getting way ahead of the program process.

To figure out the word "Call" The Entire Voice command, which is a "Data stream" which is "held in memory." Is passed to "analyzer server for detecting structures in the data."
In this process it will "wherein the user interface highlights detected structures" (figures out CALL )
Then with said detected structures, provide
"for linking actions to the detected structures;"
In this case, pass the number and or name to the linked action for CALL

The Quotes are from the patent text.

Isn't this more or less what a computer chip does, It finds data structures (reads:Data), performs actions on them (read:executes instructions), and presents them for further actions and or processes (storing them in memory of course), which may or may not require user input to continue and or decide what action to preform?
I think Apple might be able to bring a case against anyone that makes any computer chip, computer, and or software (that they don't use of course)


RE: WTF?
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2011 11:01:41 AM , Rating: 1
Except its not the OS figuring that out. It is the application. iOS doesn't read the screen to put a button next to a phone number inside an application. The application knows its a phone number and puts the button there. Then it uses the iOS API to launch the phone app that lets you dial the number when you click on it.

Same as the example of the application rendering a link that you can click on to go to another web page. The only difference there is that you're staying inside the same program instead of going out to another one. But that idea was hardly new.


RE: WTF?
By AmbroseAthan on 7/16/2011 9:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
My problem with this line of thinking, is than it is an OS (Google) problem and not HTC's. I don't see how this would allow Apple to get at HTC if what you are describing is the issue.

It would be similiar to a Microsoft OS violating a patent, but someone sues Dell or HP because of it as opposed to MS.


RE: WTF?
By wsko on 7/16/2011 7:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with ajcarroll completely about what patent 5946647 covers after reading it.

One prior art that I can think of is, whether email services back in the 90s (hotmail, yahoo, etc) have the ability to highlight and link email addresses that appears in an email message, and allow the users to click on the email address to send an email message to that address. If this was already done, then this could be a prior art to patent 5946647.


RE: WTF?
By xpax on 7/18/2011 3:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The first patent is actually fairly narrow in scope and does not "apply to pretty much every computer system" it does however strike at the heart of smartphone operating systems, It is all about having a process parse text, looking for structured things AND figuring out their type -( think recognizing a phone number or date) AND despatching an appropriate action to handle it.

This seems completely obvious to me. I've been doing things like this for 20+ years in data conversion programs. When dealing with record-based files that aren't fixed-length records, it was common to match a pattern like a phone number (###-###-####, combined with a secondary lookup against an area code table on the first 3 digits) or dates (##-##-####, check the first 2 digits to ensure it's a month between 01 and 12, then check the last 4 digits to see if they fell between 1900-2020) and track backwards/forwards to find data which required conversion.


RE: WTF?
By fteoath64 on 7/16/2011 10:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
It is really a ridiculous patent becuase it describes the basics of how communications works in a network. A network is communications between a client and a server. How it does it depends solely on what protocol it runs, in this case TCP/IP.
On the second patent. It is frivolous because there is no such thing as "isochronous communication" because the transport-layer in TCP/IP is either async or pseudo-synchronous. Apple need to PROVE that they had invented an isochronous protocol here. Full bull!.


RE: WTF?
By jebo on 7/16/2011 2:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
I checked out the FOSS Patents article linked in the DT post, which pointed to this helpful guide for *how* exactly HTC devices supposedly infringe on the patents.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tabl...


RE: WTF?
By tng on 7/18/2011 1:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
Just reading through the claims Apple made if really funny.

They may have HTC on the finding a phone number and linking url's if they can't find prior art, but the rest are ridiculous. All of the rest of the patents apply to almost everything with a CPU of some kind and user interface software, computers (only PC's of course), fly/drive by wire systems, your TV, DVR, etc....

Almost complete crap.


RE: WTF?
By xrodney on 7/18/2011 4:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data."


Used this in 1993-1996 when programming Pascal and assembler routines. Should I now Sue Apple for all its money ?

Someone already kill Apple, most of its patents is just junk with no technology advancements whatsoever!!!
US patent system needs serious rework and yesterday was too late.


RE: WTF?
By tng on 7/18/2011 1:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Used this in 1993-1996 when programming Pascal and assembler routines. Should I now Sue Apple for all its money ?
No, just send your dated/confirmed software and other records to the HTC lawyers so Apple can quit wasting time and money on this.


RE: WTF?
By Lazarus Dark on 7/18/2011 9:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
its all BS.

IF, and thats a big IF, Apple succeeds, I see black market imported phones in my future.

Also, Apple thinks they own the rights to the iJunk "look"? What, square, shiny, with buttons? Gee... if i were to design a phone theres a good chance I'd probably go with... square, shiny, with buttons.


Ok, how do we end Apple?
By BugblatterIII on 7/15/2011 7:13:19 PM , Rating: 5
I didn't mind them too much when they were just a choice I wasn't interested in.

But now they're trying to take my choice away?

They need to go away now.




RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/15/2011 7:32:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Oh and don't copy Apple when doing that.
Sure, just like iOS 5's notification system, Tony?


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/15/2011 7:53:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
including anything good that anyone else invents that isn't patented.
So, basically you're saying that it's absolutely fine for Apple to steal other companies ideas, just as long as those ideas are not patented. However Apple can file for very generic patents and frivilous lawsuits, so nobody can steal ideas from them that they never invented in the first place?

Apple is using their huge market influence and financial muscle to stifle the competition. They're not defending their IP. They're trying to eliminate a competitor through anti-competitive means. You can't see that because you're so blindly in love with Apple, they can't possibly do any wrong.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/16/2011 6:28:21 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Clearly after the launch of iPhone Google completely reset the Android design to produce a clone of iOS
Similar to how Apple ripped off Xerox PARC, Tony?

That is what happens in a free market. However Apple have no intention of protecting their IP. It is their absolute intention to suffocate HTC until they no longer exist. Why does Apple refuse to come to any form of licensing agreement, like those of Nokia and Microsoft?

