Print 103 comment(s) - last by smac.. on Mar 20 at 2:23 AM

Despite Apple's patents on cell phone touch gestures, HTC was the first to bring a touch-gesture driven phone to the market, with its HTC Touch, released in June 2007.  (Source: Overseas Electronics)
Company is standing up to Apple's patent claims

HTC says in a press release that it is prepared to fight back against Apple's patent litigation in court.  It has not yet filed an official response or countersued, but that should follow within a few weeks.

Apple is currently suing HTC to block the import of Android handsets into the U.S.  Apple claims that it invented a host of technologies including a touch-screen finger-swipe unlock gestures, mobile object oriented graphics, and undervolting a mobile CPU via an interrupt.  These somewhat vague and far-reaching patents form the basis of Apple's claims.  Apple CEO Jobs released a statement casting his company as the tireless innovator and his rivals as thieves.

Peter Chou, chief executive officer, HTC Corporation, says that HTC won't tolerate Apple's bullying.  He states, "HTC disagrees with Apple's actions and will fully defend itself. HTC strongly advocates intellectual property protection and will continue to respect other innovators and their technologies as we have always done, but we will continue to embrace competition through our own innovation as a healthy way for consumers to get the best mobile experience possible."

The press release points out that HTC achieved many industry firsts -- the first Windows PDA (1998), the first Windows Phone (2002), the first gesture-based smart phone (June 2007), and the first Google Android smart phone (October 2008).  Along the way it piled up a fair amount of intellectual property, which could give it ammo against Apple in court.

Some are speculating that Google, makers of the Android operating system, may intervene and aid its handset developers legally to prevent Apple trying to stomp out the growing Android movement at the hardware level.

The stakes are high.  If Apple wins, it could effectively take many of the top Android handsets off the U.S. market, including the HTC Hero, MyTouch, Nexus One, and the soon-to-be-released Incredible.  If HTC wins, on the other hand, it will likely damage Apple's image and give the Android movement more momentum.

Comments     Threshold

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

Apple Defense
By Mitch101 on 3/18/2010 9:31:00 AM , Rating: 5
Please make Steve Jobs take the stand it will start out something like this:

In the beginning God created heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and Microsoft was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be Steve Jobs and Apple: and there was light.
And God saw the light, abd that it was good: and God divided the light from the Microsoft Mobile.
And God asked Steve Jobs to call the light iPhone, and the darkness he called anything those jerks in Redmond stole from me that I stole from Xerox I mean invented myself. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So your honor to question Steve Jobs is to question the will of God as I was before anything else in this world.

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple Defense
By Luticus on 3/18/2010 10:11:26 AM , Rating: 4
I didn't realize you could rip someone off by *not* including features...

The features you mentioned will, however, be sorely missed if they are in fact *not* included. I would probably stick with my current Win Mobile 6 phone in that case. I prefer to let the OS get to at least a beta status first before saying what will and won't come with it. Unless it's already there, which it could be as i don't really bother keeping up with it. I'm not due for a new phone for another year so I'm uninterested at the moment.

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple Defense
By Luticus on 3/18/2010 10:34:26 AM , Rating: 5
Eh... No. The ONLY credit I'd even consider giving you on this is the app store but then I think about it and realize that my LG EnV had an "app store" through Verizon LONG before Apple's phone came along. There are MANY other examples of app store concepts that existed long before Apple made theirs. Hell, the Linux repository system is basically and app store with out the check out system. If Microsoft had copied some major design of the iPhone OS then i would give it to you. If they'd even so much as taken *part* of the look of the iPhone in some why I'd consider giving it to you. To say, however, that removing features that are commonly *not* included on phones anyway is copying the iPhone is a bit of a joke. In that regard Apple copied LG as my EnV didn't have any of those features and there are plenty of other smart phones in the past that didn't have them either.

