backtop


Print 200 comment(s) - last by omgwtf8888.. on Mar 10 at 11:41 AM


Apple's CPU undervolting patent has numerous problems -- it involves a law of nature, it's vague, and it deals with a large volume of prior art. It's kind of like trying to patent "A System for Selectively Staying Home From Work to Avoid Driving in Too Deep Snow and Having an Accident".  (Source: Free Foto)
We look at one of Apple's more controversial patents

On Tuesday Apple filed suit against HTC, makers of the HTC Hero and Nexus One, Android phones.  Some say the suits are misdirection, other say it's a sign of concern from Apple that Android is gaining momentum, regardless they seem rather strange given some of the patents.

It's definitely worth taking a quick look at at least one of these patents and why there's questions about it.

One of the patents that is drawing the most attention is a patent involved in the case that describes cell phone CPU undervolting, entitled, "US Patent 6920574 - Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor".  The patent was issued to Apple in 2005 and states that Apple has invented the concept of an interrupt that tells a processor to not only cut the clock to a part of the CPU, but cut the voltage as well.

Describes Apple:
One embodiment of the present invention provides a system that facilitates reducing static power consumption of a processor. During operation, the system receives a signal indicating that instruction execution within the processor is to be temporarily halted. In response to this signal, the system halts an instruction-processing portion of the processor, and reduces the voltage supplied to the instruction-processing portion of the processor. Full voltage is maintained to a remaining portion of the processor, so that the remaining portion of the processor can continue to operate while the instruction-processing portion of the processor is in reduced power mode.
There's multiple problems there.  First, the patent is overly vague.  Of course this is true of many patents, but its definitely true in this case.  Apple's description of the CPU in question and the interrupts itself are exercises in generality discussing many well known concepts (processor architecture, interrupts, power management), leaving the reader unclear of exactly what Apple has actually "invented".

Second, the patent revolves around a law of nature, power = voltage times current (P=VI), and thus its patent worthiness is questionable.  On a most basic level the patent states: If I want to make a change to the result of a commonly known formula dictating natural phenomena I send a signal to change one of the variables.

There's a bit more to it than that -- talk of maintaining power to the cache to maintain state information, but on a basic level the patent goes back to (P=VI).  So perhaps a better analogy is: If I want to make a change to the result of a commonly known formula of nature I send a signal to change one of the variables, but when I get the signal I don't change the variable for another part of my system, which I don't want to change the formula result for.

To give an analogy that's about like a hypothetical patent on "A System for Selectively Staying Home From Work to Avoid Driving in Too Deep Snow and Having an Accident".  The system would be quite useful for northern states, after all.  It might involve the following:
1.  A system that monitors the outdoor environment for changes in the weather (your eyes and internet connection).
2.  When it begins to snow heavily, send a signal that you will not be driving (call in to work).
3.  Do some short range driving (but not to work) to maintain the essential supplies (maintain your cache of supplies, get it?).
Finally, there's the problem of prior art.  Interrupts have been around for decades as has the concept of undervolting/overvolting.  Power-off interrupts (reducing the voltage) have existed for decades as well, so it's questionable that the scheme Apple describes hadn't been done before 2005.

Some of Apple's other patents involved in the HTC case have similar issues.  Patent law is a quirky field, though, and the U.S. patent system obviously has a very inconsistent track record of late.  HTC has little intellectual property that it can use to fight back against Apple with (versus a giant like Google or Microsoft) and also less money, given the razor-thin margins on its handset hardware.  As a result, Apple does stand a fighting shot at kill HTC's sales in the case, even if its patents aren't as strong, merely because it has more resources.


Comments     Threshold


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

HTC should apply for bogus patents
By phatboye on 3/4/2010 11:19:19 AM , Rating: 5
What if HTC followed suit and filled for a bogus patent like "Mobile connectivity to 4G networks" then keep Apple from ever releasing a 4G capable iPhone.

As much as I've dislike Apple before now I am really starting to dislike this company. Apple's beef is with Google not HTC, HTC is just a pawn that Apple is using to try to stop Google and I don't like this one bit. Hopefully Google will use it's muscle and help out HTC because if HTC looses this case this could put a hamper into Android's future.




RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By BioRebel on 3/4/2010 11:29:30 AM , Rating: 4
It's all about legal precedent. Apple is going after the weakest link in the chain, so it can build up its case for when it goes up against MS and Google.

I wonder if its possible for MS and Google to lend legal backup to HTC.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By reader1 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By psenechal on 3/4/2010 12:53:04 PM , Rating: 5
This guy again? You must troll the internet all day looking for anti-Apple articles and posting your fanboy crap. Lazy and incompetent huh? I bet you'd change your mind about HTC if Apple owned them. Why don't you go back to giving Steve-O hand jobs under his desk and spare us your pathetic opinions.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By reader1 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By invidious on 3/4/2010 1:36:15 PM , Rating: 4
The patent is both vague and broad, you can easily make an argument that the specific way that HTC is implimenting undervolting is not covered by Apple's patent.

The only stupid player in this game is the patent office for issuing such a rediculous patent.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By reader1 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
By 1reader on 3/4/2010 9:37:59 PM , Rating: 4
It is never "wise" to exploit the broken patent system to get vague, borderline illegal, and undoubtedly false patents. If you think so, you are stupid.


By JumpingJack on 3/4/2010 10:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
The sad fact of the matter is that the PTO is somewhat lackadaisical when it comes to granting patents or perhaps it is by design as typical costs for prosecuting a patent is anywhere between 10 to 30K, and additional maintenance fees ... quite a revenue stream really.

Nonetheless, many patents (similar to this one) is written so vaguely that they will not withstand the scruitiny of a challenge by a 3rd party. In fact, most patents are indeed worthless -- http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/20_04_02.pdf

HTC actually has a few defenses here, and good IP lawyers will probably exercise them all or more. One, they can show how their device or invention is not an infringement. Two, they can file a challenge with the PTO for the validity of the patent in question. Three, the defender can request any challenge on any patent with the portfolio of the plaintiff.

It is very possible that by taking this bold move Apple may find themselves one or more patents short in their arsenal.


By RjBass on 3/5/2010 9:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, because that is so ethical.


By arjunp2085 on 3/5/2010 10:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
Apple might be the the only company that might patent i-CUM and sue all of humanity to oblivion

GO TO HELL APPLE

reader1 Are you suggesting Physicist OHM mush have patented V=IR???

All of Apple's products Or all electronics will be one mans devices


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By yomamafor1 on 3/4/2010 1:37:43 PM , Rating: 4
Or rather, HTC knows that this concept is not patent worthy, since it has been used for years. Only the greed of Steve Jobs and his legal team made Apple patented this concept.

And of course, only the idiocy of those brain dead Apple fanboy would think this is a good idea.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Sazar on 3/4/2010 3:07:58 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder if it is because of the whole US Patent office thing. Isn't Apple trying to affect the sales within the US only at this point? Perhaps HTC just didn't have patents filed in the US that they may have elsewhere or, in the under-volting case, considered it something that was common.

Even on the multi-touch front and capacitive interface, research has been done on this for well over a decade before we saw it in the iPhone and other devices.

Apple appears to be looking to take advantage of the loose interpretations allowed by our Patent office and their mountains of cash to weed out competition for any devices that have superior hardware.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By smackababy on 3/4/2010 3:27:33 PM , Rating: 4
What Apple is doing should be considered illegal. Exploiting a system to stifle competition shouldn't be allowed. I think Apple needs to have a lesson taught to it. Maybe a multi-billion dollar fine will show them what those margins are good for.


By themaster08 on 3/5/2010 1:48:02 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Maybe a multi-billion dollar fine will show them what those margins are good for.

Perhaps the EU have something cooking :)


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By johninco on 3/4/2010 4:03:19 PM , Rating: 1
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What should be illegal? Protecting IP given by US PTO? Should everyone just copy any technology? Don't blame Apple blame the patent office for approving vague patents.

Is everyone here Taiwanese???


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Sazar on 3/4/2010 4:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think his point is Apple appears to be crying foul about patent infringement on items that have already been on the market for a while for the same or similar tech and have been granted a vague patent and are now working systematically to remove competition based on those vague patents they were granted.

Mick's article sort of covers the gist of why the whole under-clocking/volting issue is a little bogus.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By reader1 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
By bupkus on 3/4/2010 11:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure you don't work for DT and intentionally say stupid things to generate reactions?


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By themaster08 on 3/5/2010 2:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
Apple is using it's very vague patents to stifle it's weaker competition.

Apple wasn't wise in filing these patents, because not only are they frivolous and have countless amounts of prior art, Apple will ultimately lose the patents and waste the time and money of everyone involved. They think they can just stamp a patent on everything they use regardless of prior art, vagueness or originality.

Apple are an anti-competitive company, even now. Imagine a world with an Apple monopoly. Then again, don't. Apple think they're invincible. It's only a matter of time before they mess with the wrong people, and multi-billion dollar fines from the EU start cropping up.


By zmatt on 3/5/2010 6:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Here is hoping it's someone big like Intel, Google or Microsoft. They can easily out spend Apple in legal fees, although Intel hasn't had a fun time in the courts recently.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By afkrotch on 3/4/2010 8:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between creating IP, patenting it, then protecting it. There's another in using a broken patent system to patent something that isn't yours, then trying to stifle competition.

It seems quite obvious that it's the only way Apple can hope to stay competitive.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By reader1 on 3/5/10, Rating: -1
By seamonkey79 on 3/5/2010 9:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
Like comparing the iPhone's sales in AT&T and Nexus One on T-Mobile is fair... let's wait and see how well they sell when you can use one on a good network like Sprint or Verizon (honestly, both of them need to be on those two networks, but whatever)


By afkrotch on 3/7/2010 10:51:35 PM , Rating: 1
Sure, that's why Apple is suing HTC over patents it doesn't even own. A quick search will show that the patents are already pre-existing.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By neurosisxeno on 3/8/2010 10:39:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
HTC and Android are not a threat to Apple. Android has flopped. Most Android users are male, which means it doesn't have the same broad appeal that the iPhone does. The Nexus One only sold 80K during its first month, in spite of massive media coverage. Apple is just trying to do Google a favor by putting Android out of its misery.


Let's address the logic of this post since it is heaping;

1. Most user being Male != Lack of Appeal. Most Tampon users are Female, does that mean Tampons don't have mass appeal?
2. Apple can sell anything in decent numbers, but does that mean the product is good? Absolutely not. If you check any "Worst Inventions of X Time Frame" list that was within the past 25-35 years you'll see half a dozen entries from Apple. Next to Sony they may even have the most.
3. The Nexus One was also announced a solid 2-3 weeks before it was released, and was released on the smallest of the Nationwide Service Provider in the United States. Compare that to the massive hype machine that was the iPhone launch, and the numbers are deceptive.
4. Android has flopped? If Apple is willing to throw law suit after law suit at makers of Android Phones I have severe doubts it has flopped. As it is Droid and Nexus One are pushing sizable numbers and have covered all the ground that iPhone's have failed to over the years. I would say if anything the days of the iPhone may be in short supply and they are doing everything in their power to preserve it's market share which is likely to start shrinking.
5. Apple; The Status Symbol. The iPhone was released at the peak of Apple's phase as a status symbol, where everyone was buying anything they threw out there because it meant you were somebody. Combine that with the fact that they spent a lot of time hyping it up, and of course it would sell like crazy.


By Smilin on 3/8/2010 10:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Most user being Male != Lack of Appeal. Most Tampon users are Female, does that mean Tampons don't have mass appeal?


Yes it means they don't have mass appeal. /roll

You just had to go there huh?


By magneticfield on 3/8/2010 7:04:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
reader1 The only thing that stopped HTC from securing this patent, instead of Apple, was their own stupidity.


What would be the only thing stopping you from trolling?
Allowing lower than -1 ratings?
Banning all users who only get minus ratings?

I always enjoy reading the comments here, they are mostly very much worth reading. That was never the case with yours.

So please do something about it, I don't know... educate yourself!
Until then, I'd recommend you stick to reading , as your nickname implies.
Thank you!


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Snow01 on 3/4/2010 5:00:20 PM , Rating: 5
Can we get the ban hammer out on reader1? Nothing of substance is ever offered and his remarks do not spur lively debate, but rather always offer the extreme opposite of the general sentiment. It's not just that his comments take up unnecessary space, it's the conscious choice to actively spew illogical idiocy that's bothersome. Not that all of them are like this, but what a bitch.


By Smilin on 3/4/2010 5:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
he would just create a new account. Better this way. We can just downrate him without having to read his drivel. If he changed names we would be foreced to read the tripe before we could recognize it as such.


By ReaderI on 3/5/2010 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 1
If Apple weren't so lazy and incompetent, they wouldn't need tofile patents based on laws of nature and others prior art and then sue to prevent a better product from displacing their inferior product.


By petrosy on 3/9/2010 6:00:45 PM , Rating: 1
So by your logic.. iPhone is great because it has a patent.

You clearly are retarded!


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By atlmann10 on 3/4/2010 6:01:30 PM , Rating: 1
Great point BioRebel, I asked something of that nature on another forum discussing this same idea. HTC in general is a company that's has enabled many things for and I would imagine by some direction from Google directly, especially considering they are a direct partner as well as the solo distributor of the Nexus1.

But these claims of the 20 they are claiming are all very vague. When you start talking about many of these components you bring in a whole new group of players. Where Apple may have might at least more so the HTC. They have none compared to IBM, Intel, Xerox, M$, Nokia, and Google (which has a current lawsuit against Apple for some of these same patents which have been deemed fully valid in a court of law already), all of which either own or first used most of the things Apple is claiming here.

Other companies could also come in as well, such as AMD which had a good amount of at least influence, and design knowledge when they worked as an Intel partner, this would be very applicable to CPU under volting at a randomly device determined period of need or unnecessary, by the component itself.

I think Apple is going to be kicked to the curb on this one. That is unless Nokia wins there suit against Apple on many of these same patents, thereby loosing the patents for Apple before they ever come to the judgment stage anyway.

Mr Job's himself has admitted filmed and on tape to many of the lesser regarded states (better read as theft), of product function and development platforms and there procedures.

As for all of these other companies lending legal backup, I think it will probably be more than that. This is because many of these "patents", are used by many other companies as well as are exceptionally vague. This puts all the big players at risk here presently and in the future. I think Apple may in the end of this one get there clock cleaned to an extent.

If you consider that in one platform, the consumer based mobile unit,(iPhone/Touch/Ipad)which is to a great degree owned by Apple right now. Then you think about that all being stopped in one case, and concerning many cross patents which many could or do claim ownership to. The vultures are already circling a carcass of the one who started the fight most likely for no reason, unless it was vanity and a feeling of a growing threat. Which really does not have much ground to stand on, and is therefore locked in with no escape pattern or availability.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Smilin on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
By baadcatj on 3/4/2010 11:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
I have to wonder if HTC doesn't already have a patent for something like this, or if MS does in it's software. My old Dell Axims (built by HTC) had the ability to reduce clock speed automatically and had a software 'lock' gesture too. (Not to mention, I have a 'gesture' I'd like to share with Apple!)

I'm no fanboy of about anybody, but too many of the things that Apple does sure does turn me off in being interested in their products.

Besides, what would the EU and US courts be saying if it was MS doing these things? "They're being anti-competetive again - we'd better impose more restrictions and fines against them' - but they don't do it to Apple. I just don't get it. Can anyone help me to understand?


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 11:44:24 AM , Rating: 4
Apple has been doing this for decades. The only reason they are even where they are today is from lawsuits, buying out better companies, and bullying tactics like this.

If Microsoft even tried to pull half the shit Apple has done, there would be a media hellstorm.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Tony Swash on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By JediJeb on 3/4/2010 12:20:07 PM , Rating: 5
Well Xerox actually invented the GUI, then Apple got it from them. Xerox also invented the laser printer "The original laser printer called EARS was developed at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center beginning in 1969 and completed in November, 1971. Xerox Engineer, Gary Starkweather adapted Xerox copier technology adding a laser beam to it to come up with the laser printer." Sony invented the 3.5" floppy in 1980. And I would say Linus Torvalds invented the poor man's Unix. So really that doesn't leave much that Apple actually invented.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/4/2010 12:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Invented by the American information technology company IBM, floppy disks in 8-inch (200 mm), 5¼-inch (133.35 mm), and 3½-inch (90 mm) formats enjoyed nearly three decades as a popular and ubiquitous form of data storage and exchange, from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s.


By FaaR on 3/4/2010 3:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
IBM may, or may not have invented the 8" and 5.25" floppies (I've no idea who came up with that crap), they did NOT however invent the hard-shelled 3.5" floppy that became the dominant form of portable storage throughout most of the 80s/90s. Sony did in fact do that.


By wiz220 on 3/4/2010 12:30:07 PM , Rating: 5
Yep, exactly correct. Apple is NOT the innovator they PRETEND to be(or have fooled their fanboys into thinking they are).


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Tony Swash on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By MrBlastman on 3/4/2010 1:32:58 PM , Rating: 4
I believe the appropriate response for your line:

quote:
because they are not building on top of the huge iTunes and App store ecosystem


Is that you, Tony, are swashed up. ;)

iTunes and the App store are not the greatest repositories of applications known to man. However, you are too busy being wrapped up with your i-Fandom to realize this.

Here is a bit of information that might be of use to you:

The internet is a huge place.

Now, please repeat that phrase back to yourself three times, click your ipods together and you'll return back to reality. The App Store and i-Tunes are just one of many ways to get applications (and music). The difference is, at least, for applications, is that there are thousands and thousands of other places to get Open Source applications for FREE. The App Store is not free. Not only is it not free, but, in order to write an app for one of Apple's devices, you have to sell it on the App Store (for as little as a dollar I think) but, part of that money goes right into Apple's pockets... for them doing nothing!