Because Android is a massive success, and to beat it, Apple must find a stranglehold on the market, disrupt freedom, and use litigation as a means of anti-competitive success.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/16/2011 7:10:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The point of this history lesson and it's relevance to the issue at point is this: Apple added plenty of fundamental and utterly original stuff to the GUI
Similar to how Google added plenty of fundamental and utterly original stuff to their GUI, such as its notification system, which, ironically, Apple has now imitated.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Bearach on 7/16/2011 9:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the newish arrivals such as HTC


How is HTC new to the market? They were quite the little pioneer in smartphones for over a decade before Apple.

Many of the phones that were on contract, (with Windows Mobile) were manufactured by HTC for the operators. Notably XDA on O2 for example.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/17/2011 4:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But as far as I know Google does not hold a patent for that stuff.
Here we go again. Read my post about Apple stealing and filing for generic patents.

quote:
Many handset makers depended on Symbian for a long time and then when iOS threatened to sweep Symbian into the dustbin they jumped to Android as a life line.
Nokia is the main contributor (and shareholder) of the Symbian foundation. Sony Ericsson and just a few other major brands were licensees of Symbian, and beyond Nokia and SE, Symbian (particularly S60, the major platform of Symbian) was found in a miniscule amount of smartphones. I think you'll find that the main focus for many of those handset makers was WinMo, not Symbian. Particularly for HTC, as someone has already noted, have existed for a long time in the smartphone arena. They're hardly a new player. Perhaps so under their own name and branding, but as a company they have existed for many years. Just to note; Symbian's global market share still stands as the second largest smartphone OS.

quote:
And Google's company culture has fostered a reckless disregard for other peoples IP, a culture which partially explains their ridiculous failure, due to careless, reckless and juvenile behaviour, in the Nortel bidding rounds.
Then if that's the case, why doesn't Apple do what is right and take Google straight to the courts? Because clearly every Android based device is in violation of Apple's IP. It's easier for Apple to eliminate a manufacturer of Android handsets via litigation than it would be to fight off Google and likely have to come to a licensing agreement. Apple don't want that. They want to have a stranglehold on the market.

Just answer me this question, Tony. How has HTC violating these patents affected Apple's sales? Apple's innovation? Apple's ability to compete? Apple's repuation? Do they really deserve to be driven into the ground via litigation over patents that have done very, very little to damage Apple as a company? What's wrong with a licensing agreement, plus supposed damages? Apple are not protecting their IP. They are using it to abuse the market. Apple's agenda is to remove HTC as a legitimate competitor solely through litigation. That is pure anti-competitive practice.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/16/2011 12:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are probably looking at this web site in a window on a desktop or laptop, if you are then you are also probably pretty used to just reaching via the cursor controlled by your mouse and grabbing hold of part of that window to move or resize it. Apple invented that.
No, no they didn't....


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Bearach on 7/16/2011 8:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest you take a look at these patents : 5,751,283 and 6,628,309. It would seem he's right, they didn't "invent" them.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By lukarak on 7/17/2011 12:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
Ahem, the first one is resizing with an object inside. Not the same thing as it mostly deals with resizing an object in a resizing window, not the window itself.
The second one was filed in 1999??? Must be something else imo. But can't say for certain.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/17/2011 4:15:26 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but Tony's RDF will not allow him to view your post.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Fritzr on 7/17/2011 11:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
Developed independently and released a short time after the Lisa

I am pretty sure an example is the Amiga ... developed by Amiga Corp., bought out and brought to market by Commodore.

The Amiga had additional features that Windows finally added in the late 90s, early 2000s, that Mac did not have.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By phantom505 on 7/18/2011 10:32:45 AM , Rating: 2
OS Warp


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By ddownes on 7/17/2011 1:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
You write like I did in 8th grade.

quote:
Apple didn't walk away from the negotiations and then use PARC's material anyway, which is what Google did with Java, it did the legally and ethically right thing, it negotiated a deal and signed a contract.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/17/2011 6:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First Apple did not rip off Xerox PARC, it did what Google should done, it licensed the material from PARC. Apple didn't walk away from the negotiations and then use PARC's material anyway, which is what Google did with Java, it did the legally and ethically right thing, it negotiated a deal and signed a contract.
No, they didn't....and yes, they did....

"Steve Jobs, visited PARC in 1979 (after buying Xerox stock) and was impressed and influenced by the Xerox Alto, the first computer ever with a graphical user interface. Jobs designed the new Apple Lisa based on the technology he saw at Xerox"


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By makken on 7/17/2011 12:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
[quote]Clearly after the launch of iPhone Google completely reset the Android design to produce a clone of iOS[/quote]

Yes, after the launch of the iPhone, Google clearly ripped off iOS' widgets, desktops, and notification system and put them in-- oh wait...

I don't know how you can say android is a clone of iOS with a straight face. If anything, android has more in common with symbian than anything apple has put out.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2011 8:07:13 PM , Rating: 4
Android IS beating Apple. And Tony, nobody else on the PLANET actually believes Apple was "copied" or that these patents are legitimate except for you and Macdevdude. In other word, idiots.

This is a pathetic patent trolling campaign by Apple of the most dastardly order. If you can't win, sue em, right?


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Etsp on 7/15/2011 9:41:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And Tony, nobody else on the PLANET actually believes Apple was "copied" or that these patents are legitimate except for you and Macdevdude.
I've heard rumors that Administrative Law Judge Carl Charneski feels that way as well(or at least was paid to say he did).


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By MartyLK on 7/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Totally on 7/15/2011 11:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung IP-830W(WM pro) bought it early-mid 2006 used for about 2.5 years then a Touch diamond(wm6). Your point?


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By MartyLK on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/16/2011 3:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, pal. That's not valid. No capacitive touch display.
The LG Prada had a capacitive touchscreen, which pre-dated the iPhone. Furthermore, there were many smartphones (especially from Nokia) that had WiFi, namely the Nokia N80 and Nokia N91, which were both released early 2006. So what?


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By MartyLK on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/16/2011 5:14:21 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The Prada was not revealed until a week after the iPhone launched. And it was only revealed. It wasn't in the market before the iPhone. Oh..and it didn't have WiFi.
Funny, because it won the iF Design Award in September 2006, a whole 4 months before the iPhone was announced.