Maybe MS does borrow some design elements from elsewhere from time to time, I'm not above saying that, even though i can think of only a few specific examples. To say, however, that they are ripping off the iPhone is ridiculous. Sony is ripping off the WII controller... MS is not ripping off the iPhone as far as I've seen. To quote you: "See the difference?"

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple Defense
By Luticus on 3/18/2010 11:20:26 AM , Rating: 4
So wait... forcing hardware manufacturers to adhere to certain standards so that their devices can take full advantage of your software is coping iPhone... WHAT!

Apple invented multi-touch?... um no...
The concept has been around for quite some time.

By the way, high-end hardware requirements does not equate to uniform.

Just because I've never owned an iPhone doesn't mean I've never seen/used them before. I have on several occasions had to sync them to exchange servers, set up calendars, and many other things at work for many of our users and I have friends who own them as well. Beyond that the iPod OS is the same as the iPhone OS and my brother owns one of those which I help him with all the time. I'm just unwilling to outright say something is total crap with out ever owning it. This doesn't, however, mean that I can't read spec sheets and decided based on research I've done that I'd prefer a different phone.

I know enough about the iPhone to say that from what I've seen Windows Mobile 7 looks nothing at all like it so far.

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple Defense
By Bateluer on 3/18/2010 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
Pirks, you know damn well that Apple didn't invent multitouch. Its been present in both capacitive and resistive touch screens, neither invented or first implemented by Apple either, for years prior to the iPhone's development.

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple Defense
By ICBM on 3/18/2010 6:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Apple start using an optical mouse after Microsoft proved it to be great? Nobody here blames/points fingers at Apple for doing this, if anything they applaud it. I don't think anyone here would accuse Apple in the way you are accusing Microsoft, yet the roles are reversed and here we are.

RE: Apple Defense
By cheetah2k on 3/18/2010 9:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
I didnt realise Perks was blowing Jobs too...

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no Jobs: for thou Google is with me; thy Nexus One and thy Android, they comfort me..."

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Defense
By ICBM on 3/19/2010 12:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Still waiting on a response regarding the optical mouse!

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/19/2010 5:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
I have no information proving that it was MS who pioneered optical mice and started to sell them before Apple did, are you sure it was not someone else like Logitech? Got info/links on that?

RE: Apple Defense
By Luticus on 3/18/2010 12:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding the hardware standards it's more about the fact that the older software could run on lower end equipment without sacrificing much performance. Speculation: Now on the newer OS they realize that if 3rd parties release the OS on crappy hardware that their OS will take the blame in the same way Vista did. I'd say it's more learning from their past than copying iPhones "smashing success". Besides that, iPhone doesn't have specific hardware requirements that 3rd parties have to meet because iPhone OS can only run on Apple hardware PERIOD! Therefore iPhone has NOTHING at all to do with 3rd party hardware. Even more than that are you seriously suggesting Apple has exclusive rights to minimum specification requirements (what don't you give Apple credit for)? So every game or piece of software released since the 80's, hell probably even before then, has somehow copied Apple with minimum specifications?? You can't be serious!? Minimum specs aren't about uniformity, they are to ensure that the hardware has the capability to take advantage of the software to a certain level. Manufacturers still have the option to include more features and add their personal touches in whatever why they like as long as they keep the minimum specs in mind.

I don't select by spec sheets alone (though they do help), I also read reviews, ask friends who have already made the purchase, go to stores and check out demos, use trial periods, etc. to make purchasing decisions. If you blindly purchase something just because the manufacturer says it's good than that's not saying much about your ability to make smart purchases, not that I care. Though I don't understand what, if anything, my selection method for purchasing decisions has to do with the argument at hand regarding MS copying Apple.

Furthermore, using something in your spec list that is technically better isn't exactly copying your competition if what you're using is freely available by other vendors, that's like saying a car manufacturer is copying another because it uses the same vendor for tires, even though the design of the entire car differs in nearly every other aspect.