Oh, okay, I'm not being fair, Apple is hosting the App. The thing is, they don't have to. They choose to. No, they don't choose to, they require--so they can have a guaranteed stream of income on software they didn't make.

There is something inherently wrong with this. Not just wrong, but quite dastardly. So much so that I, along with millons of other people, see right through and understand there are better, more freely distributable means to write and download applications to mobile devices that are, well, not made by Apple.

So you see, the universe does not revolve around Apple, only the i-Fans do that are stuck within its black hole. And, like all black holes, they only take and do not give back.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By sprockkets on 3/4/2010 2:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The difference is, at least, for applications, is that there are thousands and thousands of other places to get Open Source applications for FREE. The App Store is not free. Not only is it not free, but, in order to write an app for one of Apple's devices, you have to sell it on the App Store (for as little as a dollar I think) but, part of that money goes right into Apple's pockets... for them doing nothing!


FYI you can post apps for free; there is no dollar amount you have to sell for. If you are going to rebut someone, at least get your own facts straight.

Btw, you know how you said that there are thousands and thousands of other places to get open source apps for free? The average user doesn't want to search thousands and thousands of places, they want it in one place, easy to purchase and easy to read reviews and ratings on it.

quote:
Oh, okay, I'm not being fair, Apple is hosting the App. The thing is, they don't have to. They choose to. No, they don't choose to, they require--so they can have a guaranteed stream of income on software they didn't make.


The Google App store and others show that people prefer the simplicity of this. Of course Google doesn't care what they sell or have any major restrictions, so I prefer their system.

quote:
There is something inherently wrong with this. Not just wrong, but quite dastardly. So much so that I, along with millons of other people, see right through and understand there are better, more freely distributable means to write and download applications to mobile devices that are, well, not made by Apple.


But the other end of that sword is you are missing 75 million iphones and itouches. So it is in an app developer's interest to reach as many people as possible, and if they only chose one platform, they will get the most bang for their buck on Apple's.

quote:
So you see, the universe does not revolve around Apple, only the i-Fans do that are stuck within its black hole. And, like all black holes, they only take and do not give back.


If that were the case then the iphone would be a one year fad and others would have come in and taken them over. Hasn't happened yet.

You might want to talk to an average iphone user. I find a lot of them are technically illiterate or in their 40s or 50s and find that the iphone is their best phone they've ever had. It's those kind of people who don't care about GPL or open source or any other kind of idealogical BS, they just want a phone that works. There happens to be a lot of them out there.

Few people cared about how my phone runs Linux or how I could put my own apps on.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By MrBlastman on 3/4/2010 3:06:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The average user doesn't want to search thousands and thousands of places, they want it in one place, easy to purchase and easy to read reviews and ratings on it.


www.sourceforge.net

One place, lots of input on what is good and what is not and best of all, open source and free.

See, that wasn't hard. It is actually really easy to find apps that are not subject to a closed system.

quote:
The Google App store and others show that people prefer the simplicity of this. Of course Google doesn't care what they sell or have any major restrictions, so I prefer their system.


Simplicity. That is such a direct word. I take it you must really enjoy being a simpleton. After all, the i-Pad only lets you run one third party app at a time.

In the PC world, we have a name for that... it is called MS-DOS. MS-DOS is kind of old, well, slightly. Multitasking and Multiprocessing are the norms of today. I suppose though, if you really want to be nostalgic, you can use an i-Pad, but I really don't see why you would want to; especially after you consider how much _more_ you can do by using another device in the same amount of time.

quote:
If that were the case then the iphone would be a one year fad and others would have come in and taken them over. Hasn't happened yet.


Black Holes aren't fads. They are permanent. Once an i-Fan, always one, and as you best put it, a simpleton for that matter. You are sucked in to a conformist way of thinking and can only do what the word of Jobs insists you can do.

That sounds pretty bleak, doesn't it?

I like my open-platform operating systems. I like my freedom. I don't need to be told what is best.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By sprockkets on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By MrBlastman on 3/4/2010 5:05:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I seriously doubt you ever used MS-DOS personally, because that OS was far from being simple. I bet you have no idea what the difference between enhanced memory and extended memory means without needing to search on Google.


I have been using computers since the before times where they required a casette tape to be manually rewound and fast forwarded to where the data was. I not only know MS-DOS inside and out, I also understand Apple OS(you know, the original, before Macs), Unix, Linux, BSD(and many of its flavors), AIX, Solaris, Tru64 and more, while having coded for them as well.

But really, none of that matters anyways compared with the triteness of your previous post. What _was_ the point of all that rabble anyways?

Was it a pseudo-justification of just how much an i-Zombie you really are?

Where in my prior post to this did I mention ARM or x86? I was being conceptual and not targeting. However, due to the black hole that you have been sucked into, your ability to freely think has already began to decay.

What is this rabble about Linux? Your post was a mess.

Here is something a simpleton can understand:

Install Windows
Load application
Run application
Have fun

This is how it works--that easy! No compiling neccesary... unless you want to (and some of us do) but that certainly was not the focus of my prior argument to force everyone into it. Sourceforge is one of many places and what makes it great is you can download:

precompiled binaries
-and-
source code

You get to choose. Job doesn't choose for you.

Freedom, isn't it great?

I suppose though you should get back to "touching your monkey," Mr. Sprocketts, as your narrative has become tiresome. ;)


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By sprockkets on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Smilin on 3/4/2010 5:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
not following this whole argument...it's kinda tiresome.

I just wanted to point out this one innaccuracy:

quote:
I don't know; you are the one who brought up SourceForge, and the only people who know anything about that site are linux nuts.


I'm a Windows guy and haven't touched linux in longer than I can remember. However I am very familiar with sourceforge. It's awesome. It also doesn't go willy-nilly banning applications because steve jobs gets some wild hair up his ass. Heck Apple just got done whacking all Wifi searching apps today. WTF?!

Crazy random shit you Apple guys put up with. You must really like your iStuff a lot to put up with that draconian crap.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By sprockkets on 3/4/2010 6:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm a Windows guy and haven't touched linux in longer than I can remember.


So you found out about sourceforge when?

Btw, I found out about them when downloading ZSNES before I started using Linux.

quote:
It's awesome. It also doesn't go willy-nilly banning applications because steve jobs gets some wild hair up his ass. Heck Apple just got done whacking all Wifi searching apps today. WTF?!


Well why would they? They host for free. But I can tell you that many who used that site in the past said it was going downhill in quality, but it appears to be adapting well today.

I read about the banning of wifi apps. Stupid in my opinion as well. But you can always go to wifi and search there, so it is kinda redundant. But it was useful for some.

They also deleted an app that makes quacks when shaking. Stupid but whatever. People complain that Apple hosts fart apps, but then complain that they remove stupid apps.

Notice a pattern here?

quote:
Crazy random sht you Apple guys put up with. You must really like your iStuff a lot to put up with that draconian crap.


Just because I correct someone's facts on how the app store works doesn't mean I own Apple products. Telling iphone users they are idiots and should rather buy Android phones is like telling Corolla users they are dull and bland and should buy Mazda3's.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Smilin on 3/4/2010 7:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you found out about sourceforge when?


dunno. I didn't mark the date in my calendar and the event didn't care the same weight as say the kennedy assasisination or challenger disaster :P

Sourceforge does Windows stuff too I'm sure you know.

quote:
They also deleted an app that makes quacks when shaking. Stupid but whatever. People complain that Apple hosts fart apps, but then complain that they remove stupid apps.


If your point is that people complain I'll agree.

Really though I think people complain about the removal of apps because it's just kinda draconian. The fart apps isn't so much of a complaint as it is pointing out how silly the lofty claims about how many apps there are on the app store. Number of apps is not the same as number of useful apps (not that there is a shortage).

quote:

Just because I correct someone's facts on how the app store works doesn't mean I own Apple products.


meh. legitimate assumption...no apologies. here I'll commit the same sin...

I'm by no means an apple fan but I'll give them some props on the voltage thing. Intel was pretty clever when they brought out hyperthreading and there is a similar cleverness here. Sure lots of folks underclock/volt chips but doing it to just portions of a chip is fairly inventive. I also don't buy the argument about it being "obvious". It seems obvious now...yet nobody really did it before for some reason. go figure.


By sprockkets on 3/4/2010 7:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well that wasn't directed to you so much as it was Mr. BlastMan. To simply rebuff someone by calling them names aka ad hominem attacks is quite lame.

I wouldn't expect you to know when you found SourceForge either :) But I think ZSNES was my first GPL app and before it came to Linux, it was of course for Win32.

Also too I find it hard to believe they came up with the claims in the patent, but then again, Apple does seem make a lot of their own designs.


By afkrotch on 3/4/2010 8:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a Windows guy and I use Sourceforge. Mostly just for codecs though.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Smilin on 3/4/2010 5:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
and this..

quote:

If Apple's app store wasn't a success in getting apps installed with ease, no one would bother copying it.


You seem to be implying that apple invented the concept. I think Valve was very successful at an online application store long before Apple.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By sprockkets on 3/4/2010 6:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
itunes store opened on April 28, 2003

Steam opened on Sept 12, 2003

I don't think either invented the concept, but before the app store, what phone had such a delivery system? Palm didn't. WinMob didn't. Did Blackberry? Or Symbian? I think Nokia opened theirs later.


By Alexstarfire on 3/4/2010 7:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Just FYI, Steam was up before that, it just wasn't officially launched. I had Steam back in 2002 when they were using it for the CS 1.6 Beta.


By Smilin on 3/5/2010 12:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
App store was July 10th, 2008.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Pirks on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Alexstarfire on 3/4/2010 7:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
There are a lot of pseudo Pirks/Reader1 users out there now. They are trying too hard to get downrated like you do. You two will always be the masters of being downrated.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By themaster08 on 3/5/2010 2:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm the only master around here, and I'd prefer not to be associated to such asshats :)


By Chocobollz on 3/8/2010 7:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
Nono.. as your name implied, you're the the 8th themaster. Where's the first? :P


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Pirks on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Aloonatic on 3/5/2010 8:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
What? Why the hell would I be lumped in with you and reader1?

I only ever "defend" Apple within certain constraints and point out where they have got certain things right, as I would do for any company, regardless of what the mood of the forum is, which is largely anti-Apple here.

I've never bought, and almost certainly never will buy an Apple product for many of the reasons that people attack them for here, but it doesn't mean that I cannot see why other people do. Nor do I feel the need to make silly comments to attack them blindly for everything and say that all they do is evil, or say things like "they're over priced", when clearly they are priced pretty well considering how much cash there is sloshing around Jobs Towers.

Just as you and reader1 seem to blindly follow, there are many many more here who blindly hate, and I don't want to be lumped in with either of these rather sad groups thanks.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Pirks on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Aloonatic on 3/5/2010 10:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
I have no idea why you don't. How could I? May be you want some but can't afford them? Or are you trying to say that you don't like them really, but you just like to argue. Was that an admission of you being a troll perhaps? I don't know your personal situation, nor do I care frankly.

However, I have seen enough of your comments to be pretty happy with making the comment that I did.

/caring


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Smilin on 3/5/2010 1:20:27 PM , Rating: 1
You're poor.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Pirks on 3/5/2010 1:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
Not poor enough to go through my fourth 1k+ notebook, eat that smilin losa :P


By Smilin on 3/8/2010 10:44:14 AM , Rating: 1
You're a liar too. Take that pirksywirksy.


By MrBlastman on 3/5/2010 10:31:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
*Sure* you do. You are so smart that you can program for all those platforms yet you said Apple requires a charge on all their apps.


Actually, I'm smarter. Smart enough to *not* install an Apple product on my PC. After i-Tunes nuked my burner's ability to backup data on my hard drive, it was banished permanently along with anything else Apple (except blasted quicktime). For the record, I've never used the app store and base all my opinions of it off of news sources. They have obviously changed things by allowing free apps.

The downside, and my true point is, you *have* to use the app store--which means you can _only_ have what Steve Jobs wants you to have.

quote:
which in the very name of the web site hosts source code mostly


You've never used it apparently. It hosts compiled binaries too for Win32 and Win64.

quote:
the only people who know anything about that site are linux nuts.


What was that? See above.

quote:
I suppose though you should get back to "touching your monkey," Mr. Sprocketts, as your narrative has become tiresome. ;) Yes, and I guess you can get back to blasting, whatever that means.


Your age is showing right through your posts. If you missed that reference to yourself in text then I don't know what else to say. You can not possibly be old enough to know the DOS commandline thoroughly.

Also, I've been using Sourceforge (along with many other places) since late 1999 or perhaps 2000 or so sometime. I did not say all free applications are better, as obviously there are some pricey suites of apps that are well worth the money, but for little nicnaks, Sorceforge is great.


By albundy2 on 3/5/2010 8:27:49 AM , Rating: 2
" The average user doesn't want to search thousands and thousands of places, they want it in one place, easy to purchase and easy to read reviews and ratings on it."

might be a bit dated, but i can still find plenty of stuff...

softpedia


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By JediJeb on 3/4/2010 1:37:46 PM , Rating: 4
The first computer to market with the 3.5" floppy was HP in 1982 followed by Apple and Amiga with Double sided and double density disk a year later in 1983.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By FaaR on 3/4/2010 3:48:25 PM , Rating: 3
The Amiga (original A1000 model) didn't launch until 1985. The earliest version of the Atari ST did launch the year before as I recall, originally with just 256kb of RAM and single-sided 3.5" drives and then double-sided units later on. I apologise for any errors or omissions; I was never much of an Atari fan.

Fun fact: Apple tried to sue Atari over the GEM desktop environment, claiming it was infringing on Apple's own Finder. It took Xerox knocking Apple in the head and reminding Apple that they'd shamelessly ripped Xerox off, before Apple gave up the lawsuit and backed off. :P

So yeah, Apple's been a bunch of f*ckheads for decades now, but they do make pretty hardware... (Well, to my eyes anyway.)


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By sprockkets on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
By Smilin on 3/4/2010 6:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. They absolutely stole it.

If you think otherwise go grab a candy bar out of your local grocery then come back and pay for it next week.


By Alexstarfire on 3/4/2010 7:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
Plagiarism is not stealing? I'll have to remind my teachers of that. For that matter, might want to tell the patent office and every lawyer that as well.


By JediJeb on 3/5/2010 2:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
My first computer was the Atari 800XL. I made my first database program on that using Atari Basic.

The Amiga reference was in a table I found on when the 3.5" drives appeared, it didn't mention which version of Amiga though.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By clovell on 3/4/2010 1:58:56 PM , Rating: 4
> Apple innovates and moves so fast no one can seem to catch up with them let alone overtake them. The other tablets will die, the Kindle will fade, because they are poorly designed and because they are not building on top of the huge iTunes and App store ecosystem. Apple have been building the processes that will make the iPad win for a decade because they "skate to where the puck is going to be not where it is"

For the record, the Zune Marketplace and the Zune Pass mop the floor with iTunes.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Tony Swash on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Smilin on 3/4/2010 3:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
regardless of marketshare he's 100% correct.

Zune (incl zunepass) is a far superior product to iTunes. Only a fanboi would disagree.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Steve W on 3/4/2010 4:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's true. Microsoft invented ZunePass, much superior to Apple's system of micro-payments.

Speaking of patents: Amazon patented the one-click method of payments that Apple uses in its online stores. Apple licenses the technology from Amazon. Microsoft chose to invent their own system instead.

That's what Apple is telling HTC: license or invent.


By Smilin on 3/4/2010 5:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
not sure I followed that sir.

there isn't really anything "non obvious" in Amazon, Apple, or MSFTs methods of selling music.

While a fan of Zune.net there isn't anything "patent-able" about how it conducts a transaction or with zunepass. I don't think Microsoft really invented anything here. heck napster has a "zunepass" type of subscription as well.

I may just not understand what's so special about "one-click payment".

It seems to me that Apple is claiming to have invented a bunch of stuff that they didn't and now suing HTC over that.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By afkrotch on 3/4/2010 9:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's possible to patent things like one-click method of payment. There's a lot of things you can patent. The problem with Apple, is they are patented something that has already been used for decades and they know that is has.

From there, they are going to try to use their lawyers and large sums of money to put HTC into court and drain them into bankruptcy. These types of court battles always cost the companies millions of dollars.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 10:12:41 PM , Rating: 1
" The problem with Apple, is they are patented something that has already been used for decades "

Oh really? Prior to 2002, name a processor that used interrupts to monitor itself to know when processing was not required, then automatically undervolted itself to the point that processing was disabled, but state information was retained.

Maybe there was one, I don't know. But I strongly suspect you don't either.


By TheEinstein on 3/4/2010 11:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
I worked as security at Intel in 96-97 and I am quite sure they had similar in the field.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By afkrotch on 3/4/2010 11:57:50 PM , Rating: 3
It's called Intel SpeedStep. They've been using it since the Pentium 3. Well before 2002. But hey, maybe Apple did invent it.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By porkpie on 3/5/2010 9:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
The original incarnation of Intel Speedstep was considerably different from this invention:
quote:
The original SpeedStep technology...was rather primitive, compared to recent standards. Processors featuring SpeedStep are capable of running in two modes, the full power mode and the power save mode. As soon as AC power is removed, the processor switches into powersave mode and remains there, independent of the systems CPU load. It is, however, possible for the user to switch it back to full power mode manually.
http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/SpeedStep


By afkrotch on 3/7/2010 11:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Describes Apple:

One embodiment of the present invention provides a system that facilitates reducing static power consumption of a processor. During operation, the system receives a signal indicating that instruction execution within the processor is to be temporarily halted. In response to this signal, the system halts an instruction-processing portion of the processor, and reduces the voltage supplied to the instruction-processing portion of the processor. Full voltage is maintained to a remaining portion of the processor, so that the remaining portion of the processor can continue to operate while the instruction-processing portion of the processor is in reduced power mode.


According to Apple. So please tell me, the difference, cause I really don't see it.

Both reduce power, due to some other factor. Both will have parts of the processor in reduced power or full power, depending on the part.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By MrPoletski on 3/5/2010 5:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
The probalem with apple is that this power saving feature they have patented is implimented in processor hardware.

APPLE HAS NEVER, EVER DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED IT'S OWN PROCESSORS.

These power saving features they are using int he iphone... well that uses a Ti OMAP 3 processor (4340 IIRC). Is every other device using this processor gonna have to cease and decist because apple says so?

No, they will lose this badly. They have shot themselves not in the foot, but in the ass.


By porkpie on 3/5/2010 9:07:06 AM , Rating: 2
"APPLE HAS NEVER, EVER DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED IT'S OWN PROCESSORS."

So? Why do you feel that's relevant. Companies generate IP continually in areas they have never manufactured products. For Universities, in particular, it's their basic model -- they simply license out whatever patents they own.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Sazar on 3/4/2010 3:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
It amuses me no end that you bash a superior product with superior music sharing (Zune Pass) with user install base :)

Apple has a far smaller user-based for it's Mac lineup. I assume, therefore, that you laugh out loud everyday when considering that as well?

:)


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Steve W on 3/4/2010 4:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Apple sells more PCs than Microsoft sells.


By Smilin on 3/4/2010 6:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't say Microsoft though did he?

Use HP, Dell, IBM, whoever you want. You'd probably start an argument about the time of day while standing in front of big ben.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By sprockkets on 3/4/2010 3:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the record, the Zune Marketplace and the Zune Pass mop the floor with iTunes.


They did? Really?

Where did Microsoft get the idea to screw all their previous "Never Plays for Sure" partners (including their own WM devices) and to make one device under one brand who was the only one who could use the Zune Marketplace?

Apple can boast about how they reached 10 billion sales in music. Where is Microsoft at?

I guess all Apple has going for them now is 70% of the mp3 player market.


By Smilin on 3/4/2010 6:08:26 PM , Rating: 1
You don't get it.

Regardless of success iTunes is a shitty application when compared to Zune.

By your flawed logic the Mac sucks compared to the PC.


By Smilin on 3/4/2010 2:41:54 PM , Rating: 4
good old apple apologists.

Sure Apple innovates but everything you cited as an example is something that someone else did.


By afkrotch on 3/4/2010 9:22:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Innovation is not about developing everything new from scratch. There were MP3 players and smart phones before the iPod and the Iphone but they were clunky, ugly and poorly designed pieces of crap made by engineers who think a spec list means anything. What Apple did was design (ie innovate) and in the process create something new from something old. Thats why they have sold hundreds of millions of the things.


Hasn't that always been the Apple way? Form over function.

quote:
We both know that the iPad is going to be a screaming success and will transform the publishing market just like iTunes transformed the music market.


I don't see the iPad as being a screaming success. It's a crap tool for surfing the internet, as it's lacking all the necessary tools to surf.

It's going to suck as an eReader, cause it's using an LCD, instead of E ink. Epaper is easier on the eyes and the batteries. Anyone who reads a lot, isn't going to bother. I tried reading on a netbook/laptop, guess what I use now? A Sony eReader.

iPad. A product to fix a gap that no one cares about.


By Hieyeck on 3/4/2010 2:08:35 PM , Rating: 3
Also, Berkely invented OSX. Get into the shell and it's BSD behind that make up.


By Steve W on 3/4/2010 4:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
Apple didn't invent the floppy disk, but Steve Wozniak did invent the CONSUMER AFFORDABLE floppy disk controller at a time when everybody else was trying to design a better cassette tape interface (even the original IBM PC had a cassette tape interface). Before that, floppies were only used to load the microcode into a mainframe, i.e. as a bootstrap device.

Which reminds me, Woz also invented the auto-bootstrap ROM, and the color graphics controller, among other things.

On the other hand, Linus Torvalds may have invented Linux, but he didn't invent UNIX. UNIX and C came from AT&T's Bell Laboratories - along with the transistor, the laser, and the cell phone. It's a good thing Alick patented the original telephone, otherwise he couldn't have afforded Bell Labs.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 12:31:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
what have Apple ever invented or pioneered to market


Nothing. Apple develops and delivers concepts, they don't innovate technology.

quote:
the 3.5 inch floppy


Wrong.

quote:
the GUI,


Wrong again.

quote:
the laser printer


lol Wroooong

quote:
the iPod, the iPhone


An MP3 player and a cellphone. Umm your point ? They sure as hell weren't the first to bring these to the market. And when the iPhone came out, it had FAR FAR less features than any smart phone on the market.

quote:
the iPad


AHAHAAH !!! Oh man, that's a good one. Not only does it fail as an Internet Tablet, but it doesn't even stand up to existing tablets already on the market.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By kmmatney on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/4/2010 2:33:23 PM , Rating: 3
The point is, they claimed to have invented things they did not invent.


By Smilin on 3/4/2010 6:00:44 PM , Rating: 2


+1 this thing.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 2:32:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The point with the iPhone is that they made a phone that many people wanted to use.


Only because of brand appeal. NO phone so barren of basic features from any other company would have been so hyped.

Here is a list of things the original iPhone could NOT do out of the box:

Fixed storage (no SD card support)
Customized MP3 ringtones
MMS message support
Instant Messaging
User replaceable battery
Voice Dialing
Voice recording
Fundamental tasks like copy&paste text

And there are probably more that I can't remember offhand. Now ask yourself if ANYONE besides Apple could have gotten away with charging that much for such a stripped down piece of shit ?


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Pirks on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 2:57:08 PM , Rating: 5
That's his opinion, and it's wrong. Just because he didn't do enough research doesn't mean he's right.

Compare the Nokia E70 to the original iPhone and get back to me.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Pirks on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
By 1reader on 3/5/2010 12:00:25 AM , Rating: 1
One could say the same of your foolishly persistent Apple apologetics. Try originality, you won't find much in that company.


By afkrotch on 3/5/2010 12:19:08 AM , Rating: 1
No Flash = The BEST!!!


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Tony Swash on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
By Alexstarfire on 3/4/2010 7:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
I do, and it was very easy. Talking about your MP3 question.

I would like to ask you this. If these features are unnecessary as you say, then why include them later? They are obviously necessary to some people as they are the ones that repurchased the product. That said, you are a fool. Other than voice dialing, SD card support, and user replaceable battery the other stuff was simply some minor changes in the software. Voice dialing would likely be a big change, but I honestly don't know which is why I left it out and the other two simply don't apply to just software. The SD card and user replaceable battery would have made the phone slightly larger. Stupid to not have them, but at least there is a little sense behind it.


By afkrotch on 3/5/2010 12:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
I remember my mp3 player was just drag and drop. Then I hit play on the mp3 player. Pretty simple to me, not sure how you had issues.

But I guess having bloated iTunes and some wheel to play with was somehow easier.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By Tony Swash on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
By afkrotch on 3/5/2010 12:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
You do know that Apple would cram as much as they can into the phone, so long as it fits there future prospects.

Many things are left out in the 1st release, cause they can add it in a few months later, just to get you to buy a new phone.

Other options are left out, as they can't control it. Like having fixed storage. Why buy a new 32 gig iPhone, if your old 16 gig iPhone has an SD slot that you can plug a 16 gig card into.


By Steve W on 3/4/2010 4:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
You have Apple confused with its detractors. Apple develops and delivers PRODUCTS. Apple doesn't discuss concepts.

In this case, Apple is delivering a law suit, and its detractors are telling you the concept behind the suit. They are just guessing.


By clx12 on 3/4/2010 12:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
You are quite misinformed about Apple's actual innovations. Even the "new" ones like the new mouse, well, check the videos from Microsoft on mouse prototypes they are researching for quite some time now.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29#Th...


By psenechal on 3/4/2010 12:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone that posted is absolutely correct that Apple didn't any of those things...

I will give them credit that they are pretty good at putting things in a really nice package though, and you can't beat their marketing department...those guys know how to spin things to the general public in a way that makes them think they can't live without it.


By HrilL on 3/4/2010 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry but Apple took the GUI and mouse from Xerox.

IBM invented the floppy disk...

MP3 players were around before the iPod.

New phones were already music, video, phones, and web browsers... iPhone can hardly be seen as a new invention.

Xerox again was the inventor of the laser printer.

We could already buy music online and DRM free. You just had to know where to find it.