I'll take those points that it was the first to incorporate such features with an easy-to-use UI, but so what? Does that mean they should be the only one to be allowed to do so?

If that logic applied then Apple wouldn't even exist in the first place.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By MartyLK on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/16/2011 5:49:36 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
What the hell is wrong with you. It didn't win a damn thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA

If you care to take a look at the awards section, you'll soon see that it did in fact win a few awards. The iF Design Award being the first. Even a quick search of LG Prada iF Design Award in Google will prove that! Man, the RDF is strong in you, my friend.

quote:
I fucking dare your sorry, lying ass to take your asshole out of your mouth and put the proof on the fucking table where it shows it sold like hell and had all that the iPhone has.
Did I deny that the Prada didn't sell as well as the iPhone? Seriously, dude, you need to calm down. You have issues. It's a piece of plastic, not your mother.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By MartyLK on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By themaster08 on 7/16/2011 6:20:42 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
It speaks against you. The Prada is not equal to the iPhone in hardware. It doesn't have WiFi or the higher quality LCD of the iPhone.
I don't understand how it "speaks against me". Where have I said that the Prada has a high quality LCD, or that it was a massive success, or that it has WiFi? I've not defended the Prada in that aspect. Not once. You're asking me to prove a point I never made. You're either mixing me up with someone else, or you're on drugs.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By MartyLK on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Development of the iPhone started 2 weeks after the LG Prada won those awards. Its amazing that they showed it for the first time only a few months later.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Totally on 7/16/2011 11:30:14 AM , Rating: 1
bullshit, yes it did have WiFi, If I still worked for my old employers I could pull the network logs showing when I accessed the company network. The version ordered direct from sprint had it disabled, just paid $100 more for the unlocked version. Then screens were too small to go finger only, it didn't make sense at the time since capacitive doesn't work with styluses.

quote:
... niche-market phone...looks like a rip-off of the Palm Treo...


Really? now you're sounding like a little kid. Again your point?


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Helbore on 7/17/2011 10:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
Idiot stuff like this just makes me roll my eyes in despair. Apple didn't invent capacitive touchscreens. Apple didn't invent WiFi. They weren't even the first anufacturer to put WiFi on a phone.

So what if Apple happened to be the first to put a capacitive touchscreen AND WiFi on a phone? They don't then own that combination of hardware. Apple weren't the first to have a smartphone on the market, so should they then not be allowed to manufacture smartphones because someone got there before them?

Apple made a competitive product, but it made it by putting together existing technology. Other people copied some of those ideas, but no more than Apple copied existing ideas by building a smartphone.

You've got to be completely divorced from reality to think using combinations of existing hardware equally an innovaton that can't be copied by other manufacturers. It's as daft as Jobs' notion that people are copying the look of the iPhone! No android handsets (with the possible exception of the Samsung Galaxy) look anything like the iPhone. The only similarity is that they are rectangular blocks with screens in them - and I've got news for Apple; they weren't the first to make a rectangular phone with a screen in it (and saying it's capacitive instead of resistive is neither here nor there)


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2011 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously haven't read the patents in question. It's not about who came out with the first smart phone. Apple did not patent the smart phone.

These patents are completely abstract, vague, and far too general. Patents like this shouldn't be granted, because they aren't a patent on products but rather broad and non-specific concepts.

Again, go read the patents. Do you see the word "smart phone" or "cell phone" in them? No, you do not. Your argument about who invented the smart phone or which is better comes off as being extremely fanboi-ish because you aren't even debating the patents in question.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By vision33r on 7/15/2011 11:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sue them with what? Google had to be the dumbest company in the US to go into any type of business without patents.


By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 3:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
Google is bringing a knife to a gunfight. Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle have been and will continue to successfully win in court against Google the way that they insist on doing business.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By lukarak on 7/17/2011 12:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
It is beating it in the marketshare. The side easily overlooked is what kind of phones is android being installed on. It is not only iphone class phones like galaxys and droids and so on, but also much weaker and cheaper machines. And that's just not comparable, nor can it be the basis for claims about Android beating Apple (iOS). I think that if we compared the situation in the price (and feature) range Apple is present in, it would be a completely different story, much like with the PC business where apple is much stronger when you compare the marketshare in price ranges apple is actually present in ($999+)


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/17/2011 6:26:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is beating it in the marketshare.


Globally there are more iOS devices than Android devices.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Fritzr on 7/19/2011 11:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yep that is the same mistake that IBM made with the IBM 5150. They created configurations that targeted all of their competitors. Of course it cost them the market...

Oops, sorry the IBM 5150 Personal Computer was the first IBM compatible model on the market amd introduced the Microsoft OS that is currently so dominant that Personal Computer today means Microsoft :P


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/17/2011 6:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Classic moving of the goalposts.

We're talking smart phones. You are bringing Apples entire mobile lineup into the discussion. Valiant attempt, but ultimately invalid. I mean come on, you even brought Apple TV into this. Really?

Tony it's amazing how after all this time you can still amuse me. Don't ever change :)

p.s. we know you wont.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By pyrosity on 7/19/2011 6:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And Tony, nobody else on the PLANET actually believes Apple was "copied" or that these patents are legitimate except for you and Macdevdude


This is an example of Argumentum ad populum [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum], or a bandwagon logical fallacy. In addition it is a drastic exaggeration, to the order of hyperbole [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole]. Just wanting to clarify in this comment cacophony.

I would commend commenters to research the patent claims before weighing in with drastic statements. I suggest the following:
http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-sams...
And, relevant to this case: http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-...

Now, to ope. How do I feel about all of this? The US patent system is a joke. Apple is a greedy company among greedy companies. And people are apparently more zealous about their choice of phones (and computer hardware, and software, and services, if we want to loop conglomerates such as Apple & Google in to the bigger picture) than I ever thought possible. I'm not sure whether to applaud or to frown.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By karlostomy on 7/15/2011 9:23:40 PM , Rating: 5
@ Tony Swash

Tony, it's about time for you to take off the tinfoil hat.
Apple has woeful double standards and has stolen most if not all of their technology to date.

Don't believe me?

Steve Jobs:
quote:
We have always, you know, been SHAMELESS about STEALING great ideas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

So your question is rather moot and frankly quite immature.

Apple has been caught stealing prior smartphone designs and outright admitted that they shamelessly steal others' ideas.

It seems so weird that you laud Apple for their innovations which were demonstrably partly gleaned by stealing from other companies, yet justify lawsuits when other companies supposedly steal from Apple?

That's insane.
Get a grip.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/16/2011 11:35:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Tony, it's about time for you to take off the tinfoil hat.
Apple has woeful double standards and has stolen most if not all of their technology to date.

Don't believe me?

Steve Jobs:
quote:
We have always, you know, been SHAMELESS about STEALING great ideas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

So your question is rather moot and frankly quite immature.

Apple has been caught stealing prior smartphone designs and outright admitted that they shamelessly steal others' ideas.

It seems so weird that you laud Apple for their innovations which were demonstrably partly gleaned by stealing from other companies, yet justify lawsuits when other companies supposedly steal from Apple?

That's insane.
Get a grip


How should this whole business be settled? Genuine question.

Should we let anybody copy anything from anyone? Is that good for innovation? I can't see how.

Should we let people protect their innovations and IP through legally enforced court decisions after due process and legal examination? That seems reasonable to me.

Should we let patent trolls (i.e. companies who develop nothing, innovate nothing, sell nothing, whose sole business is IP litigation) deliberately threaten small companies with legal attack in the full knowledge that the costs of legal defence are so prohibitive that the recourse to patent litigation is nothing more than an attempt to extort money? That seems unreasonable to me. But it's hard to stop such parasites from exploiting the reasonable protection of IP laws. I think the big players (Apple, Google) with big coffers and big lawyers should step in to protect the small players in their respective ecosystems. It seems as if Apple has done that a bit but it could do a lot more. It seems that Google has declined to do that - shame on them.

As for the big players who can afford the big lawyers and big court cases - let them fight it out. I am confident, because I believe in the rule of law, that broadly the legal process will be objective, fact based and that mostly it will get it right.

I probably won't like all the decisions the courts make but what's the alternative?


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By bug77 on 7/16/2011 4:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should we let anybody copy anything from anyone? Is that good for innovation? I can't see how.


It got us all the way to the Renaissance.

But the issue is not letting "anybody copy anything from anyone", the issue is letting anyone patent stupid ideas and then drag others to court over it. I mean seriously, click on a phone number? That's what Apple stands on?


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By karlostomy on 7/16/2011 7:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How should this whole business be settled? Genuine question.


Good question.
Don't know the answer.

However, this was not my point.
You have avoided addressing my point by obfuscating the issue at hand, Mr Strawman...

My point was that you seem completely happy to let Apple steal others' IP without recourse, while congratulating Apple for suing those companies that allegedly steal theirs.

That stinks, my good man!

Perhaps the solution is to sue the crap out of Apple for all the IP theft that they have engaged in over the years?
It seems fair and logical.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Tony Swash on 7/17/2011 4:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was that you seem completely happy to let Apple steal others' IP without recourse, while congratulating Apple for suing those companies that allegedly steal theirs


When have I ever said that? What I said is that in lieu of something better the courts and due process of the law should decide who stole what from whome. If Apple stole something and that can be proved in court then Apple should be punished like anyone else. Google has been a plank for not protecting it's own ( limited) IP and for stealing other peoples IP. But anyone who is proved to have stolen via legal process should be held to account.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By troysavary on 7/15/2011 7:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
The last original thing to come out of Apple was the kit computer from the 70s, and it was only original in that it was easier to build than previous kits.


RE: Ok, how do we end Apple?
By Jeffk464 on 7/15/2011 8:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
You know apple did not come up with all of the touch interfaces like pinch and what not right? Besides that what is the difference between iphone and any other GUI?


Apple.....
By themaster08 on 7/15/2011 7:07:10 PM , Rating: 5
Fuck you.




RE: Apple.....
By MartyLK on 7/15/2011 8:06:35 PM , Rating: 3
You better be careful, Apple might have a copyright on "iFuck you".


RE: Apple.....
By inperfectdarkness on 7/16/2011 7:04:10 AM , Rating: 3
....and martyLK, and macdevdude, and tony swash, and pirks, and...


RE: Apple.....
By Tony Swash on 7/16/2011 12:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."

 Terry Pratchett


Weird turn of events
By TakinYourPoints on 7/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Weird turn of events
By TakinYourPoints on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Weird turn of events
By Jeffk464 on 7/15/2011 8:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
They failed because they aren't open like android. Lets face it android is to the smartphone world what windows is to the desktop world. Basically open to all developers and hardware makers, the polar opposite of apple.


RE: Weird turn of events
By TakinYourPoints on 7/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Weird turn of events
By TakinYourPoints on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Weird turn of events
By althaz on 7/16/2011 5:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'd absolutely agree that WP7 is a long way ahead of Android in terms of usability and interface, but iOS? iOS was decent when the iPhone first launched but it is now outdated and in some ways over-simplified to the point where some of that stuff works against the user rather than for them.


RE: Weird turn of events
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
Agree with the first part, strongly disagree with the second given its steady stream of updates. And things will be amazing by the time iOS 5 and Mango are out to the public. Oh well, opinions!


RE: Weird turn of events
By vision33r on 7/15/2011 10:54:19 PM , Rating: 1
Open without patents to protect it's IP means you are welcoming patent trolls from all walks of life.

Android is a big failure because whether they copied Apple or Microsoft you need to patent your ideas before you push things out. If you don't, you will get endless stream of lawsuits.

Google is not standing behind HTC because they are afraid to get involved as they are on the hook for atleast 2.6-6 billion dollars in licensing with Oracle.


RE: Weird turn of events
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 2:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
Nailed it. Google got themselves into this mess and now they're letting their hardware partners out to dry. They aren't losing lawsuits to Microsoft, Apple, Oracle for arbitrary reasons either. Google's patent portfolio, including their logo, is only a couple hundred, you have Apple and Microsoft somewhere in the middle, and then on the far end of the spectrum you have IBM: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/333...

It's like they think that everything is free and clear when it isn't, and they shouldn't be surprised when other legitimate tech companies (not useless patent trolls) starts coming after them.