RE: Apple Defense
By djc208 on 3/18/2010 12:49:05 PM , Rating: 3
Yes because MS decided to do that after smashing success of iPhone. Before iPhone the MS policies were exact opposite.

Actually didn't MS start this process with Windows XP like 10 years ago? Minimum system requirements, signed driver system, logo approved hardware. Vista for certain required certain minimum or approved core components and hardware, hence all the "certified for Vista" stickers on everything from graphics cards to monitors.

MS is just doing the same thing with their phone OS. Still not the same as building the phones themselves or via third party to their specs like they do with the Zune or XBox.

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Defense
By Mitch101 on 3/18/2010 1:18:02 PM , Rating: 3
Pirks I wont tell you to F-O. Generally when you copy something its on similarities not missing features. Its like saying Microsoft device doesn't have MKV playback just like the iPhone, It doesn't cut onions just like the iPhone doesn't either. OMG! There stealing! Copy and Paste would be a technical advantage instead of a known hindrance of the iPhone it being left out is just Microsoft being stupid to consumer wants in a portable device not black helicopter copy Apple stuff.

Now I will give you one but I dont recall you mentioning it. Adobe Flash. Apple can say whatever it wants for why the iPhone doesn't support flash but its a basic business decision and that is if the iPhone were able to run Flash then they would lose money to people using flash based applications/games bypassing the Apple App store. It's all about the dollars.

I believe you are more Anti-Microsoft and your finding more popularity with the Apple crowd. Youve found an identity for yourself there. You also turn a blind eye when Apple does the same. It reminds me of the people who get very upset when Microsoft adds a similar feature found in Linux but never acknowledge that every generation of Linux looks more and more like Windows. Do you have any anger toward Apple for stealing from Xerox? Probably not because Apple made the Xerox stuff very nice but you harbor resentment for Microsoft beating Apple. Why? Because Steve Jobs convinced you Microsoft stole THEIR idea for a gui and mouse?

The reality is they all take from each other and for the record I find Linux good for some things but I prefer Windows for ease of use. I think the iPhone is a great device but not secure enough for business critical information. We recently demonstrated hacking the iPhone to obtain corporate info from the device in only a few minutes.

Let me express my view of the Windows Mobile device and what I see.

I see the Microsoft Windows Mobile 7 device to be a bigger threat to the #1 mobile device franchise which is Blackberry. Windows Mobile 7 ties in with a lot of the Microsoft business applications. If anyone stands to lose market share its RIM from Microsoft, Apple, and Google.

Microsoft for a long time mentioned they wanted to get into the portable gaming business. Microsoft's target would be the #1 portable gaming system being the Nintendo DS. Will it be better? Not sure about that the DS is great but Im sure there will be enough titles to keep my interest. This is a perk not a priority.

Why dont I consider the iPhone in both analogies above.
Not secure enough for corporate use. (Deal Killers)
Doesnt support Flash (This does blow)
Doesn't do cut and paste (Not overly important but would be nice)

I'm a blackberry user and Im highly interested in the Windows Mobile 7 device. I envy the iPhone but cant afford to have its limitations. Droid is cool but I know with a Windows Mobile device I will have work and play.

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Defense
By Mitch101 on 3/18/2010 5:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
No need for Blackberry Servers
No need to purchase Blackberry Server Licenses
No need to purchase licenses for every blackberry user
No need to purchase T-Support

Windows Mobile 6.5 phones are the only ones that have the Outlook Mobile client that uses the new features in Outlook 2010 such as Conversation View of e-mails and having audio and transcriptions of voicemails delivered to inboxes. Windows mobile 7 devices will have the same if not better.

Every mailbox with a BlackBerry connection to Exchange uses five times the connection resources that a mailbox with an Exchange ActiveSync client uses.

RE: Apple Defense
By ICBM on 3/18/2010 5:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hasn't Apple ripped of quite a bit from Microsoft recently? Moving to x86 just like Windows? Or how about selling a mouse with more than one button?

