backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by distortnx.. on Jul 20 at 7:40 PM


HTC is currently fighting for survival in U.S. court, as rival Apple looks to remove its products from the market, with lawsuits.  (Source: Reuters / Pichi Chuang)

HTC may survive the brutal attack. The company has many avenues by which it might survive Apple's litigious efforts.  (Source: The Biography Channel)

The Kyocera VP-210 "Visual Phone" was doing real-time video processing three years before Apple was granted a patent on the practice. Prior art abounds, which could invalidate Apple's overly broad claims.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Apple ostensibly wants HTC's U.S. sales to die, but it's far from game over for popular Android phonemaker

Thus far almost everything has gone according to plan for gadget maker Apple, Inc. (AAPL), in the company's quest to kill U.S. sales of top Android phone maker HTC Corp. (SEO:066570) with litigation.  Apple has won a single-judge preliminary ruling from the U.S. International Trade Commission.  If that ruling upheld by the greater six judge panel, HTC's sales to the U.S. will almost certainly be blocked, pending some sort of action.

Many were very disappointed to hear this news.  After all, HTC's smart phones like the Thunderbolt and EVO 4G, are some of the most popular and iconic Android models on the market.  Many expressed outrage that Apple could remove HTC from the U.S. market, if successful.  Clearly this was an emotional issue, as HTC, a cheeky underdog, has endeared itself to many.

But it's far from game over for HTC.  The company still has a variety of viable options -- though some are less appealing than others.

I. First Line of Defense: The Final Ruling

HTC's most desirable spot to make its stand is when the full ITC panel convenes to make its final determination.  The ITC's staff gave a recommendation against Apple's infringement allegations in an early April evaluation of the case, so HTC has to think that at least some at the ITC may be on its side.

One thing HTC can argue is that the patents are overly broad and generic.  

U.S. Patent No. 6,343, 263, one of the two patents that the ITC judge found HTC to violate, was filed in 2002, but covers virtually every video and music capable mobile cell phone/tablet in existence, as well as internet television devices.

In 2002, Apple's only devices to use this kind of real-time processing were its personal computers.  Further, three years earlier in Japan, Kyocera Corp. (TYO: 6971) had deployed the Kyocera VP-210 "Visual Phone" which used signal processing similar to what Apple's patent describes to deliver video chats.  This may provide evidence of "prior art" -- even in the mobile sector -- weakening Apple's claim on this patent.

The patent also makes no mention of "cellular" or "mobile" applications, meaning that it likely also covers real-time video and audio coprocessors in personal computers of all kinds -- something there's a rich history of development of, dating decades back.  It's hard to believe Apple could claim ownership to real time video processing on PCs, which its patent appears to (attempt to) cover.

The other patent -- U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 -- is a software patent covering interpreting text.  Specifically, it covers mechanisms to spot "special" text, like phone numbers or shipment tracking numbers inside a text communication, such as an email, text message, or instant message.

Again, this idea is very generic and does not apply specifically to smartphones.  In fact, it was granted in 1999, well before the first "smart" cell phone hit U.S. shores.  Microsoft and a variety of other companies include features in word processing software and other utilities to find and automatically add links to content such as phone numbers.  Similarly many web sites automatically link stocks to a webpage with content.  

If Apple had added the language "real time" or "handheld device" to this patent, it might have been stronger, but as it is, it merely refers to input -- this makes the patent very vulnerable in its generic nature.

What is clear from examining these patents is that they would be prophetic and novel if their cover systems were explicitly stated to be directed at mobile cellular uses.  They did not make such references, so ultimately you must consider prior art on systems such as internet-connected PCs and televisions, as well.  This, in theory greatly weakens both of the patents HTC supposedly violated.

One would think there was too much prior art to validate such a broad claim -- but then again, at least one ITC judge seemed to disagree.

II. Second Line of Defense: The Countersuit

HTC is currently suing Apple back, claiming it violated five of its patents.  Apple's IP library is significantly strong than HTC's, so many doubt that HTC will prevail in proving Apple infringed on its IP.

If it did defy the odds, though, it could force Apple into a mutual licensing agreement, similar to what Finland's Nokia (HEL:NOK1V) did.  Apple is reportedly loath to enter into such an agreement, hoping to simply block HTC's shipments and remove it from the market outright.  But if it's faced with the prospect of having its own shipments similarly cut off, it might be forced into an uneasy truce under threat of mutual destruction à la cold war era U.S. and Soviet Russia.

HTC's recent purchase of S3 Graphics could help, in that Apple was found by the ITC to have infringed on two of S3 Graphics' graphics chip patents.  However, Apple is reportedly looking either to purchase chips from someone who's already licensed the IP in question from S3 Graphics, or to switch to modified chips.  Either way, whatever legal muscle S3 Graphics gives could quickly be erased.

III. Third Line of Defense: Samsung and Motorola

Apple is using these patents to try to sue [1][2][3] Motorola Solutions Inc. (MSI) and Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO:005930), as well.  Both of these companies have filed countersuits [1][2], and moved to invalidate Apple's intellectual property involved.

Whereas HTC is young to world of patent litigation, Samsung, in particular, is one of the world's most prolific veterans in terms of IP.  Samsung currently holds 28,700 patents in the U.S., alone -- significantly more patents than Apple.

Even if HTC's own efforts fall flat, it may be bailed out by these fellow veterans who join it in the trifecta of the world's top three Android phone makers.

Again, Samsung should make a strong case that the patents involved were overly generic and covered applications broadly tread in prior art.