Funny thing about the Oracle case is that Sun sued Microsoft for the exact same thing in the 90s, and in the end they won a huge award. Back then the tech world was very pro Sun when they sued Microsoft, but now they are on the complete opposite side when Oracle is suing Google for the same reasons. Funny how brand loyalty and fanboyism works.


RE: Weird turn of events
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Weird turn of events
By Targon on 7/15/2011 8:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you were to really look through the Palm(now owned by HP) patent portfolio, I bet that we would find a LOT of stuff in iOS that has been used. Remember, before slab-style phones were popular, Palm was out there with a dominance in the PDA market, and the iPhone is a PDA with a phone attached to it. If HP had good management, they should be ripping Apple a new one right now while Apple is focused on all those other lawsuits.


RE: Weird turn of events
By Stoanhart on 7/15/2011 11:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
So, if Apple wins all of these patent fights, and is given a monopoly on smartphones, they would be subject to anti-trust legislation. Under such legislation, refusing to license patents would be considered anti-competitive, since it would prohibit any competition to the iPhone from existing. Apple would at that point (presumably) be forced to license its patents.


RE: Weird turn of events
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Weird turn of events
By Helbore on 7/17/2011 10:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
I do get tired of hearing people say "Apple were first to the arket with the iPhone." In terms of smartphones, they were years late. All they did is make smartphones popular in a market where they had little prior penetration.

You could just as easily accuse Apple of copying HTC, seeing as HTC had been making touchscreen smartphones for years before the iPhone came to market. All Aple did was come up with a more modern interface than the aging WinMo platform.

This isn't about intellectual property. It's about people who understand software programming using their advantage to confuse the hell out of the people in the patent office who don't realise they're allowing patents for ridiculously stupid things.

What we have is a situation where Apple have got themselves patents for ideas so broad and obvious that they cannot be considered property of any individual. That may get rectified in the courts, but Apple don't want it to get that far. They are trying to get HTC imports stopped BEFORE they've proved their patents are valid, let alone have been infringed upon.

What this means is Apple is trying to strangle a competitor to death by cutting off its funds. It may not even need to prove if its patents are genuine or just a load of gibberish representing unpatentable ideas. We could see a manufacturer killed off - or wounded to the point of no longer being a major player - simply because you can get away with patenting anything.

Apple aren't stupid. They know exactly what they're doing. It's the only reason they are going after HTC instead of Google. It's Google's OS that is supposedly infringing these patents, after all. But no, they go after the easier target, where they have a chance of crushing them to death. They couldn't do that to Google.

It's blatently obvious what Apple are trying to do and defending legitimate IP is clearly not it. They are trying to bully competitors out of the market. I only hope that Google and Microsoft (for whom HTC is a major hardware partner in the smartphone market) decide to fight their corner against Apple.

The last thing we need is Apple dominating a market. They're continually making Microsoft and Intel look like saints in the way they heavy-handedly try and control markets. They need knocking down a peg or two.


RE: Weird turn of events
By Strunf on 7/18/2011 7:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's what the Apple marketing department wants you to believe, check the LG Prada, it was shown on September 2006, that is 4 months ahead of the iPhone.


Lets look at these patents
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2011 7:32:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647: "A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data."


Um....this applies to ALL input. Regardless of how. The only more vague thing I can think of is "A method of using 1s and 0s to store and process data in a computer system"

quote:
U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263: "A data transmission system having a real-time data engine for processing isochronous streams of data includes an interface device that provides a physical and logical connection of a computer to any one or more of a variety of different types of data networks."


This applies to all drive and fly by wire systems, or hell, the damn internet. I guess they need to sue auto, airplane, and networking equipment manufacturers.

Christ our patent system is f*cked.




RE: Lets look at these patents
By ajcarroll on 7/15/2011 10:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
FYI - the first patent is narrow - its the feature where the OS scans through text on the screen, figurues out that some bit of text has semantic meaning, such as a date or phone number, then looks for actions that handle that type of data and lets you pick an action,

in the overall scheme of things its a very narrow and specific featuee - but in smart phone OSes its pretty fundamental.

Its the feature that figures out, say a sequence of numbers in say an email is a phone number and when you tap on it, pops up the actions, such as "Call" or "Add to Contact"

so its farily narrow but alas pretty fundamental - scroll up i elaborated a little further in an earlier post.

Im not defending patents, or saying software patents are a good idea, but my reading of the patent, is that this is legit and non obvious.

The question is whether HTC can claim prior Art or whether google can restructure how android accomplishes this feature....

the bad news is that once the anger dies down and they really examine the patent, my gut feel is that it is legit...... but theres a long way to go.


RE: Lets look at these patents
By kulover on 7/16/2011 9:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
The only prior art that comes to mind may be perhaps what is at the core of an antivirus program. It functions outside the application running and monitors its actions for malicious code, and upon finding a structure of data in its list of known bad code, takes action... clean, delete, quarantine.

I also know antivirus began in the late 1980s, but I'm not sure when they began to run in the background and monitor live.

Just some food for thought.


By TacticalTrading on 7/16/2011 7:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
It is interesting that Apple has just now decided to enforce this patent, (granted in 1999) and that they are targeting HTC.
Um... Excuse me, but... Does Microsoft have anything that does anything of like nature?
Why is Apple not suing Microsoft on this one too,
Perhaps Palm (read: HP) and surely Nokia has a phone that finds phone numbers and suggests dialing them.
Heck, if Apple wins this suite, they will virtually own the process of dialing a cell phone from a ... data stream

Just remember, if Microsoft stopped producing Office for Mac, (they would be in anti-trust court) and Apple would be in a world of hurt.


really?
By tharik on 7/15/2011 9:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
"system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data"

So, if I have a program that contains the following, my program is using the infringing IP:

if ( computer_data & 0x01 )
computer_data += 1;

and "A data transmission system having a real-time data engine for processing"

What is the definition of real-time?
Found this one:
"relating to computer systems that update information at the same rate they receive information"

Is this possible with the processing power of the systems we are currently using?




RE: really?
By adiposity on 7/16/2011 11:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
You should probably read the patent. It is overly vague and hard to understand, but its one-line description/title is not all there is to it.


RE: rea*!$?
By hexxthalion on 7/18/2011 10:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
no, your program wouldn't run, check your code


Dumb patents
By munky on 7/16/2011 12:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
This just shows how broken the US patent system is.




RE: Dumb patents
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 4:07:45 PM , Rating: 3
It actually shows how clueless Google is. They have virtually zero patent portfolio to give them leverage for cross-licensing, and they think they can just use technologies that Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle have in their own patent portfolios without getting sued by them or paying license fees.

Google's hardware partners should be livid at them. They get a free operating system from Google and everything should be awesome, but then down the road they find out that it violates patents that Oracle, MS, and Apple have. Now they are on the hook for both legal and licensing fees. Did you know that Microsoft makes more off of Android hardware than they do Windows Mobile hardware? Google has been so irresponsible in this whole mess, and hopefully they will learn going forward.


Stop stealing
By macthemechanic on 7/17/2011 1:59:19 AM , Rating: 1
Android clearly stole technology that Apple invented. Of course so did Microsoft. However, Microsoft was smart enough to make peace with Apple and fund them. Just because you think that a method is commonplace doesn't make it legal to steal. Android makers must learn this.




RE: Stop stealing
By themaster08 on 7/17/2011 3:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Android clearly stole technology that Apple invented. Of course so did Microsoft. However, Microsoft was smart enough to make peace with Apple and fund them.
The difference between the two screnarios is that Apple happily settled on a licensing agreement with Microsoft, because they were on the virge of collapse.

Now Apple are as influential and profitable as they are today, simply creating licensing agreements between these manufacturers and themselves would be too easy. Apple's agenda in all of this is to disrupt the free market, restrict choice, and eliminate a competitor via litigation alone. That is anti-competitive.

It's not just HTC in violation of these patents, however HTC and Samsung are the leaders of the Android ecosystem. What damage has HTC violating these patents done to Apple's sales? Apple's reputation? Apple's ability to compete? From where I'm standing, said violations have done very little to damage Apple. Then why is it that Apple doesn't want to settle for a licensing agreement, instead wants to completely remove HTC off the map for violation of patents that have done very little to affect Apple?


RE: Stop stealing
By Stephen! on 7/17/2011 6:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
[Quote] Apple's agenda in all of this is to disrupt the free market, restrict choice, and eliminate a competitor via litigation alone. That is anti-competitive. [/quote]

If anything, Android would seem to be the "lesser evil" for Apple. Given the choice of either sharing the mobile market with Android, or the alternative, of having to compete in a market monopolised by Microsoft with Windows mobile.


Simple
By lukarak on 7/16/2011 7:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
It is not up to Apple to protect the free enterprise system, it is in the court system's hands. Apple is simply behaving like any other company, patenting their stuff and protecting itself to the fullest. It is up to the system to decide if their patents are valid or too general and act accordingly.

Companies can patent molecules, so Apple's patents are not that far fetched.

Plus, it is not Apple's goal to put the competition out of business this way. But why not try to make your competition pay you royalties on stuff that you got patents on, especially if they are already doing that with some other companies, and make their product less profitable? It is a legit tactic, and again, it is up to the court system to decide if it will be successful or not.




RE: Simple
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 3:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nailed it. The only thing I disagree with it "it is not Apple's goal to put the competition out of business this way".

Apple seems to be more interested in exclusivity than money. I'd prefer it if they instead insisted that HTC et al pay them license fees in that same way that Microsoft is doing now. At worst HTC should pay damages to Apple and then a piece of phones sold in the future, but IMHO they shouldn't be prevented from selling phones in the future. Continuing down that path could also be stupid for Apple, as it may eventually lead to accusations of monopolistic behavior if their marketshare continues to grow. Just take the cut from the competition and move on.


WTH
By narukagami on 7/16/2011 8:06:55 AM , Rating: 2
Google should also sue Apple for being gay. Maybe that will also pass. man. the law can really be stupid.




RE: WTH
By superstition on 7/21/2011 1:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
Wow... a company is not only a person with free speech rights, according to the Supreme Court, it also has a sexual orientation.

Fascinating.


By rodneyej on 7/16/2011 8:50:01 PM , Rating: 3
Sucks! But I don't want a platform that is so vulnerable, "open" for anybody to screw up the pureness that the original developers intended, and that I have to tweak to my own liking because the developers wont do so. A good OS comes equipped with state of the art functionality that is innovative and doesn't follow others theories in order to gain the same success. Those who think outside the box are usually ridiculed and criticized, as Android was before, for not and never will be the popular choice. Times change and amid all the arguing about witch OS is the best Windows Phone 7 emerged upon the scene quietly, And in it's first year didn't make very much noise, compared to it's counterparts, but in terms of progress as far as customer satisfaction it did great! The app catalog, to which other OS's claim there greatness, has also grown at a rate which if I'm not mistaken has been the greatest. Quality is key and I do have to say that Apple does have very good quality in terms of hardware and programing, but Droid seems to be lagging, UN fluid and just a fad. I know this may sound crazy, and I know of many who are very big Droid fans, so I say this with the utmost amount of unbiased opinion. I think a OS should have character built in from the factory, and be able to shine with only 25000 apps. Quality of the most important apps that help you out on a daily basis is what really matter not the raw number a OS can claim. Trust me I do believe if enough people do get to see Windows Phone 7.5, the next version coming this fall, it will be heavily adopted. And who knows, I may be wrong and I may be right, but I didn't make any definite predictions about what the future holds so please don't get to upset with my comment.




By BZDTemp on 7/18/2011 8:33:52 AM , Rating: 1
Trying to talk up your Microsoft stock?

I'm sorry from what I've seen of Phone 7 it's pretty much just copies of the other ones and not thinking out of the box. And even if it was great I would not go for anything Microsoft when there are alternatives - just as I won't go for anything from Apple. Neither company is on a good path, especially not if one as a consumer think long term and therefore sees the benefit of fair and open competition.


By stm1185 on 7/15/2011 10:51:20 PM , Rating: 3
Does this ruling affect every smartphone HTC sells or is it Android specific?