While by your definition they has copied Apple, however I would give Apple more credit(and WinMo7). They both are evaluating markets, what works and what doesn't. It would be stupid not to take advantage of your competitors successes and mistakes.

Now to say that WinMo7 is copying iphone 1.0 because they lack features? Odd choice, but lets see where it goes. Including/Excluding features can be considered copying in this world. Colored screen, backlit screen, wallpapers on a phone, phone that plays mp3s, contact list/address book, calender, push buttons, push buttons to control volume, a button to silence the phone, a phone that can sync with a computer,etc.....

So by these rules, in this world, it kind of looks like the iphone is the copycat device, no?

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/2010 10:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Moving to x86 just like Windows?
Did Windows move from PPC to x86? No? Then what did Apple rip off then?
how about selling a mouse with more than one button?
Well, if multibutton mice were invented by MS...
kind of looks like the iphone is the copycat device
In that sense yes, every device in some sense is copycat of another one, so your statement is not news at all.

RE: Apple Defense
By ICBM on 3/19/2010 12:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Let me rephrase what you quoted to clarify:

Apple started using x86 for their products because of market saturation. x86 was always faster and much faster speed bumps than PPC, thanks to market saturation. This is thanks to Microsoft. So you can say Apple is piggy backing on what Microsoft made popular/dominant. So you ask what Apple ripped off? They are using something Windows made popular. In your context of claiming WinMo7 is ripping stuff off, it seems like the same thing to me.

I never claimed MS invented multibutton mice. They did make
it the dominant type of mouse. How many years was Apple criticized for one button mice? Then they finally start offing multibutton mice. Microsoft didn't invent them, and Apple didn't invent any of the things you are claiming WinMo7 is ripping off.

Final quote, the argument makes sense because you are claiming including/excluding common features is what can be considered a copycat. The point I was making, and I think you picked up on, is that including/excluding features isn't a big deal and is part of the business. You pointing out that WinMo7 is ripping off iphone opens the can of worms my argument was aluding to.

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/19/2010 6:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
There's still difference between ripping off a design of a product and switching hardware platform from less popular to more popular. The difference is: x86 was not designed by MS, while iPhone WAS designed by Apple.
Apple didn't invent any of the things you are claiming WinMo7 is ripping off
Things alone just by themselves mean nothing, but when you start piecing them together you get a mosaic that looks exactly like iPhone 1.0. This little missing feature, that tiny missing feature, that newly added feature, this restriction, that one, this minor thing and that one - ALL TOGETHER were belonging to iPhone before.

So yeah, getting just someone's nose or piece of mustache is not going to give you someone else's face, but when you grab all the facial details of another person (figuratively speaking of course) your face suddenly looks JUST LIKE THAT OTHER GUY WE KNEW FOR SO LONG.

Same's with iPhone and WinMo7 - their "faces", their little features and restrictions look SO MUCH LIKE EACH OTHER that it's a nobrainer who ripped off who _this_ time.

RE: Apple Defense
By Iaiken on 3/18/2010 11:28:49 AM , Rating: 5
Pirks, multi-touch and gesture interface systems have been around the block and back again with numerous companies.

Screens, input tablets, the MS surface and even some of those silly little video games at bars show a broad and sweeping use of this technology in numerous sectors. Apple didn't invent it, all they did was leverage existing prior art on a different device the same way other developers had been for years. This is like patenting a means of popping a hydrogen filled balloon with a pin after seeing someone else pop a helium filled balloon in the same manor.

The real problem with you is that you cannot be convinced otherwise because for you, Apple isn't just a product, it's a religion. It is a way of life that you feel helps you elevate yourself above others simply by owning Apple stuff. Thus you are driven to rail against anyone who says anything that would cheapen or lessen that sense of superiority you feel. You're unwilling to listen to reason and have instead simply chosen to believe, therefor cannot be reasoned with.

Now go back to your regularly scheduled life little iBot and leave discussion to the adults. :P

RE: Apple Defense
By Pirks on 3/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Defense
By petrosy on 3/18/2010 6:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Pirks... for once you are actually right.

They both suck!

Another "feature" with the iPhone and Winmo... you need a pc for it to work. Android is quite capable to operate with out ever connecting it to a pc. That is a fantastic feature in my books!

RE: Apple Defense
By smac on 3/20/2010 2:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
New here...but I must say "touche'".

I am also wondering why no one has mentioned (that I've seen) that Apple was named in a lawsuit in April 2008, filed by Tiawanese Elan Microelectronics, for stealing multi-touch technology? The very same technology that Apple is suing HTC over.

RE: Apple Defense
By Iaiken on 3/18/2010 11:33:22 AM , Rating: 3
Actually I guess you don't since you never had an WinMo7 phone. Never mind then. Someone else with more experience will understand me.

Hypocrite much?

RE: Apple Defense
By Abrahmm on 3/18/2010 2:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly can't believe anyone even responds to Pirks anymore. Maybe if we all ignore him he will just go away.

(Waits for a "You just can't handle all the FACTS!!11!!ELEVENONE!!" reply)

RE: Apple Defense
By Iaiken on 3/18/2010 11:10:14 AM , Rating: 2
You must be blind to not to see what I'm talking about.

No, I would need to be stupid to see what you're talking about.

Seriously, get a life.

RE: Apple Defense
By akugami on 3/18/2010 12:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
Clarification. While I found your post humorous, it is with one glaring piece of information that has been perpetuated to infinity. Apple did not steal Xerox's inventions. Morons (and by that I mean managers) at Xerox invited Apple to their PARC offices and had their engineers show off the work on GUI's with the understanding that Apple would be working on a GUI. The payoff for Xerox was $1 million in pre-IPO Apple stock. In other words, Apple licensed the GUI work done at Xerox. They didn't steal it.

Apple did add to the GUI work from Xerox (partially by having hired Xerox PARC engineers) and in fact invented drag'n'drop. Apple has made original additions to the GUI. It's hard to say at this point whether anything relating to GUI's is original at this point since everything was built off of the work at Xerox. But it isn't the truth when someone perpetuate the falsehood that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox.

RE: Apple Defense
By cycomiko on 3/19/2010 5:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
PARC did not "invite" apple in to view their workings

Jobs bribed XDC an offer to invest in a rapidly growing company, on the conditions he could get in.

Not management, but venture capitalists with different objectives in the world, and they scored quite highly out of it, turning their small investment into a big return.

Not stolen, but also definitely not directly paid for.

RE: Apple Defense
By Jaybus on 3/19/2010 5:23:52 PM , Rating: 3
Long, long ago in a data center far, far away, I used to write Rexx scripts for running multiple TSO sessions (with an S/370 MVS mainframe) on a single 3270 terminal. IBM's SPF (later renamed ISPF) allowed what they called "panels", but which we would now consider "text-only console windows". So this concept of running multiple programs in different "windows" long pre-dates Mac or Windows, and also the Xerox proto-GUI. To me, it seemed a logical evolutionary step to put graphics in these "windows", instead of just text.

We did, by the way, have graphics terminals back then too, like the Tektronix 4010. In fact, I worked on a auto-routing application for placing ICs on a printed circuit board and calculating the traces needed between pins. There was no mouse, but there was a cursor controlled by the keyboard that you would maneuver to a palette of pre-defined IC package types and drag-n-drop them into place. Yes, people knew about drag-n-drop before there was a Mac or a Windows, or even an Amiga.

The concept of "windows", from my experience, came from IBM. The graphical (as opposed to text) user interface was much more evolutionary than revolutionary, in spite of Apple's (or anyone else's) boasts of ingenuity.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki