backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by Miqunator.. on Jul 31 at 1:49 PM


Much of Apple's Mac computer lineup has been found in infringement of HTC's newly acquired intellectual property. This could lead to a ban on imports -- effectively a ban on sales -- in the U.S.  (Source: Cult of Mac)

Meanwhile, Apple has filed yet another ITC complaint against HTC, this time alleging that the new HTC Flyer tablet infringes on its intellectual property.  (Source: HTC)
Apple will have to pay up -- or negotiate a settlement

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) has put Taiwan's HTC Corp. (SEO:066570) in a very bad spot.  The larger, more profitable gadget maker has hit HTC with a series of lawsuits worldwide, and recent scored a favorable preliminary ruling, which could lead to a complete ban on HTC handsets in the U.S.

But HTC appears to have some leverage, now.  In an unsealed ruling dating back to July 1, it has been declared that Apple infringed on intellectual property of recent HTC acquisition S3 Graphics.

The IP in question covers image compression techniques in software and hardware.  The U.S. International Trade Commission Judge James Gildea ruled that while Apple's popular iPad, iPhone, and iPod lines of mobile gadgets are not in violation of the IP, some of Apple's Mac OS X computers are.  

As NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) is a licensee, units with its GPUs are not in violation.  However, models with graphics by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) or integrated graphics from Intel Corp.'s (INTC) (such as the newly refreshed MacBook Air lineup) are in violation.

The ruling thus clears the way for a partial ban on the import of Macs.  As virtually all Macs are manufactured outside the U.S. (mostly in Asia), this would be a major blow to Apple's booming computer lineup, which posted in $17.5B USD computer sales last year.

The judge also ruled that two of S3's patents in the case were invalid, and that some of the minor claims within the two valid patents were invalid.

While the ruling was "unsealed" (made official), it has not yet been made available to the public as the companies are reportedly quibbling about what constitutes redaction-worthy confidential information in the document. Bloomberg reported on the release, based on early information.

The ruling now goes before a full six judge ITC panel for confirmation.

While a ruling which found Apple's iPad and iPhone -- which accounted for 46 percent of its revenues last year -- would have been even better, the victory gives HTC substantial leverage to broker a cross-licensing agreement, which could save HTC from a similar import ban on its smart phones.

Meanwhile, Apple filed two weeks ago, on July 15, a new ITC complaint against the HTC Flyer tablet, which it says infringes on several of its patents.  Of course, if the companies can come to terms, HTC's tablet lineup would, in theory, be covered under a cross-licensing agreement, as well.

If the S3 IP can save HTC from Apple's litigious wrath, that $300M USD acquisition, which was blasted by investors, could just turn out to be a great deal.



Comments     Threshold


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

Gotta love it...
By CrazyBernie on 7/27/2011 9:53:39 AM , Rating: 5
...when your own tactics come back to slap you in the face.




RE: Gotta love it...
By xype on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By DanNeely on 7/27/2011 10:48:19 AM , Rating: 4
I think a lot of the reason why Apple gets blasted more than most of the major legit tech companies in patent wars is that most are just trying to get money out of their dubious patents, not crush the competition. Apple generally only signs licensing deals when forced to because their target turns out to have something equally destructive.


RE: Gotta love it...
By xype on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By ClownPuncher on 7/27/2011 11:25:21 AM , Rating: 5
Let me guess, you listen to Moby and drive a VW painted to match the color of your iPhone?


RE: Gotta love it...
By xype on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By ClownPuncher on 7/27/2011 11:37:32 AM , Rating: 5
Yes. Would you like to come over to play Madden and have some Hostess snacks? Mum says I can't go outside due to my "condition".


RE: Gotta love it...
By StevoLincolnite on 7/27/2011 3:22:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Mum says I can't go outside due to my "condition".


I tried going outside once, the graphics weren't to bad, but the game-play totally sucked.


RE: Gotta love it...
By AssBall on 7/27/2011 4:32:53 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah the NPC's had crappy quests too. Mow the lawn? I mean come on is that the best they can come up with?


RE: Gotta love it...
By Totally on 7/27/2011 6:12:54 PM , Rating: 5
and the 1-life, no auto-save BS, I think I'll pass


RE: Gotta love it...
By AssBall on 7/27/2011 11:42:32 AM , Rating: 5
You used "Apple" and "good reason" in the same sentence.