Could they take the same handsets, load them with WP7, and a boot loader, then sell them. Then let the consumer, if they want install the Android OS onto the phone themselves?

Id love to see that happen. Then HTC could say something like "Were not selling Android phones, were selling Windows phones, but if the consumer wants to change their OS, that's their business, and who are we to stop them from doing what they want with their hardware. We're not Nazis!"




I can't wait until apple is Jobless ;)
By Mr772 on 7/16/2011 9:25:46 AM , Rating: 1
Thankfully Steve Jobs will be dead/gone soon; once he is out of the way Apple will die off with him. This kind of patent litigation is utter BS. Apple just keeps getting beat by better innovators they refuse to compete in the market and would rather eliminate the competition through a legal patent farce.




By cmdrdredd on 7/16/2011 5:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, once he's gone Apple will really hurt. The problem is...Android phones now have over 1Ghz CPUs, dual core, FM tuner built in, Dolby Surround processing, HDMI out, loads of memory, and are available on every carrier. Apple's iPhone is slower with fewer features and is locked to Verizon and AT&T right now. So they see that more people are buying Android phones and it happens that the HTC EVO directly impacted iPhone 4 sales when it released because Apple failed to have enough available to market. People wanting a good phone and not wanting to wait or stick with AT&T would go elsewhere. Now you have the Evo 3D which is another first for a phone. Basically every Android based phone out there is better than any iPhone model. Maybe not spec wise but there's a lot more to a phone than specs.

Oh and HTC would never tell you that you're holding the phone wrong either. Steve Jobs is a gutless coward and the sooner he dies the better.


Trollface.jpg
By XSpeedracerX on 7/15/2011 7:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
GM Chrysler, is there any computer system in the world that does not 'detect and make operations on data'? Those two patents are so vaguely worded that they could encompass every single computer system on earth!

I really do wish we had a system of flushing out patent trolls and preventing them from manipulating the system to enforce their bullshit patent claims...




How much longer...
By tfk11 on 7/16/2011 1:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
until patent laws are simply no longer upheld...

Hopefully it's sooner rather than later.




By danobrega on 7/16/2011 9:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism | Stephan Kinsella

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY

Educate yourself. The patent system is working against the consumer and even the tax payer.




By BZDTemp on 7/16/2011 10:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple's Plot to Kill Top Android Maker HTC Nears Fruition With Win


Will it hurt HTC if Apple get what they want, yes. But the world is much larger than the US so Apple is not gonna "Kill" anyone by doing this.

If anything Apple is gonna position itself as someone that all others will wanna arm them self against. Companies without huge patent portfolios will try and make friends with those that have and those that have will maybe try and look to damage Apple (And Apple is not even close to having a war chest of patents).

BTW: DT, where are the consumers in all this. Surely it should be interesting to try and speculate what "killing" competition is gonna do to the prices we must pay. Or to the speed of technological advance which competition is so good to increase.




This worth a read
By Tony Swash on 7/16/2011 12:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm honestly more scared of Google
By tayb on 7/17/2011 9:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want to say that I agree with what Apple is doing but I am more scared of a world where Google is our search provider, browser provider, email provider, map provider, document provider, ad provider, social networking provider, and mobile phone OS provider (among others). That scares the crap out of me because Google is already doing some extremely questionable things in my opinion and most of the things I just listed are not to fruition yet.

Most of this stuff is free, for now, but MS has always said they would give away their software to make it the dominant platform. Once it is the dominant platform you can start charging because people NEED to use it. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking Google doesn't see a massive cash cow in the future and a company that controls that many different segments is horribly scary. Way more scary than MS dominating the desktop OS and browser market.

So, while I disagree with this lawsuit, I also hope that something happens to stop the ball rolling towards what I perceive to be a pretty bleak future with our Google overlords.




By jimbojimbo on 7/17/2011 4:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
Since HTC's been making touch screen phones LOOOONG before Apple ever thought of it how about they block every iPhone from every being sold anywhere in the world??




What's ironic here is...
By troysavary on 7/18/2011 7:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
that even if Apple does manage to kill Android through lawsuits, they are not going to be the one to reap the benefit. Many, if not most, of the people using Android would list the fact it isn't Apple as one of the reasons they chose it. MS, HP Palm, and probably even RIM will pick up the Android users who will be looking to avoid Apple even more out of hatred for the killer of their beloved Android.




Bane of patents
By Miqunator on 7/18/2011 2:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
ack, can't someone with a little bit of common sense do some cleanup among all these silly patents. Thought the idea of patents was to help innovation, feels like they do way more to hinder it.

Now if everything a phone does is clearly copied from someone else I can understand the lawsuits but when a few obscure details happens to be the same it should not matter. Walking through a minefield with a half broken metal detector isn't what designing a device should be like.

As mind boggling as the ruling is the people defending Apple, even the zealots should see that it won't make their beloved istuff better; only more expensive (if that's possible)




Apple is the OPEC of tech
By masamasa on 7/18/2011 5:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
A company driven by lack of choice and a my way or the highway attitude with customers. This is just another lame patent squatter lawsuit in a bid to save their behinds since they are losing significant ground to Android.




By skydevil18 on 7/19/2011 7:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
This just made my decision of whether i wanted to buy an iphone or an evo tomorrow. steve jobs looks desperate, like a gold fish that hopped out of the fish bowl from all the excitement. ill go with evo. besides... there would be a lot of pissed off consumers if Apple wins this charade. so much for innovation. i hope they realize how counter-productive and counter-intuitive they are being. reminds me of microsoft.




More Fiction from Mick
By lawrance on 7/22/2011 10:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sheesh Mick... how do you get away with writing such rubbish?

"Apple, Inc. (AAPL) has struggled to compete with Android. Its newest phone is over a year old, and looks badly dated compared to the latest slick Android hardware. And it's being outsold over two-to-one by Android globally, according to market researchers. But Apple has a secret weapon -- litigation."

Apple is struggling to compete with Android? Considering Apple invented the Chicklet style OS that Android ripped off... and Apple is the worlds number one phone maker, I'd say you're quite wrong here.

Apple is doing what any other company with patents would do... PROTECTING THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. I guess because it's Apple though... that makes it evil.

Apple releases one new phone per year. That means stability for me, and stability for 3rd party companies who develop cases and other iPod/iPhone add-ons. My iPhone 4 is far from dated. Care to give some actual examples vs simply spewing out your simple hyperbole?




FITCamaro
By tharik on 7/15/2011 9:08:46 PM , Rating: 1
That is a cool patent you came up with:

"A method of using 1s and 0s to store and process data in a computer system"

You now own the world.

Your humble servent.




Apple
By stephgrenade on 7/16/2011 11:19:28 AM , Rating: 1
Apple sucks. I love my HTC. If Apple wanted to win more customers, they need not feel threatened and come out with something better, and put more free apps up, and put a flash on their camera, and make something that compares to HTC Sense. Till then, Apple is gay.




facepalm
By makius on 7/16/2011 7:36:19 PM , Rating: 1
And just when I thought I couldn't hate Apple any more...




WTF
By Exiled44 on 7/17/2011 1:18:57 PM , Rating: 1
First FUCK Apple! Apple only made smartphones popular that's it! Pretty sad Apple can only file lawsuits about every little thing just to stay in the competition. They are going after HTC only because Apple can't compete with HTC & without HTC Android will take a BIG loss so they are trying to shut down HTC, Moto & Samsung are not up there with HTC yet but Apple has lawsuits against them to because they want to take down ALL Android smartphones & don't want Samsung or Moto to take HTC place in making the best smartphones.Apple is a bunch of BITCHES! They don't want anyone using their features but they want to steal everyone else's features & implement them into their product. If you really look at it Apple is trying to file lawsuits against anyone who has anything to do with Android, like Amazon appstore for the appstore name. Now they have Microsoft teaming up with Apple. I don't think HTC will loose this BS lawsuit, Everyone sees what Apple is trying to do. No one is copying their shotgun looking phone! I'm waiting on Sony to jump in making Android Smartphones not the Playstation phone. Once HTC wins this case, I hope they take DOWN APPLE!




What the?
By piroroadkill on 7/18/2011 3:48:18 AM , Rating: 1
Those patents were so vague and could apply to almost anything.

Come on Apple, you're just sounding like a bunch of cunts now.

HTC has been doing this for longer than Apple, too, so what the hell gives Apple the right to suddenly push them out of the game?




zxczxc
By vciucxx on 7/17/11, Rating: 0
xzxzvxcv
By bishanliu on 7/17/11, Rating: 0
What the f...
By DKantUno on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: What the f...
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 2:59:39 AM , Rating: 3
Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are being so goshdarn mean with their lawsuits, and the courts are being so mean upholding the law and actually siding with them. Leave poor little Google alone!


RE: What the f...
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
xzcvzxc
By nannang on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
Damn you Apple
By icanhascpu on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Damn you Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/2011 3:35:29 PM , Rating: 1
But they should just roll over and let Google pick from and profit their patents just like they do to Microsoft and Oracle. Information wants to be free, plus, Google is so cute. :3


RE: Damn you Apple
By cmdrdredd on 7/16/2011 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 1
No, but they should come out with products that compete in the market instead of just trying to kill off the competition. It isn't HTC's fault that they came out with a 3D phone with a dual core CPU and more memory than the iPhone has. It's also not their fault that they have multiple models of phones on every carrier and offer support for each of them. Apple is trying to lock people down to a phone and OS that is fucking old now. Seriously, the iPhone is so dated it's not even funny.


RE: Damn you Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Damn you Apple
By cjohnson2136 on 7/18/2011 8:03:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
None of that has anything to do with Google acting irresponsibly with regard to their patent production and protection.


There you go. You said it yourself that Apple has no case against HTC. Because it is Google they should be going after. If you have a problem with software go after the software creator not the hardware creator.


Great!!
By macdevdude on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Great!!
By themaster08 on 7/15/2011 7:19:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Hopefully this victory allows it to ban Samsung and Motorola's Android offerings as well.
Funny, in previous posts you were defending the free market. Now Apple is using its market influence to stifle the market that's fine? Hypocrite.


RE: Great!!
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/15/2011 7:18:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Just take one look at their phone in that picture -- it's obvious it's a rip0ff of the iPhone. And Google's Android OS is pretty much a big c0py of iOS.

Apple could sit by and let others steal its work, or it could act to protect its customers, shareholders, and free enterprise.

Hopefully this victory allows it to ban Samsung and Motorola's Android offerings as well.

Then the U.S. can be rid of this trash.

Your comment is flat out despicable. I don't care if its trolling or not.

Apple is trying to kill the free market, not protect it.


RE: Great!!
By hexxthalion on 7/18/2011 10:14:50 AM , Rating: 2
Ha!!! and this comment comes from the author who started this article with BS like this: "Apple, Inc. (AAPL) has struggled to compete with Android." you're troll!


RE: Great!!
By BugblatterIII on 7/15/2011 7:20:04 PM , Rating: 1
I really hope Apple has a patent on trolling...


RE: Great!!
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/15/2011 7:20:05 PM , Rating: 5
You are an idiot, plain and simple.


RE: Great!!
By kenyu73 on 7/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Great!!
By themaster08 on 7/15/2011 7:30:56 PM , Rating: 3
Funny, because the last "ripoff" I've seen was Apple ripping off Android's notification system. The audacity of that vile company is just astounding.


RE: Great!!
By BugblatterIII on 7/15/2011 9:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
They have a patent for a black phone with a flat back. Seriously.


RE: Great!!
By croc on 7/15/2011 7:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
Apple 'innovates', as you say, by marketing a 'wheel that is rounder'. Apple 'invents', as you say, by buying / stealing other people's ideas, then claiming them as their own. Apple is creative when it comes to vague patents and trademarks. No other company (it seems) can word a patent application so creatively that it appears to have invented the wheel AND invented a process to make it rounder. Bad Apple, but worse USPTO for letting these patent applications even in the door, let alone approving them. Bah! So if you Americans want an HTC, maybe you can cut a deal with, say, Pirks...


RE: Great!!
By MartyLK on 7/15/11, Rating: -1