IV. The Last Resort: Redesign

Ultimately, HTC has one final option for survival -- redesigning its products.  It's unclear exactly how it could escape the broad reach of Apple's real-time video/audio processing patent, but it's possible it could carefully craft its chips and firmware to avoid the patents formal terms.

The text parsing claims would be easier to escape -- HTC could simply eliminate this code, or put it as part of an API for use on a per-app basis, which could be protected.

Google Inc. (GOOG), makers of Android OS, tried to spin the loss at the ITC as merely a loss for HTC.  They stated, "We're pleased that the ITC ruled against all of Apple’s operating system patent claims."

The statement refers to the remaining eight patents in the case, which were invalidated by the ITC.  However, Google's optimism is premature, as the OS is involved in both text parsing and media playback.  In other words, Google spin not only seems to throw HTC under the bus -- it also is inaccurate.  The ITC judge in fact upheld two of Apple's operating system-related claims.

That means that all Android manufacturers are at risk.  Even if Apple is able to take out these manufacturers one by one, Google may be able to spring into action, helping its partners modify their hardware/software, so as to escape Apple's litigious grasp.

Obviously, redesign is the worst-case scenario.  If it gets this far, it likely means the ITC has blocked HTC, Samsung, and Motorola's imports into the U.S.  In that case, Android sales would be effectively dead until the trio could scrap together new systems that ostensibly don't violate Apple's IP in the eyes of the ITC.

HTC clearly hopes that things won't get that far.

But the overall message is clear.  Apple's preliminary victory was a serious wound to the company, but it still has ample opportunity to escape its attacker and survive.  If it and its fellow Android makers can indeed survive, they will have put Apple in a very bad spot, exhausting their rival’s final desperation attempt at market supremacy.  After all, the market appears to be leaning in favor of selection and price -- globally Android is outselling the iPhone over two-to-one



Comments     Threshold


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

Or...
By quiksilvr on 7/18/2011 2:38:57 PM , Rating: 5
Point out the sheer retardedness of the patents (seriously, they are so asinine and basic, it can be used on any company) and push for patent reform.




RE: Or...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/18/2011 2:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Point out the sheer retardedness of the patents (seriously, they are so asinine and basic, it can be used on any company) and push for patent reform.

Agreed, but HTC and its Android allies can't afford to wait that long. Mass patent reform will likely take years and the current administration doesn't appear willing to make it a serious focus.

HTC needs to find a way in the short term to thwart Apple's plot and keep its product in U.S. stores.


RE: Or...
By cjohnson2136 on 7/18/2011 2:47:06 PM , Rating: 5
DUCK...incoming iTards


RE: Or...
By Jeffk464 on 7/18/2011 11:49:35 PM , Rating: 4
Holly crap, is it just me or have lawyers taken over the world? Suits counter-suits, purchasing companies just to position your company strategically for the next lawsuit. yuk


RE: Or...
By macdevdude on 7/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: Or...
By cjohnson2136 on 7/18/2011 2:57:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You are so biased and this article is garbage...


That's the pot calling the kettle black


RE: Or...
By SPOOFE on 7/19/2011 5:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not even; it read more like the pot claiming the sky is plaid for all the alternate-history nonsensical drivel thrown in.


RE: Or...
By cjohnson2136 on 7/18/2011 2:59:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
FIRST to invent these things and invent the smart phone.


Apple first to invent smartphone. What about Blackberry and winmo before them. They were both classified as smartphones. Not very good ones in my opinion but Apple did not create the first smartphone.


RE: Or...
By macdevdude on 7/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: Or...
By cjohnson2136 on 7/18/2011 3:07:41 PM , Rating: 5
My computer ten years ago could barely do what it does now does that mean it is no longer classified as a computer.

I will concur that Apple helped push smartphones to what they are today but don't say they invented them because that is a complete and utter lie.


RE: Or...
By A11 on 7/19/2011 5:34:37 AM , Rating: 5
The truth matters not in Soviet Apple.


RE: Or...
By nolisi on 7/18/2011 3:47:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Those aren't smart phones! Half them couldn't even play movies. And good luck trying to surf the web or listen to music.


Um, yes they were. Winmo and BB were on the market allowing business users to read PDFs and office Documents, recieve email, and perform all sorts of crucial smart phone tasks. While the time, the hardware could barely handle video (there wasn't the capacity or battery life), but you most certainly could surf the web and listen to music.

They didn't innovate, at best they renovated, and all they did was wait for existing hardware, carrier and battery technology to become fast enough to integrate the rest of what a PC could do into a phone. The only thing they did that was remotely different was create a centralized way to extend the functionality of your phone, and this already existed in even non smart phones (download ringtones, games, etc). It only appeared cooler because Apple waited to do it when the hardware caught up to what people expect out of a PC.


RE: Or...
By Samus on 7/19/2011 1:24:00 AM , Rating: 1
Palm should sue Apple as they have a patent for a touch screen mobile interface.

Apple clearly stole their idea and made it 'different' by throwing the stylus out. But its still a patent infringement. At least Microsoft licensed the patent for Pocket PC.

And speaking of Microsoft, guess who has the patent for a capacitive touch interface? Apple is so screwed. Opening a can of worms they is.


RE: Or...
By Bearach on 7/18/2011 3:47:59 PM , Rating: 5
My old HTC Hermes (2006), and my parents HTC Wizard (2005) were fully capable of browsing the internet (albeit the Wizard was slower compared to the Hermes).

They were also very capable of playing movies, wmv or mp4, or with Coreplayer divx/xvid video files. Playing music was very easy on them too. So how couldn't they do them things?


RE: Or...
By themaster08 on 7/18/2011 4:35:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
My old HTC Hermes (2006), and my parents HTC Wizard (2005) were fully capable of browsing the internet (albeit the Wizard was slower compared to the Hermes).
As was my 2004 Nokia N-Gage (a massively underrated smartphone and way ahead of its time).

This macdevdude continues to bang on about companies stealing Apple's IP, and copying Apple. As if Apple have never copied. Their very first product was inspired directly from the Altair 8800. Their Apple Lisa was inspired directly (and arguably heavily copied) from Xerox PARC. Each and every one of Apple's products were inspired from products released before them. Even up to this day. iOS 5's notification system is directly inspired from Android's notification system. If "copying" never happened, markets, competition, choice and freedom wouldn't exist.

Sorry to disappoint you, macdevdude, but ignorance just doesn't cut it in this day and age. You claim to support the free market, but that only seems to be when it benefits your beloved Apple.


RE: Or...
By Quadrillity on 7/19/2011 6:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. If your product (naming Apple) can be easily imitated, then it doesn't deserve a patent. Furthermore you can not patent ideas.

If this holds up in court, then I am applying for a patent that reads: "A circular device with spokes that rotates and allows for transport of large or heavy material when attached to a cylinder"


RE: Or...
By FITCamaro on 7/18/2011 8:22:10 PM , Rating: 1
I guess the first computers weren't computers then since they couldn't do that either. Hell they didn't have keyboards even.


RE: Or...
By dotpoz on 7/19/2011 5:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
my 2004 nokia 6600 can play mp3, surf the web with opera, and play some lo res video.....

iphone was marketed in 2007


RE: Or...
By Touche on 7/19/2011 8:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those aren't smart phones! Half them couldn't even play movies. And good luck trying to surf the web or listen to music. Face it, Apple innovated, the rest have been in a race to see who can copy it the fastest.


My trusty N95 plays movies, music and surfs the web, supports more formats than iPhone that came after it (maybe even the latest, haven't checked), multitasks, has GPS, 5MP camera w/ LED flash, front facing camera, video rec, full BT support, microSD slot, 3G, Office support, radio...

Yup, Apple's iPhone sure seems innovative after such a poor little limited Nokia phone I happily use to this very day...


RE: Or...
By retrospooty on 7/19/2011 8:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
"Those aren't smart phones! Half them couldn't even play movies. And good luck trying to surf the web or listen to music."

\So then Palm should be suing Apple?

Apple was NOT the first smartphone. Palm, Blackberry and many makers that used Winmobile were there first and yes, they were smartphones, and did even MORE than the fiurst iPhone did. Apple brought a great UI to the table, that is all. Your bias and typical macfanboy lack of knowledge is really showing now.

Anyhow, this was all just a blip. Once it goesw to the higher court it will all be overturned.


RE: Or...
By Gungel on 7/18/2011 3:01:18 PM , Rating: 5
By your standard Apple should have been stopped from selling anything a long time ago.


RE: Or...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2011 3:21:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Lets hope the ITC decides to take out the trash and sweep the rubbish Android handsets off the market. Thank god for IP.


LOL oh man, you crack me up. Seriously, what is wrong with you?


RE: Or...
By dark matter on 7/18/2011 3:34:08 PM , Rating: 5
He is a idiotic troll. Don't entertain the juvenile fool, and he will go back to playing with himself.


RE: Or...
By silverblue on 7/19/2011 5:04:43 AM , Rating: 5
...until Steve says he's holding it wrong.


RE: Or...
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/18/2011 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 5
Again, you are a moron , Apple did not invent the smartphone, end of story. You can claim it all you want, it's not true.

The first smartphone was the IBM Simon; it was designed in 1992 and shown as a concept product[10] that year at COMDEX, the computer industry trade show held in Las Vegas, Nevada. It was released to the public in 1993 and sold by BellSouth. Besides being a mobile phone, it also contained a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail client, the ability to send and receive faxes, and games. It had no physical buttons, instead customers used a touchscreen to select telephone numbers with a finger or create facsimiles and memos with an optional stylus. Text was entered with a unique on-screen "predictive" keyboard. By today's standards, the Simon would be a fairly low-end product, lacking a camera and the ability to install third-party applications. However, its feature set at the time was highly advanced.

The Nokia Communicator line was the first of Nokia's smartphones starting with the Nokia 9000, released in 1996. This distinctive palmtop computer style smartphone was the result of a collaborative effort of an early successful and costly personal digital assistant (PDA) by Hewlett-Packard combined with Nokia's bestselling phone around that time, and early prototype models had the two devices fixed via a hinge. The communicators are characterized by clamshell design, with a feature phone display, keyboard and user interface on top of the phone, and a physical QWERTY keyboard, high-resolution display of at least 640x200 pixels and PDA user interface under the door. The software was based on the GEOS V3.0 operating system, featuring email communication and text-based web browsing. In 1998, it was followed by Nokia 9110, and in 2000 by Nokia 9110i, with improved web browsing capability.

In 1997 the term 'smartphone' was used for the first time when Ericsson unveiled the concept phone GS88,[11][12] the first device labelled as 'smartphone'.[13]


RE: Or...
By Ytsejamer1 on 7/18/2011 7:23:19 PM , Rating: 3
What I'd like to see is all hardware companies that have contracts with Apple (who may also sell Android devices) blacklist Apple by not providing hardware to them. "Oh...you want screens for your iPad product, go back to your garage and build them yourself!"

Being that money talks and there is too much to lose, it will never happen. But it'd be nice to see a consortium stand up to Apple and threaten to put them on their own island. We'd likely see Apple change their tune.

If I were Microsoft, I might just rattle Apple's cage a bit by pulling out some IP and sue Apple. After all, MS gets $15 per HTC android device sold...so it might be in their best interest regardless. That might make them shut up.


RE: Or...
By thisisaname on 7/18/2011 10:35:24 PM , Rating: 3
That would be a cat fight I'd pay great sums of money to see.


RE: Or...
By Tony Swash on 7/19/2011 5:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I'd like to see is all hardware companies that have contracts with Apple (who may also sell Android devices) blacklist Apple by not providing hardware to them. "Oh...you want screens for your iPad product, go back to your garage and build them yourself!"


They are too scared. Apple is too big.


RE: Or...
By themaster08 on 7/20/2011 2:24:05 AM , Rating: 2
.... and too anti-competitive.


RE: Or...
By thomp237 on 7/18/2011 4:03:50 PM , Rating: 5
Is it wrong that when I read this users ID, I see "MacDevTard"?

Listen up Apple fanboy, just because Apple didnt invent it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. I know you all view the world through Apple colored glasses, but do try to keep up. Long before the iPhone ever existed there were smart phones from a variety of manufacturers and OS providers.

Just because you were too stupid to interact with an OS not geared to 8 year old school girls doesnt mean the rest of us sat on our hands hoping St Jobs would deliver us from WinMo hell.

Now run along junior...


RE: Or...
By Fritzr on 7/18/2011 11:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
In one patent they claim to have invented all forms of server client video and in the other they claim to have invented embedded formatting codes, SGML & all markup languages derived from SGML such as all of the internet markup languages including XML and all HTMLs.

The claim to markup languages would even cover things like Symbolic Assemblers for machine language coding as it is usually required that a computer correctly parse the structures and perform the associated task as intended by the author of the source code :D

based on the history of server/client computing this layman thinks the Apple patents are garbage.


RE: Or...
By Gondor on 7/19/2011 3:46:22 AM , Rating: 1
iTroll much ? Wake up and smell the reality, there isn't a single thing that Apple invented that hasn't been around before, obvious enough so that nobody in their right mind botrhered to patent it. Apple is abusing legal system as a whole and should be heavily fined for doing so.


RE: Or...
By Fusible on 7/19/2011 11:48:53 AM , Rating: 1
For 1000th time here it is in his own words.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2...


RE: Or...
By michael67 on 7/19/2011 10:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Steve Jobs had it exactly right. The Android phonemakers think they can just steal Apple's intellectual property and get away with it. Well, clearly from the ruling, they're wrong.

Man you are the biggest troll around, or you seriously need a reality check ^_^

As what Jobs 2.0 says, it is not the same thing, as that what stands in original jobs 1.0, and should not be taken as the word of God!

Search on http://eztv.it/ BBC Secrets of the Superbrands,

Watch it, and you know that we are all idiots, when we buy brand goods, just some people are better idiots then others ^_^


RE: Or...
By quiksilvr on 7/18/2011 3:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
So push patent reform anyways and let people know about this now while tackling these infringements that HTC has to put up with.

They won't be doing this alone and since we are coming up on election year, this is the perfect time to bring this forward and let the country know about this. I guarantee you the current's administration unwillingness will change appropriately.


RE: Or...
By bug77 on 7/18/2011 2:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Can you explain sheer retardation to a lawyer?


RE: Or...
By quiksilvr on 7/18/2011 3:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
When you are about to charge someone for a attacking another person and then charging them for murder even though the victim isn't dead.

How's that for sheer retardation?


RE: Or...
By danjw1 on 7/18/2011 5:57:42 PM , Rating: 4
What we really need is to get rid of software patents in their entirety. And while we are at it, business model patents too. Software is nothing but an algorithm, which really isn't any different then a mathematical function. There are only a small number of was to write a certain operation in an efficient manner. Patents are supposed to spur innovation, but in the case of software patents they do more to stop it.


RE: Or...
By danjw1 on 7/18/2011 5:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are only a small number of was to write a certain operation in an efficient manner

err, /was/ways/. Sorry about that.


RE: Or...
By Spookster on 7/18/2011 6:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
They should reform the patent approval process to include a $50,000 fine to approver(s) of a patent that later is ruled uneforceable. Would make them take it a bit more seriously before rubber stamping every patent that comes across their desk without doing an indepth analysis of the wording and intent of the patent.


RE: Or...
By Spookster on 7/18/2011 6:20:08 PM , Rating: 4
and also should include a mandatory expiration of patent if the patent holder has not produced a tangible product that clearly demonstrates the patent within a reasonable amount of time. Would help to get rid of the patent mongers.


RE: Or...
By Fritzr on 7/18/2011 11:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't work. One of the ways a patent owner can use a patent is to keep tech, that would obsolete their current product, off the market.

The limited term and non-renewability of the patent forces a company using this tactic to innovate or see their patent used against them as soon as it expires :)

Legitimate tactic, just not nice


RE: Or...
By eskimospy on 7/18/2011 9:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's silliness. What we really need is to massively increase resources to the USPTO. The patent backlog is already huge, and there's simply not enough time to do what you're asking.

If they did do it, everyone would complain that the patent process was too slow. More government resources needed.


Yea ok..
By xXIrishCowboyXx on 7/18/2011 2:59:03 PM , Rating: 4
If Steve Jobs really thinks he can get rid of HTC in the US then Bill Gates should be able to get rid of Apple in the US.




RE: Yea ok..
By Gungel on 7/18/2011 3:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why would he? Microsoft owns a large chunk of Apple stocks and they have a cross licensing agreement.


RE: Yea ok..
By xXIrishCowboyXx on 7/18/2011 3:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
im not saying he would I'm saying if Apple snuffs out HTC they would be opening the door for Microsoft to also do some dirty stuff as well.

HTC is a different OS than Apple ofcourse.

Apple exists because it's a different OS than Microsoft.

I'm just trying to point out similarities.


RE: Yea ok..
By macdevdude on 7/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: Yea ok..
By xXIrishCowboyXx on 7/18/2011 3:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
everyone steals from everyone.


RE: Yea ok..
By Solandri on 7/18/2011 9:59:54 PM , Rating: 4
"Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal." And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs

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


RE: Yea ok..
By Samus on 7/19/2011 1:26:46 AM , Rating: 1
wow...haha!


RE: Yea ok..
By silverblue on 7/19/2011 5:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
Owned.


RE: Yea ok..
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/18/2011 3:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe they own stock anymore.

All told, Microsoft spent a little over $151 million to acquire 18.2 million shares of Apple stock, for roughly $8.31 per share. Microsoft confirmed that it sold all of its AAPL holdings some time ago, and likely did so at a healthy profit—after all, AAPL has traded significantly higher than $8 for many years. But what if Microsoft had held on to that investment just a little longer?

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/05/appl...


RE: Yea ok..
By omnicronx on 7/18/2011 5:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
icrosoft owns a large chunk of Apple stocks
No they don't. Microsoft sold off their ~18M in common stock a long time ago. (and I don't think it was ever a large chunk)


Apple is a bu$*#
By gorehound on 7/18/2011 2:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is that big kid in your neighhborhood ho got jeapous cause you got to dance with that pretty girl so he beat you up and bullied you.
Apple = bye bye.I am so sick of your company.Another worthless lawsuit because folks like someone else's phone.Rather than compete as a gentleman you have to resort to the lowering of standards................the ole use of generic bs patent or patents.
i will not be buying anymore Apple stuff.I did buy IPODS but when this dies I will buy something else different.I do hope you lose more business.More and more the news I have read of Apple in the past year has been bad press.




RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Swampthing on 7/18/2011 3:00:01 PM , Rating: 4
Apple is more like that short little guy in the bar on friday night that wants to pick a fight with everyone to prove he's better. Small mans disease i call it. The only area apple is any kind of player is smartphones and mp3 players. they've been a minor annoyance in the computer world for years. I wish people would stop supporting apple. It's funny how so many people are or were anti microsoft but apple is hands down far and above a worse company that has done things that actually do deserve the ire of the tech world.


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By tng on 7/18/2011 3:13:54 PM , Rating: 1
A few years ago I had actually thought about buying a Mac for home use, but the budget slowed that down fortunately.

Even though I will bitch, whine and complain about MS, they really aren't that bad compared to Apple. I am happy to report that I bought a basic netbook for home that has XP. I wouldn't even trade my Vista OS business laptop for anything Apple and God knows I don't like Vista....


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Tony Swash on 7/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Quadrillity on 7/19/2011 6:54:39 AM , Rating: 2
LOL - ever heard of ... International Business Machines? Intel? Google? Oracle? HP? They make Apple look like a dingy in the Atlantic.

Oh crap, I just fed a troll... :\


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Quadrillity on 7/19/2011 6:58:49 AM , Rating: 2
Somehow I missed Microsoft in that group.


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Tony Swash on 7/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Quadrillity on 7/19/2011 12:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
Since when does revenue = size of company? You can't even stay on topic 8-|


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By neogrin on 7/19/2011 12:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
In your very own list I see two companies that are larger then Apple, But in your Original Poster, you said:

quote:
hate to shatter your little dream world but Apple are[sic] the biggest tech company in the world :)


So you just proved your own claim as false.

In other words 'Apple are *not* the biggest tech company in the world'

Maybe you should look at your own "Dream World" before attempting to "shatter" someone else's.


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Tony Swash on 7/19/11, Rating: 0
RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Tony Swash on 7/19/2011 5:41:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Apple is more like that short little guy in the bar on friday night that wants to pick a fight with everyone to prove he's better. Small mans disease i call it.


Some 'small man' :)

Apple just reported it's best quarter ever, with revenue up 82 percent and profits up 125 percent,

Apple sold 20.34 million iPhones in the quarter, representing 142 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter.

Apple sold 9.25 million iPads during the quarter, a 183 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter.

The Company sold 3.95 million Macs during the quarter, a 14 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter.

The stock is up over $400 (6 percent gain) in after-hours trading.

Glad I kept my Apple shares :):):)


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By SPOOFE on 7/19/2011 6:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Glad I kept my Apple shares

Aha. Ulterior motive. How explanatory.


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Tony Swash on 7/19/2011 7:14:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Aha. Ulterior motive. How explanatory.


Ha- that's just the icing on the cake (or the icing on the pension more accurately) I have been a Mac user and Apple fan for the best part of three decades. I cannot tell you the pleasure it gives me to watch Apple steadily taking over the world :)


RE: Apple is a bu$*#
By Quadrillity on 7/20/2011 1:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Very creepy how you chose the word "pleasure". We really didn't want to know about your Apple porn fetish.


By Enlightenment777 on 7/18/2011 3:57:28 PM , Rating: 5
To avoid lawsuits, why don't cell phone makers sell them without Android installed?

The cell phone would ship with some type of O/S installer that would allow you to download Android from some foreign country that doesn't have patent issues.




By Alexstarfire on 7/18/2011 5:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
That actually sounds like a very good loophole. Don't know if it's possible to do that with a cell phone though. I'm sure it is since I've been able to flash a ROM onto my unbootable cell-phone before, but it's not all that simple.


By Iaiken on 7/18/2011 6:07:45 PM , Rating: 1
This is actually incredibly difficult.

In most cases, each OS ROM must be compiled specifically for that phone to account for the different devices available.

And just like Apple, older phones may not have the horsepower to run newer versions so they wind up stuck on whatever the last major version available was with minor builds to patch problems. They may even get dropped from support all together...


By Fritzr on 7/18/2011 11:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Provide a download website with OS versions for each phone model. Firmware flash utilities for Windows, OSX and Linux
and of course a really fancy message saying that US residents should not use these utilities :P

Couple that with a Quick Install card for each phone model with the direct link to the downloads for the handset :)

It's actually incredibly easy. The only difference from today's situation is that all the updates for each handset will be easy to find :) Installing vendor upgrades will be much easier under this model also.


By Tony Swash on 7/19/2011 9:16:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
To avoid lawsuits, why don't cell phone makers sell them without Android installed?

The cell phone would ship with some type of O/S installer that would allow you to download Android from some foreign country that doesn't have patent issues.


That sounds cool. So you buy a phone that doesn't work until you click on a web site in say Russia or China and some dude who operates a web site which is outside of the law downloads some software that takes over your phone. Bet it will be really popular. I can't imagine what could possible go wrong with that ;)


fun
By sprockkets on 7/18/2011 4:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... I wonder if that stupid video patent has more to do with quicktime than android.

But, in any case, ask yourself this: If this patent was sooooo valuable and genuine to apple's livelyhood:

1. Why did they not sue microsoft over WM?
2. Why did they not sue BB?
3. Why did they not sue palm?

And the answer is clear: Apple is full of shit and is just suing a competitor that is outdoing it.

And the saddest part is, apple is making billions and is having trouble meeting demand, yet finds that it must kill competition anyhow.

When you read the definition of meglomaniac, Steve Job's pic will be there.




RE: fun
By Avatar28 on 7/18/2011 5:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Why did they not sue microsoft over WM?
2. Why did they not sue BB?
3. Why did they not sue palm?


Probably because all of those companies, especially Microsoft, have significant patent portfolios that could be turned against them. If I did it right, USPTO shows MS as having a bit over 18,000 patents ( http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT... ) vs Apple's 4700. ( http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT... ) RIM had a couple of thousand and RIM only a couple of hundred.

It's sort of a case of the bully picking on the new little kid. Of course, Apple is suing Samsung (and Motorola) too. Samsung has a LOT more patents than MS but most of them probably are in other business areas. Whereas MS, Palm, and RIM were all in the smartphone/pda biz long before Apple and likely have patents that Apple has stepped on too. I think Apple will probably think long and hard before going after them.


RE: fun
By nikon133 on 7/18/2011 5:46:06 PM , Rating: 3
I think that is because SJ's worst nightmare is to see his business taking off so nicely, just to be utterly crushed by competitors.

Apple did fine in pre-PC era, just to be annihilated by raise of IBM compatibles.

Early Macs did OK for their time, just to be almost pushed to extinction by raise of Windows.

iGadgets are doing great and, while I don't think they can be annihilated like previous Apple efforts, they can be limited to very small (albeit extremely profitable) market segment.

The only force right now capable of achieving that is Android. WP7 (which I'm cheering for) and Nokia might raise to power but then again, they might flop; too early to tell. Likewise, WebOS can get some good shares, but it is only a bet right now (and not a safe one). RIM seems to be in decline.

Right now, Android is the only force with potential to become Windows of mobile world. Both Apple and MS are well aware of that - thus unholy coalition behind Rockstar Bidco and purchase or Nortel patent portfolio.

I'm afraid that all those big moves will result in some damage for Android - hopefully not terminal, but significant. I'm also hoping that MS will benefit more than Apple - if for no other reasons, their approach to this "problem" seems to be much softer and more prone to compromise, compared to Apple's total annihilation approach. At the end of the day, if HTC/Samsung/Motorola owners end up not having option to get new phones from their favourite brands (or those phones are overpriced for all the royalties attached to them), I hope majority of them will go for WP7 and WebOS - if for no other reason, then for defiance. Plus, HTC, Samsung... will also have to move to WP7.


RE: fun
By Pirks on 7/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: fun
By Tony Swash on 7/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: fun
By Pirks on 7/19/2011 5:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I agree with all these customers not liking BB OS 6, but the 7 is about to be released in a month or so, which will get satisfaction rating much higher than now, I'm sure. I saw a few video reviews of BB7 and especially its new web browser, kinda impressive stuff, especially the sweet new BB Bold 9900, this is what proper competition to iPhone should look like - BB7, WebOS, QNX and WP7, not Android junk.

And transition to QNX will raise satisfaction rating even higher, so I wouldn't start to worry about RIM's future just yet. I've seen what QNX and TAT UI design is capable to achieve on Playbook, so it's kinda ok for me if people don't like BB OS 6, this is a past anyway. The future is QNX and it's gonna be bright. At least my experience with my Playbook says so.

So your daughter tried iPhone and liked it more than BB. Guess what? I've seen people trying out iPhones and getting back to BB after a while. So what? Some stay on iPhone, some come back to BB. Big deal :)


RE: fun
By Pirks on 7/19/2011 6:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.gsmarena.com/blackberry_os_7_browser_be...

This is about how BB7 web browser pwned iOS and Android web browsers.

For Tony and everyone else who may consider buying one of the upcoming BB7 devices.

Wanna get best mobile browser on a tablet? Buy Playbook.

Wanna get best mobile browser on a phone? Buy Bold 9900 this August/September or Torch 2 or something similarly high end with BB OS 7 on board.

Confirmed by many online tests/reviews so far, link to one of them is above.

So yeah Tony is right about people not liking old slow BB6 phones, but with FIVE TIMES speed increase in web browser between old BB6 phones and the new BB7 ones I think we can lay this to rest. Right Tony? ;)

P.S. about daughters and iPhones:

"Whilst I may have tried Apple products in the past this kind of thing only serves to distance myself from them, my daughter really dislikes their methods and restrictiveness and she's 16"

from some online forum. just sayin' :P


RE: fun
By Tony Swash on 7/19/11, Rating: 0
Start a Petition
By Oxymoron907 on 7/18/2011 3:34:20 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously, these are by far the most generic patents I have seen. The Patent office will let anything slide. Seriously there should be a Petition to tell Steve Jobs to put on his big boy pants and finally stop sticking to the same basic design aspect of his Icrap and become more innovative. The market has caught and past Apple and all Steve Jobs can do is throw lawsuit after lawsuit, because his investors figure he can't handle the job. HTC has caught the trend and each phone has something new. Isn't it also a little fishy to have Apple's lead Patent lawyer leave the company. What does that say about what's going on?




RE: Start a Petition
By tharik on 7/18/2011 6:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
I saw one the other day, that someone came up with:

A system and method to use 0's and 1's to store and process.


it's funny to see how love is blind
By menting on 7/18/2011 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
From all the comments prior to mine, it's obvious that must be so much in love with Steve Jobs and Apple that they probably jack off to Jobs and the Apple icon before sleep every night.




By menting on 7/18/2011 4:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
edit: "it's obvious that someone* "
I hate typos.


By Phoque on 7/18/2011 6:41:47 PM , Rating: 3
Liver failure?




Prior Art.
By XSpeedracerX on 7/19/2011 12:18:36 AM , Rating: 3
"Your honor, patent one covers something computers have been doing since the vacuum tube days. Patent two covers connections between computing devices, something devices have been doing since before the internet. Certainly, apple does not have a patent on computing technology older than the company itself. There's no way these patents are valid. Therefore, their attempt to persecute our products on the basis of these patents is also invalid. I move for dismissal."

Your welcome, HTC.




Does anyone know....
By Smartless on 7/18/2011 2:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
If Facetime violates any patents or IP that Skype does? Some people I know think Apple invented it and is the only one that works the way it does. I'd like to know for my own personal knowledge since convincing them would be like saying the Earth is round.




By tigz1218 on 7/18/2011 5:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is why the patent process was much better left as First to Invent rather than the new First to File. Yes it had its drawbacks due to people who would sit and wait and then sue (There should have been changes to prevent that, but not flip the entire process). Now you are going to see (already exists, but will multiply) technology firms higher lawyers by the droves and pay them just to spew out countless patents in hopes of getting something so broad like patent above approved. Good bye good old days when you could invent something at home and have it be yours, now it will belong to a lawyer who wrote down some garbage.




rea$@!?? real time video patent
By tharik on 7/18/2011 6:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
The BTRON Operating System was capable of displaying real-time video in a separate window in 1988 on an 8 Mhz 80286 processor with 2 MB of memory.

To bad Microsoft forced the US Government to threaten Japan with sanctions if they used their own operating system in their schools.




What a waste
By Belard on 7/18/2011 7:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
All these tech companies buying semi-useless generic patents to one-up another to block technology innovation.




By Motoman on 7/18/2011 8:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
...and it would be awesome if it did so - if for no other reason to help illustrate how stupid our patent system is.

Because Apple is suing based on these utterly retarded patents, the court could (should) just look at them and say "these are retarded, and we are invalidating them. Case dismissed."

And then not only does Apple not win, they lose...big time. As they should...and as should the morons in the patent office that issue patents for crap like that.




By Fritzr on 7/18/2011 11:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
They are clear and explicit. Any server/client video service involving more than 0 clients is covered by the Apple patent. Netflix, RealAudio, Streaming TV are just a few of the services that are infringing on this Apple patent. (U.S. Patent No. 6,343, 263)
quote:
1. A signal processing system for providing a plurality of realtime services to and from a number of independent client applications and devices, said system comprising:

a subsystem comprising a host central processing unit (CPU) operating in accordance with at least one application program and a device handler program, said subsystem further comprising an adapter subsystem interoperating with said host CPU and said device;

a realtime signal processing subsystem for performing a plurality of data transforms comprising a plurality of realtime signal processing operations; and

at least one realtime application program interface (API) coupled between the subsystem and the realtime signal processing subsystem to allow the subsystem to interoperate with said realtime services.

2. The signal processing system as set forth in claim 1, wherein said signal processing system receives and transmits a plurality of datatypes over a plurality of different wide area networks (WANs).

3. A signal processing system for providing a plurality of realtime services over a wide area network (WAN), said system comprising:

a telecommunications subsystem comprising a host central processing unit (CPU) and a wide area network interface, where said wide area network interface is comprised of a hardware interface to the network and driver software which executes on the host

a telecommunications subsystem comprising a host central processing unit (CPU) operating in accordance with at least one application program and a datastream handler program, said telecommunications subsystem further comprising a telecommunications adapter subsystem interoperating with said host CPU and said WAN;

a realtime signal processing subsystem for performing a plurality of transforms comprising a plurality of realtime signal processing operations; and

at least one realtime application program interface (API) coupled between the telecommunications subsystem and the realtime signal processing subsystem to allow the telecommunications subsystem to interoperate with said realtime services.

With this broad claim and the additional claims in the patent application, Apple is liable to have problems :)




By Fritzr on 7/18/2011 11:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
They are very clear in their claims. Any markup language or embedded tokens such as were used by the PC-Write word processor in 1983 are infringin on Apples patent. ( U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647)

quote:
13. A program storage medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to perform the steps of:

receiving computer data;

detecting a structure in the data;

linking at least one action to the detected structure;

enabling selection of the structure and a linked action; and

executing the selected action linked to the selected structure.

14. In a computer having a memory storing actions, a system for causing the computer to perform an action on a structure identified in computer data, comprising:

means for receiving computer data;

means for detecting a structure in the data;

means for linking at least one action to the detected structure;

means for selecting the structure and a linked action; and

means for executing the selected action linked to the selected structure.

15. In a computer having a memory storing actions, a method for causing the computer to perform an action on a structure identified in computer data, comprising the steps of:

receiving computer data;

detecting a structure in the data;

linking at least one action to the detected structure;

enabling selection of the structure and a linked action; and

executing the selected action linked to the selected structure.

16. The method recited in claim 15, wherein the computer data is received from the application running concurrently.

17. The method recited in claim 15, wherein the memory contains grammars, and wherein the step of detecting a structure further comprises the steps of retrieving a grammar and parsing the data based on the grammar.

18. The method recited in claim 17, wherein the grammar is associated with a particular action, and wherein the step of linking at least one action to the detected structure includes the step of linking the particular action to the detected structure.

19. The method recited in claim 15, wherein the memory contains strings, and wherein the step of detecting a structure further comprises the steps of retrieving a string from the memory and scanning the data to identify the string.

20. The method recited in claim 15, further comprising after the step of detecting a structure, the step of highlighting the detected structure.

21. The method recited in claim 15, further comprising, after the step of linking at least one action to the detected structure, the step of displaying and enabling selection of an action for performance on the detected structure.

22. A computer-based method for causing a computer to identify, select and perform an action on a structure in computer data received from a concurrently running application, said application presenting the computer data to the user, the method comprising the steps of:

receiving computer data from the application;

detecting a structure in the computer data;

linking at least one action to the detected structure;

communicating with the application to determine the location of the detected structure as presented by the application, to enable selection of the detected structure and a linked action, and to determine if the detected structure and a linked action have been selected; and

performing a selected action linked to the detected pattern.

23. The method recited in claim 15, wherein the step of enabling uses sound activation.

24. The method recited in claim 15, wherein a first one of the actions may invoke a second one of the actions.


Methinks the ITC judge who ruled in favor of Apple on this one has no idea how word processors and SGML derivative markup languages work :)




It's time for Apple
By masamasa on 7/19/2011 1:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
To quietly walk away and admit default and to take their proprietary crap with them. Stop trying to shove your 'hardly original' tech down everyone's throats. Next, they'll be claiming the touch screen is their patent as well.

Lame products, lame company.




Not nea#@* the first
By distortnx on 7/20/2011 7:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
I was 8 years old when IBM started working on what they called "The Brick." I'm 27 now but my dad worked as a contractor on this program... it used some sort of cellular connection and was able to deliver text and emails. So this was VERY early 90's and was very secret at the time. These things were as big as my head and VERY heavy, but it did a lot of the things Apple patented in the late 90's. I've tried Google'ing for it but can't find any information about it. I think prior art is very relevant in this case and that's probably why Apple is staying away from IBM. I guess they didn't patent the technology or didn't care to, but it existed. I held one in my hands multiple times so I'm not full of it, so Apple can go suck it... I'd love to see IBM go after them. Except IBM innovates, not sue, to make profits. Don't have the time to look it up, but again it was dubbed "The Brick" due to its size and weight (obviously technology wasn't as it is today). If you find some links please post. FYI this thing was around in the days of the 86386. 86486 was brand new or possibly not even around yet, I was young.




What if?
By xCross on 7/18/2011 6:09:27 PM , Rating: 1
What if I had somehow invented a phone in 2000 which had touchscreen in it and patented it. Does that mean nobody else will be able to make touchscreen phone?

I don't understand how laws work but if this is the case then it is pure bullshit.

Laws need to be modified or change the name of the Earth to iEarth.




By Tony Swash on 7/18/2011 6:43:45 PM , Rating: 1
No wonder Apple is getting pretty pissed off

http://9to5mac.com/2011/07/18/family-ties-earn-thi...




According to whom?
By name99 on 7/18/11, Rating: 0
We are in for a long haul on this
By Tony Swash on 7/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: We are in for a long haul on this
By Pirks on 7/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: We are in for a long haul on this
By Pirks on 7/18/11, Rating: 0
By silverblue on 7/19/2011 5:48:19 AM , Rating: 1
Stifling innovation and reducing competition is going to result in Apple being targeted for anti-competitive practices sooner rather than later... only this time, the punishment had better fit the crime (Intel was given a mere slap on the wrists and, sadly, should Apple do this, it's unlikely they'll get anything worse). If their reasons for suing a company are well documented and specific, fine, but I don't see how that's the case here.

There's only so much Apple can sue companies over before they turn around and bury Apple in the shit it's been dishing out.

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually hate Apple, but they are going to rapidly change from the company that provides attractive devices at an arguably steep price to one that exists only to protect IP which was questionably theirs in the first place. Apple's saving grace here is that they didn't attempt to block HTC sales over a larger geographical area, because that would've drawn far too much attention to itself.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














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