backtop


Print 130 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Mar 9 at 4:42 AM


Did HTC "steal" Apple's patented technology, which includes a patent apparently on a law of nature (P=VI)? HTC responds to the suit with comments.  (Source: Google)
Company tells us it didn't know about the lawsuit until it began reading reports

Yesterday Apple aired a bizarre lawsuit against smart phone maker HTC, who manufactures the hardware for the HTC Hero (Android 1.5) and the Nexus One (Android 2.1).  The suit seeks to block the import of the phones from Taiwan.  In the suit Apple claims to have invented, among other things, cell phone CPU undervolting, object oriented graphics on a cell phone, touch screen unlocking, and multi-touch gesture control.

We contacted HTC for their response and today an HTC spokesperson filled us in with some details.  The suit struck them by complete surprise.  They write, "HTC only learned of Apple’s actions this morning via media reports, and therefore we have not yet had the opportunity to investigate the filings. Until we have had this opportunity, we are unable to comment on the validity of the claims being made against HTC."

They also indicate that they will likely fight the suit, commenting, "HTC values patent rights and their enforcement but is also committed to defending its own technology innovations."

In their response to us, they noted their focus is on creating great products like the Nexus One, not on litigation.  They comment, "HTC is a mobile technology innovator and patent holder that has been very focused over the past 13 years on creating many of the most innovative smartphones."

It is somewhat surprising that Apple received some of the patents in question, such as the patent on "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor".  When you peel away the technical language, the patent basically is talking about saving power by supplying less voltage to a circuit and some common strategies to do as such.  Not only has that been seemingly done before (prior art), but it also is inherently given by laws of nature (power = current * voltage).  If that's patentable, the general concept of die shrinks should be patentable, overclocking would be patentable (watch out, Anandtech.com!), and a whole host of other processes made possible by laws of nature should be patentable as well.

Nobody thought Apple would sue; they figured it would simply sit on the patents as they were too tenuous and there was too great a risk of its competitors being able to establish proof of prior art.  However, sue it did.  Apple is obviously wary of an advancing Android phone army and feels confident that it can kill HTC's smart phones in court.

Now comes a critical test of American patent system and how supportive it is of Apple's very broad claims.  That test could determine HTC's smart phone fate in America, in the long run.  For now, though, its sales are safe (patent disputes typically take a year or more to be resolved in court).


Comments     Threshold


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

Obligatory
By Kromis on 3/3/2010 3:36:02 PM , Rating: 5
Fuck Apple




RE: Obligatory
By Sazabi19 on 3/3/2010 3:45:15 PM , Rating: 5
Now now, don't hold back at all, tell us what you really think ^.^


RE: Obligatory
By therealnickdanger on 3/3/2010 3:56:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
tell us what you really think


Sorry to break it to you, but I just checked with the patent office. Apparently, Apple patented the act of thinking differently quite some time ago. Be advised, any and all brain activity henceforth may be in violation.


RE: Obligatory
By reader1 on 3/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obligatory
By therealnickdanger on 3/3/2010 4:15:21 PM , Rating: 5
^

Give it up, reader1. I give you credit for trying to use as little thought as possible in formulating that paragraph, but Apple is just too big, you can't fight them.


RE: Obligatory
By reader1 on 3/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obligatory
By Bateluer on 3/3/2010 4:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
How could you easily crush Apple, I wonder?

Apple didn't actually develop any of the technologies listed in their patents, lets not forget that. They were all in use well before the iPhone was a twinkle in an engineer's eye.


RE: Obligatory
By mcnabney on 3/3/2010 4:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
That would be a flop of T-Mobile. The expensive device didn't have much of a market at T-Mobile which is known for being affordable (and a tiny network). Wait until it hits Verizon in a few weeks.
Of course it will have to compete against three other Android devices at Verizon - the Droid, Eris, and Motorola's new Devour.


RE: Obligatory
By reader1 on 3/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obligatory
By cheetah2k on 3/3/2010 5:29:41 PM , Rating: 5
Stop blowing Jobs...


RE: Obligatory
By petrosy on 3/3/2010 5:35:44 PM , Rating: 5
The only reason the iPhone is currently a decent piece of equipment is because of Android. They have been developing new stuff to keep the competition at bay. However with Android 2.1 and the new version already in development... Apple can no longer keep up. The may even have hit the ceiling of what a singled button mono tasking toy can do. So their only option is to sue.

I hope S. Jobs liver sues him for being such a douche!


RE: Obligatory
By ajdavis on 3/3/2010 6:27:07 PM , Rating: 4
The first iPhone didn't support 3g... so I doubt AT&T being "the best" 3g provider was a factor.


RE: Obligatory
By 3minence on 3/3/2010 8:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, you got me. I really thought you believed what you were writing but now I can see their is no connection. You write whatever you think will annoy people. Is this a test to see how quickly you can get banned? Or do you simply like annoying people?


RE: Obligatory
By tedrodai on 3/4/2010 7:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why people rate ALL your posts down. We all need to laugh a few times a day.


RE: Obligatory
By pizan on 3/4/2010 3:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
So they are easy to find just look for an Apple article and red comments it's either Priks or him, but Priks at least answers back with with an argument not just "You are wong!!!!"


RE: Obligatory
By wiz220 on 3/4/2010 1:14:41 PM , Rating: 1
Come on guys, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!


RE: Obligatory
By alanore on 3/3/2010 6:53:03 PM , Rating: 4
Honestly reader1, the Nexus one is a 'built to order' phone for Google, which is why its called the Google Nexus one, not the HTC Nexus one. Its built to Googles specification, if you want to say that Google is some small piece-of-shit company, then more fool you!

This is a mickey mouse lawsuit that carries no weight. The only thing it shows it Apple are scared of HTC. Most of these patents were filed retrospectively and fail because of the prior art clause, in most cases I could personal prove prior art.

Just out of intrest why do you choose to waste hours of your life defending a multi-billion company. I could never do that!

This post was sponsored by ExxonMobil, taking on the world's toughest energy challenges.


RE: Obligatory
By 3minence on 3/3/2010 8:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
I hope what you said about this suit failing because of prior art is true, but I'm afraid it will succeed. The US court system is out of it's league when dealing with modern technology. It has always been said the first victim of a lawsuit is the truth, but its even worse today. Judges and juries have no understanding of technology, the laws are poorly written or written for a different time, age. I hope Apple fails, but it may not.

On a different note, I see they didn't take on Palm. Probably because Apple has violated far more of Palm IP then Palm has violated of theirs.


RE: Obligatory
By SteveIsMyiConArtist on 3/3/2010 9:15:32 PM , Rating: 4
This is kind of like the child suing the father because the father violated the child's patent on how to have sex.

How many people knew that HTC is the world's #1 innovator of high-end smart phones, years before the iCrap came out ? CrApple has no engineers - just marketing and fArtists. In fact HTC might be one of the many subcontractors for iCrap products which simply get relabled with the crApple logo. Like most Taiwanese companies, their products get re-branded as HP, Android, crApple etc. or under a phone carrier's name.

Unfortunately, Apple has it in with the Media and has moles in the government/court system so this fiasco might actually get serious attention.


RE: Obligatory
By arjunp2085 on 3/4/2010 5:24:29 AM , Rating: 1
"READER1" Please go and FUCK APPLE

PROCESSOR UNDERVALUING HAS BEEN AVAILABLE SINCE THE DAYS OF PENTIUM4

If this patent has any value in the first place it has to be With processor companies... the LIKES of INTEL AMD ARM..

NOT WITH PATENT TROLL "APPLE"

Read up before posting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_management


RE: Obligatory
By frobizzle on 3/4/2010 8:06:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A talented company could fight Apple. I could easily crush Apple. HTC can't, though, because their a piece-of-shit company without a single original idea. The flop of the Nebula One is proof of that.

I think reader1 just demonstrated therealnickdanger's point, beyond a reasonable doubt by posting without using any brain activity at all!
quote:
Sorry to break it to you, but I just checked with the patent office. Apparently, Apple patented the act of thinking differently quite some time ago. Be advised, any and all brain activity henceforth may be in violation.


RE: Obligatory
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/4/2010 9:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you, a single loser on the interwebs, will crush Apple.

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Please

/me rolls eyes


RE: Obligatory
By redbone75 on 3/3/2010 6:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Give it up, reader1. I give you credit for trying to use as little thought as possible in formulating that paragraph, but Apple is just too big, you can't fight them.

That's just the thing: he's trying to use as little thought as possible so as not to be in violation of Apple's patents on thinking differently.


RE: Obligatory
By fearrun on 3/3/2010 7:32:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
, but Apple is just too big


to Fail?

Obviously not financially. More likely in the following sense.

The way a few outspoken voices speak of Apple's reputation, seems to cast the company in such bright and glorious light as if it were heaven on Earth and the deity himself bestows great wisdom upon his people, showing them that all is good and right in the kingdom.

Its as if Apple can do no wrong and any words uttered from its protuberance (That word seems to fit.) are the only truth and none shall doubt the word of Steve Jobs. Apple does not innovate, they here the word it is written and the prophecy is presented to the masses.

Apple should consider turning into a non-profit religious organization. All purchases of products are actually donations and the followers receive tools of worship for their great patronage.


RE: Obligatory
By CZroe on 3/3/2010 4:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, they indicate that it is only available online through a single online retailer (direct from Google). The iPhone is available at Wal-Mart for crying out loud.

It's an experiment. The success of Android does not hinge on it. Also, it's not HTC's only Android phone (far from it) and you would need to weight the sales of all Android phones to draw the conclusions you draw (or at least those from HTC to claim that it is consumer response *to them*).


RE: Obligatory
By Fracture on 3/3/2010 4:22:42 PM , Rating: 5
Execution counts more than originality. If someone's doing the same thing you're doing better, you should kick yourself for having had more time to get it right(being the first to do it, after all). If it weren't for these "followers" as you call them, we'd still have computers that fill entire rooms, CRT TVs, and they'd never go down in price.


RE: Obligatory
By sigilscience on 3/3/2010 4:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Great post. You deserve a 5, not the 1 you have.


RE: Obligatory
By yomamafor1 on 3/3/2010 4:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Just another Apple fanboy demonstrating how little he knows about the subject he's desperately trying to argue.


RE: Obligatory
By jabberwolf on 3/3/2010 4:25:01 PM , Rating: 5
Yes...
HTC copied the idea of pinching.. which is to make smaller.
Or HTC decided to use less voltage which would conserve energy.. oh apple did that too.. So Apple must have invented it!

Sorry you must be trying to think but cant quite do it on your own, maybe apple invented thinking. You should go to them for that because apparently they'll tell you they invented that too.

Apple does NOTHING to innovate and everything to repackage and create propaganda to pretend they "invented something".

Only the automatons like you think that no one else works hard or invents things.

WinMo and multitasking for 8 years now buddy - something iPhone still has issues with - how's THAT for innovation.


RE: Obligatory
By hiscross on 3/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obligatory
By afkrotch on 3/3/2010 10:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Just an OS with lots of features doesn't make you the best. Hence why OSX or Linux can't beat Windows.


RE: Obligatory
By Cerin218 on 3/5/2010 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 1
Because Microsoft hasn't done crap to innovate it since V5. But do some looking around and take a look at WinMo7. After having a ZuneHD, if they would turn that into a phone and get some actual apps in their marketplace, I would say that they would likely make a resurgence.