/Fail


RE: Gotta love it...
By Avatar28 on 7/27/2011 12:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So this is about disabling the competition? How come Windows Phone 7 can get by, then? Because Microsoft has enough self-respect to at least try not to copy Apple outright?


Partially that although I think it's more that MS has several times the number of patents that Apple does and they have been in the smartphone/pda/tablet business a lot longer than Apple has. Windows Phone has not prove to be enough of a threat to Apple (yet) for them to risk getting into a patent pissing contest with MS. They would have a lot more to lose if/when MS countersued. MS and Apple also had a patent cross-licensing agreement dating back to 1997 that may or may not be a factor as well.


RE: Gotta love it...
By jhb116 on 7/27/2011 5:14:53 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. It really gets tiring watching Apple taking concepts and/or products that ALREADY exist, highly refines them into a really good product then claiming they invented said product so they can sue the crap out of competitors when Apple can't refine said product any further and then the competition blows them away with either better products or (more likely) a much more open platform more easily accessible to the masses.

I the iPod was (and still is) a really good music player but there where many before it. The iPhone is still a really good phone but again wasn't the first and I seriously doubt was even the first with the style the claim to patent for that style. Ditto for the iPad.

I think the basic reason Apple draws some much fire is the idiotic patents they file - imagine Henry Ford Patenting a 4 wheeled motorized vehicle. If such a thing would have happened - he would have had a strangle hold on the market such things existing before. It would have been fair for him to patent the specific technologies associated with the mass production that he brought to the industry to force the other companies to figures out different specific production processes but not the concept of a 4 wheeled vehicle or mass production. Apple, similarly, needs slapped in the face for these stupid patents - ie shut up and continue to innovate and compete.

They don't get that they are losing (well kind of) against Google et al because of their business model. They still kick butt in profitability. It is the over-pricing, stupid patents and inherently closed system that prevents me from buying Apples products despite the fact that they are often better than their competitors.


RE: Gotta love it...
By vision33r on 7/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love it...
By Miqunator on 7/31/2011 1:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
Amen

You pretty much stated my thoughts there but even though we can argue their morals (or lack of) they are only using a flawed system to its full extent, i.e. you can't blame them for having these silly patents. The blame should be with the system that approves said patents.

I'm not arguing against Apple being asses here though and I take great pleasure in trolling a few 'friends' that are open Apple zealots. I just try to not fall over into anti-Apple zealotry.


RE: Gotta love it...
By room200 on 7/27/2011 11:04:29 AM , Rating: 5
But, hey, it’s not like this is ArsTechnica or anything. People are stupid here…

Then hike your punk-ass on over to ArsTechnica.


RE: Gotta love it...
By xype on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By Ramstark on 7/27/2011 11:08:31 AM , Rating: 4
You mad Apple Fanboy? Apple sues WAY MORE than other companies, that's why there are always news about it, noone is "sniping" at your sweetheart...


RE: Gotta love it...
By Tony Swash on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By ClownPuncher on 7/27/2011 12:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Apple only makes mobile products now? And you cited an article written by someone named "Harry McCracken"?


RE: Gotta love it...
By sigmatau on 7/27/2011 1:10:34 PM , Rating: 3
Your own chart shows that Apple is the most sue happy company. Did I miss something or you just don't know how to read charts?


RE: Gotta love it...
By karlostomy on 7/28/2011 2:50:59 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, that's exactly right.

Tony Swash contradicted himself while smarmily trying to correct another user.

This is a perfect example of why Apple fanboys have garnered a reputation for being smugly ignorant, worldwide.

Thanks Tony, for showing us that you fit the stereotype.
Good luck with the damage control...


RE: Gotta love it...
By protosv on 7/27/2011 2:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I think Tony undermined his own point here. The chart shows that Apple is suing 5 other companies, which makes it the leader on that chart for the number of other companies that one company is suing.


RE: Gotta love it...
By chick0n on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love it...
By Tony Swash on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By Tony Swash on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By themaster08 on 7/27/2011 1:53:47 PM , Rating: 1
Likely because the success story of Apple you self assuringly love to regurgitate bears no relation to the topic at hand.


RE: Gotta love it...
By Iaiken on 7/27/2011 2:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Tony just likes to verbally masturbate in public... pay him no mind.


RE: Gotta love it...
By nolisi on 7/27/2011 2:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
most know in their hearts but would never admit it that Android OS is a clone of iOS


This statement could not be more blatently false and ignorant based on both business model and functionality:

1) Functionally, Google integrated into Android has multiple methods of interface including features like voice recognition and swype which work anywhere in the OS, while Apple's interface only recently recieved a port of Swype, and voice recognition is still a bit limited.

2) The Google market is a more open model, and they allow most apps which compete with Google made applications. The model may have closed a bit, but that was as a response to certain security issues, not to copy Apple.

3) OTA updates to the OS- Apple still hasn't released this...

4) Greater carrier control over the device

The list of differentiating factors as well as the list of where Google beat Apple in terms of functionality is fairly substantial. To call Android a clone of iOS is simply ignorant when Apple is just starting to implement OS level features that Android has had for a least a year, as well as having a completely different business model.


RE: Gotta love it...
By Tony Swash on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By themaster08 on 7/28/2011 2:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
So by your pogic, any company that created an OS post-iOS is just a clone, regardless of differences in user interface, features and usability? The question is, what drugs do YOU take?

For a senior member of society, you sure come out with some childish crap.


RE: Gotta love it...
By Tony Swash on 7/28/2011 11:29:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So by your pogic, any company that created an OS post-iOS is just a clone, regardless of differences in user interface, features and usability? The question is, what drugs do YOU take?

For a senior member of society, you sure come out with some childish crap.


This is what Android looked like in 2007.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-o...

Here’s an actual hardware prototype from then.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/android-hardware-in-the...

It didn’t look anything like an iPhone, nor like anything Apple would ever be interested in making. It looked like a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile phone — hardware keyboards and non-touch screens. That's because at the time Google was planning to clone the Blackberry.

But then iPhone was launched.

Now compare a 2010 Android design to a current iPhone.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/19/droid-incredibl...

Don’t tell me the iPhone has not completely reshaped the design and UI of smart phones including Android.


RE: Gotta love it...
By Pirks on 7/28/2011 1:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
The greatest artists steal ideas, didn't you hear that from Jobs? Don't be so thick Tony :)))


RE: Gotta love it...
By nolisi on 7/27/2011 3:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then came the iPad (initially laughed at and dismissed) and it kept selling in greater and greater numbers and now the last bastion, the holy land of Windows, enterprise computing, seemed to be falling to Apple.


This is hilarious. In my own enterprise we have iPads- but the iPad is NOT an enterprise-ready product. Apple has no method for deploying enterprise specific applications to the device or properly managing them.

You don't just throw an iPad (or any other computer/OS) into the work place and say "it works in the enterprise". The enterprise space requires more than just a cool interface. Right now enterprises have to cobble together management, security, and deployment strategies for the iPad; in order to get the iPad to work in the business environment and comply fully with security/management needs, you need to use products from other vendors, such as Citrix Presentation layer or VDI. Apple has no plan for this. Android/Chrome isn't even ready for this.

Microsoft has these strategies in place, and they are configurable to accommodate the business needs of the environment.

The only reason the iPad is in the work place is because of trendy executives. I know this because I support dozens of these iPads, and I know what they're actually doing on a day to day basis. At best, the iPad can be awesome in small businesses, particularly point of sale, but even those people I know use Android combined with a credit card reader that works in an HTC audio jack to process POS credit card orders. I'm not 100% certain if they released the same for Apple.

But so far, no tablet maker is enterprise ready, and people are definitely not doing real work on an iPad, and if they are trying to respond to emails, they're doing it at a slower pace.


RE: Gotta love it...
By Tony Swash on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love it...
By Pirks on 7/27/2011 7:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
corporate IT hates iPads and iPhones
No, they don't hate, they just don't see all those rainbows and unicorns, know what I mean?


RE: Gotta love it...
By themaster08 on 7/28/2011 2:41:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The invasion of the iOS devices into enterprise will often be by rebellion from below against corporate IT. Generally corporate IT is detested and usually with good reason.
And how in the hell is that a good thing?

quote:
So corporate IT hates iPads and iPhones. Good - sack the lot them. Your days are coming to a close.
Absolutely. PCs, completely wiped out by iPhones and iPads. You seriously should consider seeing a doctor. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

The reason corporate I.T so so arcane is because companies refuse to invest in their I.T infrastucture, running 8-year-old PCs that are on their last legs, struggling to cope with the demands being set upon them, producing counter-productivity, whilst the senior management think it's a good idea to spend £500 on an iPad for themselves to read their emails and surf Facebook. All logic is thrown out the window.

The only reason iPads allow these people to be more productive is because their current PCs are so shit that they would be better used as biscuit tins.


RE: Gotta love it...
By Helbore on 7/28/2011 5:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
You haven't got a clue about the use of technology in business, have you? You sound like a typical ignorant end-user, who thinks they're entitled to think of their desktop as "theirs" rather than "a tool provided by the company."

Buy your own gadgets to play with at home if you want to feel empowered. You can use your corporate IT equipment in the manner you have been authorised to by the company, just as you would with any other piece of company-owned hardware, regardless of whether it is a PC or a fork-lift truck.


RE: Gotta love it...
By MrPerez on 7/28/2011 6:18:51 AM , Rating: 1
You must be macdevdude , troll much?


RE: Gotta love it...
By radium69 on 7/27/2011 11:48:02 AM , Rating: 3
Somebody give this guy a 6!


RE: Gotta love it...
By Shadowself on 7/27/2011 5:08:58 PM , Rating: 1
It would be more interesting if the article told the whole story (but Jason Mick would never do that unless it left Apple in a bad light).

People need to know that the USPTO has already made a preliminary ruling that these relevant claims of these two patents are invalid. So the ALJ says Apple infringes against certain claims of two patents then the same day the USPTO says those claims are very likely invalid in and of themselves.

Hmmm... Now all Apple has to do is go back to the ITC full board and say it is clearly impossible to infringe against invalid patent claims.

Bottom line is that Apple will almost assuredly be found not to infringe on anything owned by HTC (at least not with regard to the current issues) and HTC will be found to be infringing against Apple.


What do they know?
By tng on 7/27/2011 9:54:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
that $300M USD acquisition, which was blasted by investors, could just turn out to be a great deal.
Wall Street and financial types understand numbers but not technology. Wall street still refers to Amazon as a "Tech" company, when really Amazon is just about like Wal Mart online.

I don't think that this will be enough to stop Apple, if they really are like Jason Mick says out to "eliminate the competition". If they are not they will sign agreements.




RE: What do they know?
By hkscfreak on 7/27/2011 12:26:15 PM , Rating: 3
you, sir need to do your research. Amazon is very much a software company. They just happen to write software to sell stuff.


RE: What do they know?
By tng on 7/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: What do they know?
By KentState on 7/27/2011 1:59:59 PM , Rating: 3
You are really uneducated about the software and services that Amazon offers. MS is very much afraid of the cloud services offerings as they are much further ahead of Azure at this point.

Is the Kindle not new technology that Amazon develops and supports fully?


RE: What do they know?
By tng on 7/27/2011 6:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is the Kindle not new technology that Amazon develops and supports fully?
Did Amazon develop it? did Amazon have someone else do it for them? That would make sense, hiring hardware engineers in house for a project is may or may not be cost effective, I don't know.

However you don't really get it. Kindle is a means to an end, selling books. You sell the Kindle once, yes probably for a small profit, but if that purchase spurs the purchase of 100, 200, or 300 books in the future, that is real profit and continuing business that brings them back to the website.

Designing user interfaces so your shopping experience online is easier, is yes software development, but again just a means to an end, not the point.


RE: What do they know?
By KentState on 7/27/2011 1:56:39 PM , Rating: 3
Oh you mean the tech like their cloud services that are built in house? I'm sure they just slapped it together since they aren't a tech company.


RE: What do they know?
By tng on 7/27/2011 7:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
Still don't think so. Is their cloud service still just the means to an end, selling more product? Are they selling the cloud software itself to companies that want to provide those services themselves from their servers?


RE: What do they know?
By tng on 7/27/2011 7:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
You still don't understand the original point maybe. If Amazon and Ebay have a bad year, the "tech sector" gets hammered. Places like Dell, TI, Intel, MS and other companies get hammered even though they may have had decent earnings and their products are not affected by the same market forces. Something I have noticed for a long time.


All AMD and Intel GPUs Affected?
By ltcommanderdata on 7/27/2011 11:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
If AMD and Intel GPUs are affected then is this a Mac issue or an issue for the entire computer industry? This GPUs are in everything from lowly netbooks to premium notebooks, gaming PCs, and the XBox 360.




RE: All AMD and Intel GPUs Affected?
By hkscfreak on 7/27/2011 12:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
it depends on who HTC wants to sue then. I guess if they manage to get an import ban because of this, they could have everybody by the knockers. but then AMD and Intel wold have significant IP portfolios to countersue with


By Camikazi on 7/27/2011 6:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
HTC won't go for Intel or AMD, those companies have not bothered them, they are going for Apple cause Apple is bothering them and trying to shut them down. It's a defensive strategy for HTC as far as I can tell. Believe it or not, there are MANY companies who allow others to use their patents with no licensing and will only sue if threatened or something big happens.


By myopicrhino on 7/27/2011 7:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is an S3TC licensee, so when those GPUs are used on Windows platforms, they're covered by the Microsoft license.


RE: All AMD and Intel GPUs Affected?
By encia on 7/27/2011 8:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well, S3 owns S3TC, while AMD owns 3DC+(part of DX10 and Radeon X1x00).


Patents need to be limited.
By jrs77 on 7/27/2011 10:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
This whole stors of patents gets worse and worse and it has to be ended.

Patents should run out after 5-10 years with no possibility to make claims after this period of time.

In the last century patents were a good idea, but in the 21st century the system isn't appropiate anymore and needs to be limited.




RE: Patents need to be limited.
By DanNeely on 7/27/2011 10:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
Disagree. The real problem is the so many dubious patents are issued in the first place, and that even in litigation a significant number of the BS ones are *NOT* tossed.


I hate apple so much
By espress0 on 7/27/2011 12:25:03 PM , Rating: 3
I am so glad for HTC.




By cscpianoman on 7/27/2011 1:13:47 PM , Rating: 3
Payback is a b**ch!!! :)




comedy..
By teng029 on 7/27/2011 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
gotta love it..




Shut it down
By Autisticgramma on 7/27/2011 12:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
OMG I so hope they shutdown the RIM network, they are so infringing.




Cool...
By SniperWulf on 7/27/2011 1:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
So maybe now they can call a truce???




Live by the sword...
By BugblatterIII on 7/27/2011 2:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
...die in a hail of bullets!

I'm waiting to see the other companies on Apple's hitlist start battering it with suits and counter-suits. There's blood in the water; teach Apple and other IP-whores a lesson!




By rcc on 7/29/2011 2:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
So why exactly is Apple involved here? If AMD/ATI and Intel violated the patents, it's their problem.

Granted Apple would need to change hardware, or encourage ATI and Intel to "fix" this. Cuz if the Apple hardware is ok with an nVidia card but not with the others, it doesn't appear they've done anything wrong. If that's the case then Apple has a case for suing ATI and Intel, and HTC should be talking to ATI/Intel as well.

Ok, so maybe I'll go back and read it later.




An alternative perspective
By Tony Swash on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: An alternative perspective
By blckgrffn on 7/27/2011 10:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
That boils down to "Apple should put nvidia chips into all of their product lines and continue to pummel HTC." Well, that would have worked awesome - had Apple not just, last week, launched all new MacBook Air and Mac Mini lines that got rid of nVidia graphics - and I don't think you can even get an iMac with nVidia graphics right now.

It's lunatic fringe to think it would cost less for Apple to retool everything they just launched and put themselves into bondage with nVidia rather than sign some pieces of paper (free in comparison) and make this all go away. They've already been disruptive to HTC, so that's a win...


RE: An alternative perspective
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/27/2011 10:18:22 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
That boils down to "Apple should put nvidia chips into all of their product lines and continue to pummel HTC." Well, that would have worked awesome - had Apple not just, last week, launched all new MacBook Air and Mac Mini lines that got rid of nVidia graphics - and I don't think you can even get an iMac with nVidia graphics right now.

Exactly, Apple can certainly afford to retool its lines, but part of its whole brand image is built on periodic, high profile releases.

Having to pull a switcheroo on customers in terms of hardware -- particularly just weeks after its unveil -- would be doable for the MacBook Air line (with a few months of retooling, that is), but would hurt its polished perception, particularly when customers realize the change wasn't voluntary.

Ironically, if Apple does opt for this approach, it would be giving customers better graphics, as the MacBook Air's built in Intel integrated graphics leave much to be desired vs. a discrete NVIDIA mobile GPU.

However, history tells me Apple is likely far too arrogant to publicly admit defeat and alter its "magical" product... I think it would rather cross-license than do that.


RE: An alternative perspective
By xype on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: An alternative perspective
By AssBall on 7/27/2011 11:51:24 AM , Rating: 1
Apple sells on image, Brah. They can't tarnish that by publicly caving into a legal loophole.

When you buy an Apple product, your not just buying an overpriced mediocre device, your buying a lifestyle, Brah. Where else can you buy 5000 fart apps and still not watch YouTube?


RE: An alternative perspective
By DanNeely on 7/27/2011 10:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple can, ... work around the whole issue by incorporating NVIDIA graphics chips into its Macintosh computers and avoiding the distribution of Intel's allegedly infringing chips.


Your quote missed the bigger issue. The problem is in the Intel GPU, which is on the cpu die. Installing an nVidia GPU wouldn't get rid of the infringing part. Apple'd have to make the much more radical change to AMD parts, which is unlikely since AMD CPUs (especially mobile CPUs) are a major step down in performance, even if their IGPs are much faster.


RE: An alternative perspective
By Fritzr on 7/27/2011 1:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
They can continue to use the Intel part. As long as the GPU circuitry is disabled or disconnected, they are then not using the infringing tech. That Intel CPU-GPU integrated parts have patent issues with HTC becomes an Intel problem that might impact part supplies at a later date, but that is a separate issue.


RE: An alternative perspective
By Iaiken on 7/27/2011 10:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is much more complex than the authors profoundly stupid assertion that Apple can get around the issue simply by equipping their PC's with NVIDIA graphics chips.

Most of their lineup uses Socket 1155 Intel Chips that feature Intel Core i3/i5/i7 Sandybridge chips. All of these feature Intel integrated graphics. What's more, it is the plan of both Intel and AMD to move towards practically all of their consumer level chips towards this system on chip design. The fact that the Intel graphics are not being used is irrelevant as they are still physically in violation of the patent by their very presence.

The absence of a cross-licensing agreement would lock Apple into using either server-grade chips (expensive) or to use older socket 1156/1366 pretty much indefinitely.

In conclusion, the author is a simpleton and you're a fool for believing him.


RE: An alternative perspective
By Fritzr on 7/27/2011 1:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
They are in violation of the patent if they use the infringing tech. If the GPU circuits are disabled or better disconnected, then there is no use of the patented tech and thus no infringement on the part of Apple. However the supply chain is endangered as a suit filed against Intel could cut off supplies of the CPU.


RE: An alternative perspective
By Iaiken on 7/27/2011 1:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are in violation of the patent if they use the infringing tech.


Wrong, they are in violation of the patent if they SELL the infringing technology. Since it cannot be permanently disabled physically or removed, Apple would be in violation simply for getting payed for the silicon that makes use of the technology.


RE: An alternative perspective
By Iaiken on 7/27/2011 1:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
To further demonstrate the point from a legal perspective.

You hold a patent on how to make rope.

I make something that includes rope, but it's just there and serves no real function.

If I buy rope for my product from someone that is not licensed to make it and then I resell it, I am in violation of your patent as well. Why? Because I am making money off a product that included rope in it's manufacture and you didn't get paid for said rope.


RE: An alternative perspective
By Fritzr on 7/27/2011 2:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you are making rope a necessary part of the function of your device and takes part in the proper function of your device. Bolting a spanner onto an I-beam does not mean the spanner is doing anything more than decorate an I-beam. As long as it is not visible, it is simply there and likely has no intended function.

Real world examples of the way I suggested are:

The i386SX which was often a fully functional i386DX with the math coprocessor disconnected/disabled.

The i486SX which was often a fully functional i486DX with the math coprocessor disconnected/disabled.

More recent are the AMD X3 parts. The OC community discovered that a subset of these were in fact X4 parts that had 1 core disabled which could be reenabled by the end user. It was a lottery, but the odds were good enough that people were buying X3 parts deliberately hoping to get a cheap X4.

By physically disconnecting enough of the connections required by the GPU to prevent it's function, it is removed from the chip as far as use in the unlicensed device is concerned. Designing the socket to disable the GPU would have been an excellent defense in a case of the kind Apple is facing today :)

In this very specific case, Apple is being accused of purchasing and using the GPU in a commercial product without a license. They are not being accused of installing intel chips that have been crippled in a manner that removes the GPU from service.

Intel could, if it chose to, offer an equivalent chip with the GPU factory disabled. Intel has chosen not to up to this time. That issue is between Intel & HTC and is not a part of this court case.


RE: An alternative perspective
By DanNeely on 7/27/2011 2:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The i386SX which was often a fully functional i386DX with the math coprocessor disconnected/disabled.


Your memory is a bit off here. No 386's had an on die FPU. The difference between the SX and DX models was that the former had a cheaper 16 bit bus instead of a 32bit bus; similar to the 8088 and 8086 chips from two generations prior.


RE: An alternative perspective
By Helbore on 7/28/2011 5:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
He's thinking of the 486, where the DX had an onboard co-processor and the SX had the co-pro disabled. I think there was also an L2 cache on the DX (actually, I think it was on the mothboard, rather than on-die) which was also not available for the SX.


RE: An alternative perspective
By bh192012 on 7/27/2011 4:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
I sure do hate paying Apple for their patents. So it's ok then if I sale an iphone case, that just so happens to have a iphone clone in it w/o a battery.


RE: An alternative perspective
By tng on 7/27/2011 2:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think that you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

Regardless of what you think of Apple, Apple is not wrong here because if it's use of Intel silicon, Intel is. HTC could force the issue with Intel, but Apple bought what they could argue was technology from Intel that they did not know was in violation.

Just my 2cents...


What retardation is this?
By xype on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: What retardation is this?
By DanNeely on 7/27/2011 10:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
"While a ruling which found Apple's iPad and iPhone -- which accounted for 46 percent of its revenues last year -- would have been even better for HTC , the victory gives HTC substantial leverage to broker a cross-licensing agreement, which could save HTC from a similar import ban on its smart phones."

The text I added (in bold) is implicit in the statement.


RE: What retardation is this?
By xype on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: What retardation is this?
By Fritzr on 7/27/2011 1:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Reading comprehension helps a great deal. You should work on that.

The ARTICLE in which the statements appear, mention AMD and Intel tangentially. The article has nothing in particular to say about AMD or Intel. The article explicitly discusses a court battle between HTC, a manufacturer of smart phones who possess patents that HTC claims are used by Apple without license, and Apple, a manufacturer of computers and smartphones who poseess patents that Apple claims are used by HTC without license.

AMD & Intel manufacture some parts that may or may not infringe on any of the patents in question, but neither of these companies is involved in the lawsuit discussed.

Sorry for not eliminating the remaining implied statements in the first paragraph, but I wish to keep it under 10 pages :P


RE: What retardation is this?
By Fritzr on 7/27/2011 1:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whuh? It’s completely irrelevant, since it’s about Intel and AMD GPUs and the iPad and iPhone aren’t using them. ...<snip>"You know what would have been even better for HTC?! If Ford and GM were included with AMD and intel! \o/"

Now, I’m not saying there’s no additional upcoming ligitation targeting PowerVR—but that’s not what the article is about, is it?

The article is also not about iPhone, iPad, (also iPod Touch which is basically an iPhone minus the phone), AMD, Intel, Ford or GM. It is about Apple's Mac Computers which may infringe on HTC patents.

HTC I assume retains the rights to negotiate or litigate with other companies it determines to be infringing, but this article confines itself to the case that was actually filed.

See my note above about improving your reading comprehension :D


RE: What retardation is this?
By xype on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
By TakinYourPoints on 7/27/2011 10:38:17 PM , Rating: 1
Daily Herp Derp


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














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