Mac OS X has the most security holes compared to every other popular OS that is in use today. Its a complete joke of an OS. A pretty interface doesn't make it good OS.

We could already buy mobile applications. They made it look nice and more simple to get them.

Apple doesn't invent anything from what I can tell. They just take others inventions and put them in a pretty shell.

Maybe you should fact check before you bash other people.


By invidious on 3/4/2010 1:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
Being the first to market an idea to the consumer market is not the same as inventing it. And specific products do not count as inventions.

Apple did not invent any of the types of devices you are listing. They just took someone else's invention and marketed into a consumer product.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By siuol11 on 3/4/2010 12:04:16 PM , Rating: 1
Hello, MS HAS been doing this. Or were you not around in the 90's?


By Smilin on 3/5/2010 1:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's 2010 now dude. Let it go.


RE: HTC should apply for bogus patents
By cparka23 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
By clovell on 3/4/2010 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
So... Patent trolling is okay as long as you're a small company?


By wifiwolf on 3/5/2010 3:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to spoil it - It's probably already taken by apple.


By jconan on 3/7/2010 5:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
hopefully htc or some company can invalidate apples claims similarly to nvidia invalidating Rambus's inflating claims. 2nd isn't apple being sued by elan for infringing on their multitouch patent? similarly as there is a patent office, there should also be a patent office review for prior art so they start invalidating bogus patents.


Yes
By amanojaku on 3/4/2010 11:05:14 AM , Rating: 3
Because Apple created everything, even God.

Seriously, I can't believe this is up for debate. The answer is "of course not".




RE: Yes
By superPC on 3/4/2010 11:11:45 AM , Rating: 4
man i can't believe this. how can the patent office gives off patent on underclocking phone processor. either apple is extremely smart in seeing that nobody has patent it before or the patent office is extremely stupid to not see that this has prior art written all over it.


RE: Yes
By WayneCoffee on 3/4/2010 11:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
Shame on you, apple, shame on you


RE: Yes
By amanojaku on 3/4/2010 11:20:20 AM , Rating: 3
It's called dynamic voltage and frequency scaling. Apple claims this is unique because it's not done to the whole processor, but that's silly. It's just targeted at a portion of the CPU. AMD and Intel have introduced this feature in their multi-core CPUs, only it's for the whole core, not just the instruction set. But it's the same concept, so what's new again?

Oh, and ASIC manufacturers have done this, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_voltage_scali...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_sca...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor#...


RE: Yes
By djc208 on 3/4/2010 12:53:32 PM , Rating: 5
I think I figured it out! Reader1 and Pirks must work for the patent office.

It's all so clear now!


RE: Yes
By Pirks on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Yes
By Sazar on 3/4/2010 4:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
The reality distortion field is strong with them.


RE: Yes
By Abrahmm on 3/4/2010 6:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think reader1 is really a DailyTech writer that writes up the most convoluted, irrational, pro-apple propaganda he can make up in order to stir the pot, get emotions flying and get more reader hits. No one could actually believe the stuff that reader1 spews.


Interpretation
By BrgMx5 on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Interpretation
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/4/2010 11:38:57 AM , Rating: 5
quote:

I believe the patent is not about reducing de voltage, but about the method which is used to achieve that result, be it a specific set of instructions or other.


Oh? That's what I said in the piece. But as the title implies a vague description of an interrupt driven undervolting scheme on a cell phone CPU essentially gives Apple ownership of all dynamic undervolting on a cell phones.

To dynamically undervolt on a cell phone, you have to send some sort of a signal to stop processing and do something, be it via a physical or a software switch. That signal is commonly known as an interrupt. So in essence Apple IS essentially claims ownership of all dynamic cell phone undervolting as it patented the only way to do it. Unless you can come up with a way to magically send a signal to a processor that's NOT an interrupt, you're in violation of Apple's patent.

The patent also covers systems with and without cache. In the systems with cache, the cache voltage is maintained during the interrupt.

Again, the patent describes an implementation, but its really sufficiently vague to describe the only practical way to dynamically undervolt.

Therein lies the problem.


RE: Interpretation
By sprockkets on 3/4/2010 1:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
What this patent is perhaps describing is perhaps the more advanced methods that Intel introduced in their CPU designs where certain parts of the CPU can be put to sleep, instead of the entire CPU as a whole. There implementations before that were not as advanced, and this patent is about saving power for certain parts of the CPU, and not as a whole. Keep in mind this was applied for 8 years ago.

quote:
Again, the patent describes an implementation, but its really sufficiently vague to describe the only practical way to dynamically undervolt. Therein lies the problem.


Since neither of us are either patent lawyers nor electrical engineers at the silicon level, I don't think we can make any claim whatsoever on whether or not this is vague, especially if you didn't even read the other patents it references and how it innovates on their work.

Now being able to get a patent for their rearranging of icons? That's just BS.


RE: Interpretation
By omnicronx on 3/4/2010 2:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There implementations before that were not as advanced, and this patent is about saving power for certain parts of the CPU, and not as a whole. Keep in mind this was applied for 8 years ago.
What about ARM? They have had a large number of peripherals on-chip for a long time. Their PM implementation is very similar to what Apple has described, and definitely predates even the application date of Apples patent.


RE: Interpretation
By sprockkets on 3/4/2010 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Possibly, but while ARM's claim to fame was in their low power usage, that was initially due to their instruction set which took much less power than anything at the time.

Whether or not they had this advanced form of clock gating in the 90s is not widely unknown. Of course, you could rummage through all their old docs from their CPUs from the late 90s or so.

Keep in mind the first implementation of Intel's power saving couldn't even switch without a reboot of the computer; the clock speed was set upon powering on, and was set by whether the power was plugged in or not. Very, very archaic by today's standards but that's how it started.


RE: Interpretation
By ekv on 3/4/2010 3:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a lawyer -- thank God Almighty -- so I have not thoroughly read all the relevant patents, much less care to.

However, I'm just thinking that IF Arm (or Intel or Motorola or TI or AMD, etc.) did not come up with "dynamic power management" until after Apple applied for a patent, then Apple could sue them. Since Apple is not suing them, does that imply Apple realizes they have a weak case (and that they need to hone and build a chain of legal precedents) ?


RE: Interpretation
By sprockkets on 3/4/2010 4:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's the analog part of the equation. I bet Apple didn't care enough to suewhen HTC or others stole parts of their iphone, but I bet enabling multi-touch on the Nexus One pissed them off so that a lawsuit would be worth doing.

Google apparently didn't want to lose Apple's iphone defaulting to Google, so they privately agreed to not enable multi-touch gestures.

Patents as you've seen are bargaining tools, as it just results in cross-licensing. I'm sure HTC will fight back with its own patents soon enough.


Apple has turned into an rotten apple
By Harsh3090416 on 3/4/2010 11:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Seriuosly if apple wins the case or even settles it outside of the court and HTC has to pay a large sum of money or apple wins and HTC is ordered to STOP selling particular Models then I WILL NEVER EVER BUY AN APPLE PRODUCT AGAIN IN MY WHOLE LIFE EVEN IF THEY MAKE THE COOLEST GADGET OUT THEIR.




RE: Apple has turned into an rotten apple
By dark matter on 3/4/2010 11:46:03 AM , Rating: 5
Out their what?


By Harsh3090416 on 3/4/2010 11:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
My bad (: Out There in the market (when in comes out in the future.)


By Krotchrot on 3/4/2010 1:42:42 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, you made my day.


By Smilin on 3/4/2010 2:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is such a genius post that the only way it could have been downrated is if the guy you replied to has ghost accounts he used to bash you with.


Analogy
By chaos7 on 3/4/2010 11:13:40 AM , Rating: 2
In the words of Comic Book Guy "Worst Analogy ever"




RE: Analogy
By Smilin on 3/4/2010 2:48:10 PM , Rating: 1
Can we get someone who hasn't posted already to +1 this dude.


RE: Analogy
By Steve W on 3/4/2010 3:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe so, but it can be improved.

Imagine:
1) You don't get paid if you don't show up for work.
2) You want to get paid.
3) You are competing against other workers. Number of missed days is a major factor.
4) You don't want to get into an accident. That could result in even more missed days.

Now your method has real purpose. You want to minimize the number of missed days, you want to minimize the number of accidents, and you want to win the bonus for fewest missed days.

This is the same problem that schools have - when to stay open, and when to close. Airlines have this problem, too.

If you cancel a flight, your competition will get your business. On the other hand, if you plane crashes, your competition will get your business.

It's one thing for your competitor to decide that they will follow your lead in canceling flights. It's another thing for them to copy your de-icing protocol. Let them come up with their own.


RE: Analogy
By Smilin on 3/4/2010 6:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
dude. go suck the fun out of all those other posts and leave this one alone.


patenting ideas is absurd
By MadMan007 on 3/4/2010 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 5
This patenting of ideas b.s. has to stop. An idea isn't an invention. Implementations of ideas (aka inventions) should certainly be patentable, but ideas themselves, no. That would foster competition because you would have companies striving to develop the best *implementation* of an idea not just a vague idea.




Touch Screens
By ZachDontScare on 3/4/2010 2:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Its a shame HTC didnt patent the touch screen. The original HTC Touch phone pre-dates the iPhone. And had a better feature set, too. So who really ripped who off?




RE: Touch Screens
By 3minence on 3/4/2010 3:36:25 PM , Rating: 3
I can only imagine the meeting Steve and his fellow execs had when they decided to sue HTC. The entire conversation probably centered around the fact that other companies had competing products, how they could use the law to hurt the competition, and who was the best target. I am absolutely certain the matter of who actually invented the technology and what was "right" was never discussed, and if anyone did bring it up they would have been laughed out of the meeting.

Patents, courts, and the law are just tools to be manipulated to achieve ones goals. To so many business leaders, right and wrong are irrelevant.


By Tyhr on 3/4/2010 11:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
Voltage regulation? Multi-touch?

The company that holds the patent for the single push energy initiator (aka power button on/off switch) must be rolling in riches. I see Apple has copied that power button as well.




By lightfoot on 3/4/2010 12:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine the fortune that they could make if they patented the power interupt that conserves power on a single device without interrupting power to other devices. With such a device you could power off your iPhone without needing to power off your iMac, or even your dishwasher. That would be incredible!


If HTC wants to counter-sue..
By ziggo on 3/4/2010 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 4
They shouldn't rely on IP. Using vauge patents to bludgeon a smaller competitor into submission in court by forcing the smaller competitor to spend thier limited resources on a legal team is exactly the kind of behaviour that anti-competitve laws should be governing.




Of course...
By VoodooChicken on 3/4/2010 12:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Of course Apple does this NOW, not only because of the "flood" of HTC/Android handsets in the market, but the week of one finally reaching AT&T, home o' the iPhone. You can bet the carrier is going to be (even more) irate if its kids won't play nice. I'd like to see Luke Wilson mediate THAT pow-wow (well no, not really, but would be funny).




RE: Of course...
By Ananke on 3/4/2010 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
If I was Google, I would try aggressive acquisition of Apple. Microsoft would be interested also...Apple has plenty of cash :) - so Google can finance the acquisition with borrowed capital and promise to pay out with Apple's cash once it is completed. Classic story...


Intel beat them to this
By dgingeri on 3/4/2010 1:13:52 PM , Rating: 4
Intel has been using this since the old mobile Pentium III chips. If anyone "owns" this IP, it would be Intel. This is so much BS. Then again, this is Apple. They cheat a lot.




Missing Information
By jdietz on 3/4/2010 1:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
Undervolting may be "obvious" now, but it may not have been 10 years ago. Key in any patent discussion is the date of invention or date of filing. Could you state when the patent was filed?




RE: Missing Information
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 4:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
2002. And, as I pointed out below, it covers substantially more than just "undervolting".


Its horsehit behaviour like this...
By Griswold on 3/7/2010 4:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
... which ensures that my iphone 3g was my first and last apple product. After almost 2 years a new phone is due and its not gonna be from apple.

My wallet has spoken.




By Pirks on 3/8/2010 7:27:58 AM , Rating: 2
doh who cares about your wallet thingy :))) you're just a little PC shrimp in an ocean of apple loving consumers :P


I think I hate Apple.
By BigToque on 3/4/2010 11:22:46 AM , Rating: 2
Every time I read one of these articles about a company doing something stupid like this I get so annoyed.

I understand the whole concept about companies needing to protect their property, and "don't hate a corporation for acting like a corporation, blah, blah, blah".

What I don't understand is how shit like this ever gets thought up. I'm sure most people in the tech industry are in the industry because they love technology. We all want fast internet connections, unlimited bandwidth, large screens, fast processors, and generally love tinkering. We also all hate it when people, politics, and fine print get in the way. So how does someone like Steve Jobs (who was pretty much like us - I'm just assuming) end up running a company like this? How does he never stop and think "this CPU undervolting patent is a fucking retarded idea"?

Every day I find myself hating Apple (and pretty much every other company in the world) more and more. As soon as one company does something stupid and makes a buck, the rest join in.




RE: I think I hate Apple.
By jecs on 3/4/2010 12:29:48 PM , Rating: 1
Its ugly, but when a big fight involving big capitals has been beautiful???. Do you expect poetry? And then what is the point in a patent if it can't "protect" you or your products. And yes, I don't like it. But is better to have order and laws than not having them at all, or a system that can be fooled everywhere.

Apple is a corporation and is no better in that sense than the rest. Don be fooled because there are no angels here and there, and don't be naive, this is the world we live in. But again I understand, ¿Why does a corporation exist on a legal basis? It does not includes just this silly method Apple is fighting for. What's involved here is the main reason why we need a legal system, clear rules and what should be protected and from who.


HTC Razor thin
By uibo on 3/4/2010 12:20:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
HTC has little intellectual property that it can use to fight back against Apple with (versus a giant like Google or Microsoft) and also less money, given the razor-thin margins on its handset hardware.


HTC has razor-thin margins?
You learn something new every day... Meanwhile I would love to get a "razor-thin billion."




RE: HTC Razor thin
By menting on 3/4/2010 1:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
thin margins has nothing to do with how much profit you make.
L2MATH


A few problems
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 3:07:42 PM , Rating: 3
1. Why is this masquerading as a straight news story? It'd be an excellent blog...but its dripping with opinion. A good journalist keeps his opinions to himself.

2. Yes, undervolting and interrupts have both been around for decades. But name a processor that back in 2002 (when this was filed) monitored itself via interrupt for a condition in which processing was not necessary, then reduced voltage to the core to the point that processing could not be done, but state information was maintained.

If you can do that, there's prior art and the claim is invalid. If you can't then Apple has a reasonable case, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.




By crystal clear on 3/4/2010 8:48:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
First, the patent is overly vague. Of course this is true of many patents, but its definitely true in this case.


Have you read Apple's complaints/ ITC filing/The Delaware filing & its claims on its patents ?

No I doubt very much !

Do some research !

Read this-

Apple Sues HTC For Infringing On 20 iPhone Patents: The Complete Documents
We've got both full filings below

http://gizmodo.com/5483632/

Apple Sues HTC [ Complete Court Filings ]

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples...

Also seek legal opinion on all such patent issues before posting your article.

As for the commentators-they should be aware ultimately its the courts that decide the outcome, say what you want,curse Apple,hate Apple,call them what you like...its a waste of time.




Yes.
By Shadowself on 3/4/2010 12:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does Apple Really "Own" Cell Phone CPU Undervolting in the U.S.?


For the specific implementation for which they received the patent, the answer is, "Yes." The patent was issued, and Apple has legal right to try to enforce it.

The real question is, "Should the patent *ever* have been issued?" The answer to that one is, "Not only 'No.', but 'HELL NO!'"




patents
By supergarr on 3/4/2010 2:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
I am going to patent the concept of patents.

THEY ARE ALL MINE NOW




Why don't we just
By vectorm12 on 3/4/2010 5:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
Agree to from now on ignore all comments made by users like "reader1" and Tony whatever from now on guys?

I mean each and every single bit of news that gets posted these people post something intentionally stupid in order to aggravate the rest of us readers and the results are always the same. Post after post arguing with someone who's either completely lost it and looks for arguments wherever they can find them or simply doesn't know better.

Facts are that the Apple lawsuits are bogus due to patents that are at best highly questionable to begin with.

Let's keep the discussions between us who are actually looking to inform ourselves instead of indulging the few disruptive people here.




By Tiamat on 3/4/2010 10:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you check the Office Action on USPTO's public pair, you will see how the examiner examined the patent application.
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

Prior art used by examiner: US5666537 and US6795896




HAHA
By MrPoletski on 3/5/2010 5:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
I can see all the apple fanboy posts, they are marked in red lol.

Dirty patent, dirty 'wait till the product is selling' infringement claim.

Didn't Rambus get its ass handed to it for this?




My Master Plan
By wifiwolf on 3/5/2010 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Every Intellectual property producer beware.
I'm soon filing a patent on the ability to file a patent.
Muuuuuuuuahahahahaaaaahhh




Dumb patents
By rdhood on 3/9/2010 9:06:18 AM , Rating: 2
Here is the patent that I will apply for:
"Conserving fuel by reducing speed to 45mph on interstate highway systems."

Then, anyone who goes 45mph on the highway will be in violation of my patent.




By omgwtf8888 on 3/10/2010 11:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
There are those wonderful little motion sensors that people install in their houses that shut off the lights in a particular room when no one is there. Jazz it up into technapobe terms and it is one and the same. Or maybe the guy that patented the thermostat that measures a variable and reduces the energy consumption of the heating system.

Troll alert... go find these patents and sue Apple, htc and all others.... Please don't forget my cut...




soon
By menting on 3/4/2010 1:26:38 PM , Rating: 1
pretty soon Apple will say they invented patents.




By Ares Ultimate on 3/4/2010 3:11:32 PM , Rating: 1
I guess that now apple is trying to own P=I*V we are all going to have to start using P=R*I^2...




By trisct on 3/4/2010 4:42:28 PM , Rating: 1
At least, its one big reason. They are really a nasty bunch, even if they do build some pretty gadgets and well engineered software. I don't like the gadgets or the software well enough to put my money down and support their business tactics.




This could be valid...
By KIAman on 3/5/2010 1:27:29 PM , Rating: 1
... if you remember the key word "cell phone cpu" I guess nobody they thought that distinction was enough to warrant a patent.

Next, they will sue tablet makers for undervolting their "tablet cpu"

Come on, this isn't surprising at all. Didn't Apple try to sue everybody because THEY invented touchscreen gestures?!? Please.




You know what will be fun?
By CrimsonFrost on 3/9/2010 2:21:50 PM , Rating: 1
When they try to pull this shit with Microsoft. I have an iPhone, I like it a lot (I can't say the same for the shaughty service of AT&T that it's stuck on, but oh well). But Multitouch has been around for years and years, and Intel, AMD, and VIA have been undervolting CPUs since the very beginning. Apple can't compete in a War of attrition with Intel, and Microsoft would just be like watching Lennox Lewis fighting an infant.

It's blowhard, it really is, Apple is (as other people have suggested) really just going after the easiest target in the large field of targets that would stand against it. If Google steps up (they did say they would support the people who helped them develop Android, which is mainly HTC) then Apple is in for a very rude awakening, Google has a hell of of a lot more muscle than Apple does, and I'm sure they'll use it.

Also, didn't Microsoft introduce "Surface" like months before the first iPhone even came out? (They did, I already looked) I'm pretty sure a patent can be reversed if you can prove you had the tech first, and MS obviously had this one first for Multitouch... Than again Apple's patent could be specific to mobile devices. Meh, food for thought.




Apple should shutdown
By hiscross on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple should shutdown
By siuol11 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple should shutdown
By Camikazi on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
Patent Law
By johninco on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Patent Law
By keegssj on 3/4/2010 1:05:38 PM , Rating: 3
We have a new patent lawyer who explained some patent concepts to us that I had never considered.

Obviousness: This doesn't apply to people who are experienced in a particular field, but to non-experienced people. So if I am an experienced EE, then what I consider obvious doesn't apply.

Prior Art: This only applies if the Prior art is applied to the same type of application. I could take something that had been developed for automobiles and develop something new with that knowledge and re-patent the idea since the concept had never been used for this new type of application.

Those are the two issues that made me walk out of the meeting a more confused about patent law. If this is actually how the patent office works then I can understand how some of these patents actually get approved.


RE: Patent Law
By HotFoot on 3/4/2010 1:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Take the field of medicine. As I understand it, an old drug about to have its patent expire can be found to have some usefulness with respect to something new, such as an ailment for which it wasn't previously patented. The company can then go and re-patent that drug for a whole new patent duration, and the drug remains patented even for it's original use.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

There are some things about the system that just seem ridiculous, even from what you've said in your better-informed post. The mere fact that a technique has been used for something similar but different in the past should mean it's an obvious solution.

On the obviousness point, I can't see how the current system works at all in this case (maybe it doesn't work!). If person A is an electrical engineer looking at a problem, and on the other side of the world person B is looking at a similar problem and is also an electrical engineer, it's no surprise if they come up with very similar solutions. The solution is obvious to the expert.

I'm starting to think that patent suits should require the plaintiff to demonstrate a plausible way the technology was ripped off, rather than invented independently.


RE: Patent Law
By Tiamat on 3/4/2010 10:50:11 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, you are wrong about that. Newly discovered uses for old products does not have any patentable weight since the old product inherently had that capability. "Intended Use"

Obviousness is based on one having ordinary skill in the art, not an expert of the art. Not withstanding guidelines as set forth by KSR v. Teleflex, in order to make an obviousness argument you need to have a teaching, support, and motivation to modify one prior art with the teaching of another.

People need to remember that the way examiners examine patent applications is highly molded by what the courts tell them to do from massive cases like KSR v. Teleflex. Pay attention to In Re Bilski etc. This one will be huge for business methods type patents - a type of patents all of you are familiar with (social networking etc.). Depending on this specific Supreme Court case, there could be massive implications to those patents already issued or to be examined.

As technology advances, the older patent law needs to be reshaped by the courts. This is how it always has been. The courts provide the check for balance of the patent system.


RE: Patent Law
By IP geek on 3/5/2010 10:48:10 AM , Rating: 3
Good points, although a new use for an old product IS patentable as a new method. However, the old product can still be commercialized for any use which is not covered by the newly patented method. There are a huge number of patents issued in the field of pharma/biotech that are based on new uses.

For instance, there once was a patent for the aspirin product based on its inherent property to be useful for relief of pain/migrain. Years later, it was discovered that it was also useful for preventing cardio-vascular disorders. This new discovery is patentable as a new method of preventing cardio-vascular disorders using aspirin. The new method does not prevent a copany from selling aspirin, so aspirin is NOT again patented. It is the new use which is patented, thus a company could not sell aspirin under the intended use of preventing cardio-vascular disorders, but could still likely advertize aspirin for pain relief.


RE: Patent Law
By Solandri on 3/4/2010 3:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is the Patent Office gets paid per application processed. So it's in their best interest to make as many concepts as possible patentable. Even if it causes enormous costs for our industry and court system.


RE: Patent Law
By Suomynona on 3/4/2010 3:51:04 PM , Rating: 3
Obviousness does apply to people experienced in a particular field, specifically a "person having ordinary skill in the art." If you could patent anything that wasn't obvious to a janitor, then things would be even worse than they already are. It also sounds like your patent lawyer is taking a pretty liberal view of the term "prior art." One of the most ridiculous ideas when it comes to patents is that you can take an existing idea and slap the phrase "on a mobile device" on it and claim it as a new invention.

It seems like one of the biggest problems with IP law is that you'll only be successful if you have an overly broad and legalistic view of what's patentable. You don't get paid to tell people that their "invention" is unpatentable, people pay you to tell them that everything they think of can be patented. People who are skeptical about overly broad patents don't generally seem to go into the field, so all there is in IP law is positive feedback.


RE: Patent Law
By keegssj on 3/4/2010 4:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also sounds like your patent lawyer is taking a pretty liberal view of the term "prior art."

I thought his interpretations on both definitions were pretty liberal. He did spend a number of years working at the patent office.


RE: Patent Law
By IP geek on 3/4/2010 4:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps he did not work as an examiner?

Obviousness of a claim is decided based on what a person skilled in the art would think / do in view of known art. Thus it is NOT based on someone with no expertise.

Novelty is based on explicit or implicit disclosure of all the elements present in the claim.

You will note that both legal tests are done on the claims which are the numbered paragraphs at the end of the patent, these are the one which define the monopoly conferred by the Patent. So even if the description part discloses many known things, it does not matter, it is what is determined by the claims which is important.

If any of you guys do find art references which could be useful in invalidating Apple's Patent then you should either

- apply for re-examination of the Patent at the US Patent Office; or

- send it to the defence legal team so that they may file a counter-claim for invalidity of the Patent.

Cheers


RE: Patent Law
By dsuse on 3/4/2010 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
I agree companies are certainly within their rights to enforce their patents (that is after all the intent of the patent system). However, the question might be asked, is it always in their best interests to do so? Lots of companies -- such as Novell, who almost certainly owns the Unix IP (as soon as SCO is finally gone) -- choose not to enforce their patents against others. Business does not have to be treated as a zero-sum game, and invariably businesses can do better by cooperating than by trying to constantly annihilate each other.

This is where business ethics is "supposed" to come into the picture. What is better for their business, AND consumers, AND society in general would be the question to ask. The shareholders of the company might want to be involved as well (it does not sound like the Apple shareholders were asked much about the money seemingly now being used as a $40B war chest). Consumers benefit from competition in the market, not by being victimized by monopolies. Apparently Apple does not worry about such trivial niceties...the only problem with this is that there is a real possibility of all the other parties potentially being threatened to band together and counter-attack Apple. What a wonderful way to spend $40B of shareholders' dollars, which could have benefited them, or been reinvested in new product development!

Jobs seems to be drunk with power, and seems to only be interested in pursuing his own egotistical agenda instead of acting in the best interests of his shareholders and society in general. I have a feeling that he is going to lose many customers because of his autocratic and aggressive decisions, as well as get stomped legally and financially by Google and many others.


RE: Patent Law
By HrilL on 3/4/2010 2:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pissed at both Apple and the Patent office.

First off Apple shouldn't try to patent an idea that has been around for decades.

The Patent office shouldn't have issued the patent.

Both sides of the fence should use common sense. Yet both seem to be lacking any.


RE: Patent Law
By 1reader on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














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