RE: Obligatory
By Cerin218 on 3/5/2010 12:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
The iPad is super revolutionary. I mean who would have thought by purchasing the laser from "Honey, I Blew Up the Kids" and putting an iPhone in front of it you would have gotten the iPad?
A touchscreen? Revolutionary. Tablet size? Revolutionary. No Multitasking? Revolutionary. Uses the same apps as the iPhone? Revolutionary? Etc..

And a patent on Pinching? What's next? We patent common sense? How much innovation and product creation we would have in the world if we just outlawed patents and copyrights.


RE: Obligatory
By fifolo on 3/3/2010 4:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
wipe your chin


RE: Obligatory
By themaster08 on 3/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obligatory
By ICBM on 3/3/2010 5:01:07 PM , Rating: 3
Guys, reader1 is just making this stuff up to get a rise out of everyone. I don't think he believes a word he saying.


RE: Obligatory
By Camikazi on 3/3/2010 6:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, I have a feeling he is being completely honest and that is what he believes.


RE: Obligatory
By Pirks on 3/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obligatory
By Hieyeck on 3/4/2010 9:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think you have 'comment thread' confused with 'forum'.

You do remember clicking that 'Post Comment' button, eh?


RE: Obligatory
By Low Key on 3/4/2010 2:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why this got rated down, it is so true. reader1 is one of the most entertaining parts of my day. The same goes for Pirks.


RE: Obligatory
By MrPoletski on 3/9/2010 4:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
No, you've all been trolled you goddamned idiots.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.


RE: Obligatory
By PrezWeezy on 3/3/2010 5:19:18 PM , Rating: 1
So...what was HTC doing prior to 2007? The iPhone hasn't been out that long, and HTC has been around for a while. They state 13 years. Who did they follow before Apple made a smart phone?


RE: Obligatory
By Roy2001 on 3/3/2010 5:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Thank god Apple did not invent Computer.


RE: Obligatory
By xaders on 3/3/2010 9:19:02 PM , Rating: 1
are you kidding me!!!! "mult-touch" is another name for touchscreen and been around for 10+ years now. this is no different then a year ago with apple wanted to sue palm over the palm pre "multi-touch" phone.
(http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-t...

apple has another lawsuit by from nokia but on GSM network. (http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-...

in the end. patent, copyright, trademarks model is out of date and need to be reformed or redo. it is stupid for all the lawsuit, court case. It comes down to money because just like with "genes" once from 60 minutes.


RE: Obligatory
By ReaderI on 3/4/2010 12:13:29 AM , Rating: 1
HTC improved on the iPhone. Apple likely has a weak case here, judging by the character of the two companies. Apple is becoming the lazy, talentless follower, while HTC is the hard-working, adventurous innovator. HTC will be doing the world a favor by putting Apple out of business. The low Nexus One sales indicate people learned their lesson with the iPhone and are just waiting for it to appear on a good network like Verizon. People don't want another Apple closed system mess.


RE: Obligatory
By Danish1 on 3/4/2010 5:39:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
HTC is the lazy, talentless follower, while Apple is the hard-working, adventurous risk-taker.


Steve says something else.

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


RE: Obligatory
By Aloonatic on 3/4/2010 7:31:11 AM , Rating: 1
IMO, low Nexus 1 (and other) sales probably have more to do with the fact that Apple got in early, and as such have secured a lot of the people who actually want a smart-phone in nice long 18/24 month contracts. A lot of people really don't care about smart-phones and just want a phone, so wont be interested in an iPhone/HTC smart-phone/RIM device either.

Wait a little while, and when the people who have an iPhone now (as it was really the only smart-phone to have when their contracts came up last time) are out of contract and able to choose between an iPhone and a Nexus x/Desire etc, you might see a change in Apple's fortunes.

Of course, where Apple are clever is that all those apps and such that current iPhone users have down-loaded will only work on their devices, making it harder to switch teams.

Basically, there is more than the quality of the hardware that has an affect on it's success/sales figures. The fact that many of the smart-phone buying public are locked into long contracts and have bought into Apple's whole system inc apps/iTunes, which makes the cost of changing to HTC/Whoever a factor, will affect how many HTC devices get sold. Then add in the fact that there are many Android/WinMo devices and you can see that regardless of how good HTC's products are, their sales may be affected by issues other than how good HTC are at making phones/devices.


RE: Obligatory
By weskurtz0081 on 3/4/2010 9:22:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In the suit Apple claims to have invented, among other things, cell phone CPU undervolting, object oriented graphics on a cell phone, touch screen unlocking, and multi-touch gesture control.


So, you are telling me that no one else can undervolt a cell phone CPU, no one else can have object oriented graphics (is that an icon?), no one can have touch screen unlocking, and no one can have multi-touch gesture control?

So, no matter HOW another company accomplishes these same tasks, you don't think they should be able to do it? You do understand exactly WHAT a patent protects right? Why don't you start off by telling me what exactly a patent protects.....


RE: Obligatory
By Aloonatic on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obligatory
By Aloonatic on 3/4/2010 9:43:52 AM , Rating: 2
lol, only jokin' you guys, although, was I a little too close to the mark for some?

So much Apple hate here, it's rather sad really. :(


RE: Obligatory
By reader1 on 3/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obligatory
By Bateluer on 3/3/2010 4:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
Do you ever wonder why you're posts are always rated down? HTC makes some great phones, the Hero and N1 are excellent devices. The Hero, including the Sprint and Verizon variants, as sold rather well and by all reviews its an excellent device. The N1, on the other hand, got off to a slow start because of its launch on T-Mobile while there were strong indications that it was coming to Verizon very soon.

Most G1 owners loved it as well.


RE: Obligatory
By dajeepster on 3/3/2010 3:53:55 PM , Rating: 3
+1

omg.. dailytech is calling "+1" spam.... lol


RE: Obligatory
By omnicronx on 3/3/2010 4:55:48 PM , Rating: 3
This lawsuit does not even make sense.. Of the 20 patents that Apple claims HTC infringed upon, only a few actually relate to HTC, the rest have to do with OS level components i.e Android/Google. They also name non android non multitouch devices such as the WinMo powered Touch Pro and Diamond.

What on earth is Apple thinking? They could seriously be opening a big can of worms here. They are treading on thin ice here, HTC is both Androids and Microsoft's biggest partner right now.


RE: Obligatory
By jasonlee on 3/3/2010 6:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
then ditch her.


RE: Obligatory
By masamasa on 3/3/2010 7:29:33 PM , Rating: 3
Totally agree.

Will never buy their products. I can't stand their we own the world and you need to buy whatever we say attitude.


RE: Obligatory
By SteveIsMyiConArtist on 3/3/2010 9:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
This is kind of like the child suing the father because the father violated the child's patent on how to have sex.

How many people knew that HTC is the world's #1 innovator of high-end smart phones, years before the iCrap came out? CrApple has no engineers - just marketing and fArtists. In fact HTC might be one of the many subcontractors for iCrap products which simply get relabled with the crApple logo. Like most Taiwanese companies, their products get re-branded as HP, Android, crApple etc. or under a phone carrier's name.

Unfortunately, Apple has it in with the Media and has moles in the government/court system so this fiasco might actually get serious attention.


RE: Obligatory
By magneticfield on 3/4/2010 3:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
6 please!


RE: Obligatory
By muckymuck on 3/8/2010 1:11:21 PM , Rating: 1
ditto... fuck apple.
Sorry folks but crApple has patent on all my thinking and the only words they have not patented is: FUCK APPLE

This site is a good source of humor and am laughing my ass off... hey, keep it light and don't get so serious about shit like crApple.
They will be out of business one day... yup, you read it here first.


Frivolous litigation / patent
By Lanister on 3/3/2010 3:38:33 PM , Rating: 5
Are there any laws on the books that would allow Apple to be fined or sued for fileing a frivolous patent or in regards to the lawsuit they filed against HTC?

It really bothers me that a company or person can file these frivolous patents / law suits and tax payers money and the legal systems time is wasted in regards to the man hours used to process the patent and law suit. At the very least Apple should have to pay for the Judges, and patent clerks time...

To me it seems like Apple decided they have lawyers on the books so they may as well make them do some work so they create these legal situations that are just a big waste of time because it doesnt cost them anything to do so.




RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By rules on 3/3/2010 3:51:41 PM , Rating: 3
don't hate the player... hate the game! the patent system has run amuck


RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By 9nails on 3/3/2010 4:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
Patents make money for the patent office. If I could I'd patent the exchanging of ideas through the use and combination of 26 letters forming whole words, but I don't have enough money to give the government...


By mcnabney on 3/3/2010 4:44:45 PM , Rating: 3
Patent office actually loses money. You would not believe the kind of crap they deal with. Unfortunately our system as evolved toward the grant-it-now/let-the-courts-deal-with-it plan. Not a great plan.


RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By Fracture on 3/3/2010 4:17:06 PM , Rating: 5
You're looking for Anti-SLAPP laws. California has some, now we just need some national level ones. This is going to hurt Apple, since all of these "patents" are not only obvious and non-innovative, but some also have prior-art in the public domain.

Man I'd love a job in the USPTO. Catch up on sleep, 3 hour lunches, and absolutely no accountability for my work.


RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By sigilscience on 3/3/2010 4:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
You have any IDEA what a patent clerk makes?

(bonus points for the first person to name the quote...)


RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By 67STANG on 3/3/2010 6:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
As of 2009:

$41,350-$153,200/yr. (depending on job role and time in)

http://apps.opm.gov/SSR/tables/StaticFiles/SrText/...

Overall, not a bad clip for a government job. Still nothing to write home about, however.


RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By 67STANG on 3/3/2010 6:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, that was a link to 2007's salaries.

2009:
http://apps.opm.gov/SSR/tables/StaticFiles/SrText/...


By Chernobyl68 on 3/3/2010 7:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ray's reply to Egon, in Ghostbusters:
"You're always so concerned about your reputation. Einstein did some of his best stuff when he was working as a patent clerk."
"Do you know how much a patent clerk earns?"
"No!"


RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By heavydevelopment on 3/3/2010 5:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
SLAPP doesn't apply to patent law. It's more related to freedom of speech issues and defense against a suit to get a defendant to remove statements from a public forum or write a retraction. Boing Boing Gadgets just used this defense against Magic Jack and won just recently.

BTW, do you know someone that works at the USPTO? I do and he works just as hard as anyone. If anything they are overworked and it's one of the reasons patents get green lighted when they should have more scrutiny. He also received a doctorate degree in biology from UCLA--so he not dumb. It's the system in place and not the cogs in the system. Also some of the burden falls on the courts and having the expertise to rule on these cases. This is not an easy fix as to saying people in the USPTO should work harder. It's extremely complex and one of the reasons it has not been addressed.....but it needs to be.


RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By porkpie on 3/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 2:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
I see the US postal workers are out voting today :)


By jabberwolf on 3/3/2010 4:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think Apple has the patent on suing for frivolous patents!

I'm joking but maybe Apple really has tried to apply for that too!


RE: Frivolous litigation / patent
By Ard on 3/3/2010 4:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
A defendant's attorney can always make an application for sanctions and damages against a party for filing a frivolous lawsuit or a lawsuit intended to harass. Every attorney has an ethical obligation to the court to only bring forth claims of which a good-faith based argument can be made on the merits. If Apple's attorneys know of prior art, or, worse, know that HTC isn't actually infringing their patents, this would clearly be a frivolous suit ripe for sanctions.

The thing that's going to prevent a finding that Apple is proceeding with a frivolous suit, is Apple already has a number of patents approved by the USPTO that would appear to overlap with the functionality found in HTC phones. Those registrations in and of themselves, are prima facie evidence of the validity of the patents and the simple fact that it appears that they overlap (again, this presumes that Apple's attorneys legitimately think there is infringement) is enough to bring suit.


By frobizzle on 3/4/2010 8:15:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Every attorney has an ethical obligation to the court to only bring forth claims of which a good-faith based argument can be made on the merits.

Attorney and ethical obligation is an oxymoron!


Why are they suing HTC?
By cochy on 3/3/2010 3:48:47 PM , Rating: 3
Shouldn't they be suing Google as all the features are supplied by the operating system?




RE: Why are they suing HTC?
By Bateluer on 3/3/2010 4:37:23 PM , Rating: 3
They can't sue Google. 1)Google has the cash reserves to defend themselves for years in court. HTC is a handset maker, where the profit margins are razor thin. HTC does not charge customers a 100% premium like Apple does. 2) Google has their own impressive set of IP, a number of which is utilized by Apple and the iPhone. Removing all the Google applications, IP, and tools from the iPhone would restrict it even more. 3) Google would fight back hard if Apple filed suit against them and, as I said, they have the resources to defend themselves.


RE: Why are they suing HTC?
By omnicronx on 3/3/2010 5:04:40 PM , Rating: 5
Go look at the patents in question, they surely are going after Google here using HTC as a proxy.

HTC does not have the proper IP to protect themselves, so Apple can completely sidestep Google and not have to worry about a counter-suit.

This is not merely about multitouch patents, in fact only 2 of the 20 are speficically linked to it, almost all the patents have to do with low level OS components. So unless HTC's implementation is far different than Googles other phones (which I doubt they are), this is nothing but Apple being a bully.

Can't take on someone you own size? Why not go after the little guy.. I used to hate Apple because they were overpriced, but a move like this really ticks me off.. From this day on I am officially an Apple hater!


RE: Why are they suing HTC?
By dome1234 on 3/4/2010 9:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
an apple a day keeps doctors away.

Because you're broke.


RE: Why are they suing HTC?
By jRaskell on 3/8/2010 7:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
HTC does not have the proper IP to protect themselves, so Apple can completely sidestep Google and not have to worry about a counter-suit.


They may not have to worry about a counter-suit, but there's nothing stopping Google from taking initiative on their own if it looks like things are going badly for HTC. That may very well happen as well considering it's pretty obvious that Apple's whole intent here is to establish a foundation against the little guy before turning their sights on their real competition.


By lainofthewired on 3/4/2010 2:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Start at the "bottom" and work your way up, huh?


In the immortal words...
By Anoxanmore on 3/3/2010 3:53:37 PM , Rating: 3
After the law suit fails
Apple: THEY DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Google: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.




RE: In the immortal words...
By Wyveryx on 3/3/2010 4:30:43 PM , Rating: 1
"Hello, my name is the Apple iPhone, you killed my market share. Prepare to DIE!"


RE: In the immortal words...
By cheetah2k on 3/3/2010 5:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sword fight!!!

<got to love The Princess Bride - all time fav movie>


RE: In the immortal words...
By albundy2 on 3/4/2010 5:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
seriously?


RE: In the immortal words...
By Anoxanmore on 3/4/2010 8:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
Super Cereal. :D


Focus on facts & not on fanboyism
By crystal clear on 3/3/2010 6:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
The article vaguely refers to patents but fails to give a detailed list of patents that Apple claims is theirs....half knowledge is bad.

They are as follows-

The 10 patents in question in the ITC complaint include:

5481721: Method for Providing Automatic and Dynamic Translation of Object Oriented Programming Language-Based Message Passing Into Operating System Message Passing Using Proxy Objects
5519867: Object-Oriented Multitasking System
6275983: Object-Oriented Operating System
5566337: Method and Apparatus for Distributing Events in an Operating System
5929852: Encapsulated Network Entity Reference of a Network Component System
5946647: System and Method for Performing an Action on a Structure in Computer-Generated Data
5969705: Message Protocol for Controlling a User Interface from an Inactive Application Program
6343263: Real-Time Signal Processing System for Serially Transmitted Data
5915131: Method and Apparatus for Handling I/O Requests Utilizing Separate Programming Interfaces to Access Separate I/O Services
RE39486: Extensible, Replaceable Network Component Systems

There is NO place for fanboyism here -its a legal issue & let the court decide on this.

Out of court settlement is the best option for everybody to move on, instead being stuck in legal wranglings for years.




RE: Focus on facts & not on fanboyism
By InternetGeek on 3/4/2010 12:45:50 AM , Rating: 3
I read some of the patents and it seems to me that apple tried to patent basic software engineering principles that have been in use for over 30 years.

5481721 is basically describing the mechanism under which web services, remoting, dcom and even unix's pipes & filters have worked for years. Either remotely or not. I can give you a link to the basic pattern description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_pattern

Apple cannot have a patent for 5519867 and/or 5519867 because Unix, Windows (in general), DEC, Solarix, Linux and other OS's of the same type are Object-Oriented Operating Systems, some of these existed/exist since before Apple was incorporated. Again prior art and pre-existing patents will null Apple's. Same goes for 5566337.

5929852. OS/2, Windows 3.1 and other graphical OS's did this before the patent was filed.

5946647. Refers to standard software engineering patterns. Existing for along time and widely available in textbooks. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish/subscribe and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-Driven_Messagin...

5969705. Check the prior point.

fanboyism or not, those patents don't really make sense.



By porkpie on 3/4/2010 8:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
"5481721 is basically describing the mechanism under which web services, remoting...have worked for years."

It was also filed in 1994.

"5929852. OS/2, Windows 3.1 and other graphical OS's did this before the patent was filed...5946647. Refers to standard software engineering patterns...."

Again, I think you're reading the claims, not the patent description. There's a big difference.


By crystal clear on 3/4/2010 10:18:06 AM , Rating: 2
I would not recommend & neither use wikipedia as a source to base my arguments when it comes to patents.

Rather read the patent itself from a link like this below-

http://www.google.com/patents?id=7d4aAAAAEBAJ&prin...

Read this- (download the pdf for more detailed explanations)

Patent number: 5481721
Filing date: Oct 31, 1994
Issue date: Jan 2, 1996
Inventors: Bertrand Serlet, Lee Boynton, Avadis Tevanian
Assignees: NeXT Computer, Inc.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=7d4aAAAAEBA...

Also go to the Arstechnica on the link below where every patent quoted will link you further down the patent path for more details.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/apples-i...

Also from the above link-

Apple states in its complaint that these patents have some litigation history and that a number of companies (the list of which is redacted as confidential) license these technologies. The federal case, in contrast, requests the 10 patents listed in the suit be declared as valid, suggesting they have yet to be tested in court.

One tidbit that caught our eye in the ITC complaint is that NeXT remains a separate, wholly owned subsidiary of Apple. Both Apple and NeXT are named as complaintants.



As quoted earlier by me -

"its a legal issue & let the court decide on this".

Out of court settlement is the best option for everybody to move on, instead being stuck in legal wranglings for years.


Wonder if...
By kamel5547 on 3/3/2010 3:34:42 PM , Rating: 3
This is all to distract from their announcement that they found child labor was made to make their products. A good "war" distract from unfavorable facts.




RE: Wonder if...
By Bioniccrackmonk on 3/3/2010 3:40:43 PM , Rating: 3
Its called misdirection, and Apple nailed it perfectly.


RE: Wonder if...
By sigilscience on 3/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wonder if...
By 67STANG on 3/3/2010 7:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
You mean wag-the-Jobs.


Seriously?
By heavydevelopment on 3/3/2010 4:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
Like where have you been?

"It is somewhat surprising that Apple received some of the patents in question, such as the patent on "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor". When you peel away the technical language, the patent basically is talking about saving power by supplying less voltage to a circuit and some common strategies to do so. Not only has that been seemingly done before (prior art), but it also is inherently given by laws of nature (power = current * voltage). If that's patentable, the general concept of die shrinks should be patentable, overclocking would be patentable (watch out Anandtech.com!), and a whole host of other processes made possible by laws of nature."

This is an ongoing and well documented issue for years. But companies are still receiving patents and winning in court. Apple has been the recipient of being sued on many occasions--so they know the game. I'm going to bet that this gets filed in Texas where the federal courts have been shown to be more favorable to the patent holders (or maybe thats where the stupid people live).

The thing is that in the prelim hearings they will ask for an injunction to stop the importation until this gets resolved. So even if they don't win this whole thing in court but can get granted an injunction for a couple months to a year, it's a win. Patent troll companies pull this maneuver all the time to get companies to settle. Apple isn't looking for settlement. They are looking to stop the importation of hardware. Shrewd move.

Hello? Microsoft was been using patents as a weapon for years. One of the most obvious examples was the patent violations that supposedly Linux committed. But IBM pulled the same thing years ago when it was the tech powerhouse it once was.

Until the patent system gets fixed, you will continue to see more of this....




RE: Seriously?
By porkpie on 3/3/2010 5:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't read the patent, did you? It's obvious Jason didn't either (not that this surprises me).

It's not just about "lowering voltage to a circuit", it relates to a scheme by which a circuit is monitored to know when processing is not necessary, so that voltage can be reduced to the point that processing isn't possible, but state information is retained. Is that worthy of a patent? Was that innovative back in 2002 when this was filed? I won't offer an opinion, but its far different than what Jason describes.

Honestly, I think Jason just skimmed the claims, and wasn't bright enough to realize the claims aren't the invention itself.


RE: Seriously?
By bhieb on 3/3/2010 5:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
Of course Jason didn't read it, just look at the oh so clever way he transitions from an HTC quote to a paragraph that is his own personal rant.

quote:
They comment, "HTC is a mobile technology innovator and patent holder that has been very focused over the past 13 years on creating many of the most innovative smartphones."

It is somewhat surprising that Apple received some of the patents in question, such as the patent on "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor". When you peel away the technical language, ....


Trying to disguise what is obviously a rant by the author into something actually legit. I wonder if

Micks_personal_soapbox_and_opinions_desguised_as_ news.com

redirects to DT. Since that is what 90% of the stuff he posts is a, wee pinch of "news" thrown together with truckload of bias/opinion.


RE: Seriously?
By zsdersw on 3/4/2010 10:08:14 AM , Rating: 2
Screw off. If you don't like it, don't read it. No one's forcing you to go to Anandtech or Dailytech.


Can we sue Dailytech...
By Crucial on 3/3/2010 3:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
for nonexistent proofreading?
quote:
In the suit Apple claims to have invented, among other things to have invented cell phone CPU undervolting, object oriented graphics on a cell phone, touch screen unlocking, and multi-touch gesture control.

quote:
In their response to us, they noted their focus in on creating great products like the Nexus One, not on litigation.

quote:
Not only has then been seemingly done before (prior art), but it also is inherently given by laws of nature (power = current * voltage).

quote:
That test will could determine HTC's smart phone fate in America, in the long run, though for now its sales are safe (patent disputes typically take a year or more to be resolved in court).




RE: Can we sue Dailytech...
By xpax on 3/3/2010 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
DUDE... While those are all errors, the headline itself is the worst!

Apple's Wild iPhone Patent Attack Took HTC by Suprise

What's a "Suprise"?


Apple just doing Microsoft's bidding
By BobT on 3/3/2010 9:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
I am shocked at you people. Bad mouthing Apple when it is obvious that they are simply doing this for Microsoft. Several of you have come close to putting the pieces together but you just didn't get that last piece in the right place.

This isn't about HTC and the iPhone at all. It isn't about Apple attempting to shore up it's golden goose the iPhone and its App market. It is plain as the nose on your face. Take a good look. Where did the Android operating system come from? No, you fools, it didn't come from Google. It is Linux.

Who wants Linux out of the picture? Microsoft does. But they can't afford to make too many waves being convicted of being a monopoly so they send their whipping boy in to do it for them. Have a little sympathy for Apple they are only doing this as a favor to Microsoft.




By Deatin on 3/4/2010 3:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
So you missed the fact that Apple has sued HTC also for the phones that use Windows Mobile? Guess MS is just trying to hide the fact that they are behind it all with that then...conspiracy theories ftw!


A little balance please
By DKant on 3/4/2010 3:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
Just read a couple of excellent articles that go further in-depth about the patents:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-t...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-...

After reading the lowdown on the patents actually being contested, I'd say those who think algorithm patents are A-OK should take a look at these. Things like object-oriented operating system etc should not be patentable one bit.

Come to UI though and I think Apple should have a right to defend some of it. Maybe not through patents but trademark and copyright filings, but the look of the iPhone, with its bezel and how the icons are presented etc SHOULD be protectable in my view, since that is the only way this product can distinguish itself from others.

As for actual interaction patents (like gestures etc) its a mixed ground. Obvious stuff like tap-to-launch should NOT be patentable - how else DO you interact with a touch-device? On the other hand I'd say Apple has every right to protect more specific stuff and gestures like 'bounce-after-scrolling', or pinch-to-zoom -> if they invented it. Higher-level things like that are a legitimate way for them to differentiate themselves from the competition and for that reason alone, it should be protectable if only for a short period of around 3-4 years. Plus there are other ways to implement scrolling or zooming so it wouldn't stifle competition - although it could make them look less pretty. :)

However, it is tough to decide what software patents cross the line and what don't. Clearly this job should have been done for us by the patent office, but I would assume they are not partial in exercising their indifference. So since everybody has got mud to throw at others, why can't one of them be Apple? *shrug*

While it's a lawsuit of 'mixed validity' in my eyes, there is no need to paint Apple as the villain and HTC as the puppy-eyed victim here. If the tables were turned and HTC were to own a zillion of these patents and were suing Apple, I'm sure there would be awfully loud cheering. So much for objectivity.

It is funny though how Apple is gradually becoming Microsoft-like in its ability to attract (often-needless) anonymous online hate. Even Google is slowly trudging down that path. Sure every company and their products have got their problems and these should definitely be discussed objectively, but I rarely see a hint of that online (although, what did I expect?) I guess one doesn't really have a choice BUT to pay a (sometimes unfair) price for becoming big.

And btw, journalists should never EVER editorialise NEWS. A cardinal sin being ignored in the age of "MUST POST IMMEDIATELY!" *SSSSIP*COFFEE*




RE: A little balance please
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 8:47:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And btw, journalists should never EVER editorialise NEWS. A cardinal sin being ignored in the age of "MUST POST IMMEDIATELY!" *SSSSIP*COFFEE*
Hear, hear!


Is Jason a hit-whore and/or a Windows fanboy?
By dcarlton1 on 3/4/2010 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
It seems Jason consistently puts a significantly anti-Apple spin on every article he writes.
This diminishes the reputation of DailyTech.
Is Jason a hit-whore and/or a Windows fanboy?
I rarely read his articles because they are not responsible journalism.




By Celestion on 3/4/2010 4:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
There is no "anti-apple spin" in this article. Greedy Apple is being an ass. There is no way around it. To write this article without casting Apple in a bad light would be to diminish its truth.


@Celestion - " Steve Jobs is an Ass"
By dcarlton1 on 3/4/2010 5:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Your sentiment indicates you are not a well person.
I recommend psychiatric help.




By Celestion on 3/4/2010 9:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
lol (gnaws arm off whilst play with fire).


I love my
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/3/2010 3:32:13 PM , Rating: 3
Android




Apple Sues HTC
By Pala98 on 3/3/2010 5:40:29 PM , Rating: 3
Our Father, who art in Cupertino Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL 209.33, +0.48, 0.23%) be Thy Name, thy Lawyers come, thy will be done, on Taiwan as it is in Cupertino.

Give us this day our daily breath And forgive us our innovation, as we forgive those who compete against us.

And lead us not into Patent Court, but deliver us from Google. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.

Amen.




By jasonlee on 3/3/2010 6:05:53 PM , Rating: 3
period




By MikeRoberts on 3/3/2010 4:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
Transmeta has patents on conserving power by reducing the voltage (and frequency) of a RISC processor. I wonder if all the patents Apple is claiming that were violated are as tenuous as P=VI! Even the validity of those Transmeta patents were questionable as they were not the first company to save power by going to a lower voltage, though they were the first to measure demand continuously and adjust voltage and frequency automatically.

Usually companies are hesitant to sue over tenuous patents, so Apple either believes that they can bully HTC into submission or they truly believe that their patents will hold up.

Probably 90% of patents granted to the hardware and software industry will not hold up. I once asked a company lawyer why we weren't going after blatant patent violators in Asia, who were not paying royalties, while we were at the same time receiving royalties from U.S. licensees. It was explained to me that we were not 100% confident that the patents would survive a lawsuit, and that if we sued and lost then no one would pay us royalties anymore.

No doubt Google is itching to get involved in this lawsuit. Notice how Apple didn't dare name Google!




Such grand visions
By Mjello on 3/3/2010 4:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Apple such grand visions for its future as a technology leader.

patent hogging.




Scared they are...
By 2fknbad on 3/3/2010 4:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
Lets see, where to begin. It is obviuos apple is pissin in their panties. To claim the invention of "gesture control" is obscence. Did MS do that with pocket pc and transcription or am I retarded. Also to claim you invented laws of nature is pretty impressive. In regards to HTC no being big enough to fight apple have you considered they may not need to be? What do you think Google's take is going to be if the phones which help them shine in the Mobile OS world are being threatend, probally help and I know google is bigger than apple. Also why are they targeting the phone maker, why not the os provider since most of their claims is a function of the OS, with the exception of the voltage thing, but again its because google is bigger than apple. I would love to own a phone that I dont really own, ie iPhone. Their end user agreement and SLA are so robust I can sum it up for you. Here is the equipement thatnk you for paying for the cost to make it but it is ours to do what we want with it. Apple has tried to spread it proprietary hardware/software since its conception. iPhones you cant develop for, MP3 players that must use iTunes, iMacs that cant run other platfroms. When is the world going the the "i" world "i dont give a fuck about you anymore!"? Most of the people who own this garbage are either too busy trying to be a status symbol or too stupid to think for them selves. I hope when HTC wins they can burry apple for this.




Here is goes again
By hagar18 on 3/3/2010 4:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not a suprise.....this is what happens when a company realizes their product sucks and their competitors is better. Apple realizes they are losing market share to better phones, so rather then come out with something better, they sue competitors. Remember when apple started suing microsoft????? Same deal. Apple is a pathetic company and they should be counter-sued for wasting the courts time.




Oh, No App for That?
By hiscross on 3/3/2010 6:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Next they are going to say Apple isn't nice. Oh my




News Flash!
By VinceL on 3/3/2010 6:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
This Just In:

Apple now claims it created the Universe and holds the patent. It is now in the process of suing everything in existence.

We will bring you further details as they come in...




Object oriented iterface?
By Chernobyl68 on 3/3/2010 7:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this the same as the "Windows" Icon GUI?




How to make MAD BANK...
By CList on 3/3/2010 8:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
Graduate from law school and get a job at Apple... FTW!




Big name company advantage
By mxnerd on 3/3/2010 8:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
If Apple is not a big name company, I wonder whether U.S. Patent Office will give it that ridiculous undervolting patent.




By Tegeril on 3/3/2010 10:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
...are you really incapable of writing an objective headline?




wtf?
By magneticfield on 3/4/2010 3:23:37 AM , Rating: 2
Somebody should sue Apple for this ridiculous move.




Ahhh...I see...I can do that !
By Landiepete on 3/4/2010 4:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm herby applying for a patent on gravity. Anyone falling off their chair with amazement at Jobs antics will heretofore be required to own a valid licence for doing so, will be taken to court for unauthorized use of said gravity.
Also, not detaching yourself from earth (or any other celestial body, for that matter) without a valid licence will be dealt with forthwith by our attorneys.

P.S.

Reputable lawfirm wanted for patent enforcement. No cure no pay. 10% fee.




On a sidenote...
By Landiepete on 3/4/2010 4:04:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'd never read 'reader1' 's comments before, mainly because he is immediately slapped with a '-1' when he presses the on-switch of his Mac.

For on reason or another I decided to figure out what the fuss is all about.

I'm pleased to say that 'reader 1' will NOT be required to get a 'gravity' useage licence.
He's so far out there the laws of physics do no longer apply to him :D




Patent fail.
By iVTec on 3/4/2010 7:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, the most critical patent system in the world, the USA one, is severely flawed and that's where it leads us.

I just felt a bit terrified at the thought of what the combination of the patent system and lawyers can do.Gosh.




Who is suing whom?
By Gungel on 3/4/2010 10:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
Gizmodo showed a nice graphic today which company have sued each other for mobile devices:
http://gizmodo.com/5485518/the-mobile-patent-mexic...




Steve Jobs is an Ass
By Celestion on 3/4/2010 4:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
I hope Steve Jobs dies in a head-on collision with a truck of apples. Seriously though, he is making a huge ass of himself.




Baiting Fanboys
By dcarlton1 on 3/4/2010 6:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
Do you see that someone is agitating fanboys to become pathologic.
Reminds me of my Chevy is better than your Ford arguments in the 1950's.
There are two camps ... but it is just about computers.
Grow up.




Why Sue HTC?
By Plazmid19 on 3/4/2010 8:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at the patents, its obviously an architecture argument.
If that is truly the case, all HTC has done is implement technology and put serious development time in. The processor which is really the device of contention on some of the patents is a Qualcom device. The operating system is Android (a Linux 2.6 implementation) which is provided by Google, the other main item of contention in Apples claims.
Its obvious why Apple has sued HTC, because HTC has cobbled together the items and made a final product. This is exactly what is wrong with current patent litigation. It is stifling innovation. While HTC may have copied the look and feel of Apple's iPhone, they did not copy the iPhone. The HTC phones in question are not identical twins of the iPhone, they are unique devices that share similar features with the iPhone. Patents, in my opinion, are designed to protect the invention and the process used to implement it. It is not to allow a company to own an idea. I remember patent classes I took that promoted the idea of filing patents late so that your competition could develop similar products, only to get sued by you. Its called submarining. I really despise companies that engage in these types of tactics.




Apple needs a good spanking
By Vengor on 3/5/2010 4:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Apple needs a good spanking in court. I love how they have become that which they purportedly wanted to destroy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-715862862...

Observe how the man on the screen is making statements much like Jobs, how the police chasing the woman are so much like Apple Lawyers and the people are like apple fanbois moving in unison to Apple's marching orders. But who would be the woman with the hammer to toss at the screen today?




Boycot APPLE!!!
By mavricxx on 3/6/2010 3:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Let's Boycot Apple, I hate how they're greedy and try to make everything proprietary!




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki