Apple and HTC Settle Patent Dispute, Agree to Ten Year License

Casiotone · Nov 12, 2012

kdarling said:
I was oversimplifying because my post was only in response to this utterly bogus base claim:

Without the basic idea of a GUI... which was not invented at Apple.., the later refinements added to the GUI by developers working at Apple and other places could not have existed.

It's like claiming that someone who invented the pushbutton car radio or lighted gear indicator is also responsible for the invention of the car.

I am quite aware of the differences between the Alto and Star, Lisa and Mac. I wrote a couple of GUIs (in assembler) in the '80s myself.

Mine had some worthwhile improvements as well, such as multi-tasking (i.e. windows could continue to update while one was being moved), background pixel and text storage, built-in knob and slider controls for touch, etc.

However, making such refinements doesn't mean I invented GUIs, any more than Apple did

Regards.

While you may be aware of all this, not everyone reading your your comment was, and could be lead into thinking that Apple literally copied Xerox and simply added pull-down menus, which is not true. The screenshot you posted could easily leave that impression. That's why I felt it was important to mention some of the differences which can't be seen in the screenshot.

Have a nice day!

KnightWRX · Nov 12, 2012

swy05 said:
At one point, Apple was the only dominant player in the market.

Can you even pinpoint that event ?

Apple never dominated the Smartphone segment. Nokia and it's Symbian platform were overtaken by Apple after Android in general had over taken it and I think after Samsung itself had over taken Nokia already.

Apple for a while had a battle for 2nd place with RIM with Nokia being well ahead of both.

In the end, Apple never really dominated the smartphone market. That doesn't mean they didn't do very well in the market.

----------

thekev said:
All you've really indicated is that they made a case study out of the iphone. the rest is conjecture.

Especially since a few of the items in that document were outright "Our stuff is too iPhone like, change it to be less like the iPhone".

A lot of it was also "iPhone looks/does this better, make ours better" not necessarily "make ours like the iPhone".

Redbeard25 · Nov 12, 2012

It's about time.

thekev · Nov 12, 2012

KnightWRX said:
A lot of it was also "iPhone looks/does this better, make ours better" not necessarily "make ours like the iPhone".

I was thinking of including some of the points, but I'm extremely groggy today due to cold + allergies. Such things usually result in statements that I still understand later on, yet may leave room for misinterpretation when read by others. I just figured the other person was unaware of such case studies, or assumed these to be beneath Apple. They don't have to be about copying specific features. Many of the notations examined what worked on a conceptual level. That might be useful when trying to discern Samsung's design process, but it isn't a determination of infringement on a registered design or patent. The problem I continue to see on here is an attempt to connect things at an abstract level, which is completely divorced from the court cases and filings. At an abstract level, Apple seems to desire iconic value. In some ways that has driven their brand for a long time. That seemed like a major reason they filed patents to build an imaginary wall around each of their devices.

Take a look at one of their most recent patents. I get it. They don't just want to be different. They want a clear brand distinction and identity that is basically ubiquitous across industries. They've even had trademark disputes on things completely unrelated to electronics. This seems to be the goal. I just don't know whether it's truly enforceable.

mdelvecchio · Nov 12, 2012

croooow said:
I have to agree that I have not been "wowed" by Apple like I was when Steve Jobs showed us that first iPhone in 2007.

I have liked plenty of other products they make, I have purchased 3 of their phones plus a number of other items (like the computer I am using right now) but nothing they have done since the first iPhone has really "wowed" me.

at that point in time in 2007 they completely up-ended the cell phone business. it was a sneak attack, like bombing pearl harbor. how could you possible expect that level of shock & awe from them on a regular basis? the next best thing to it is the ipad launch, which rocks.

but to expect to be completely surprised in mature product lines is insanity.

croooow · Nov 12, 2012

mdelvecchio said:
...how could you possible expect that level of shock & awe from them on a regular basis? ...

I never said anything about expecting that "wow" on a regular basis.

It would be nice for them to surprise us once more.

hamkor04 · Nov 12, 2012

bedifferent said:
Ok So my decade+ of using Apple products since grad school and now work is a figment of your imagination?

I own a 12-Core Mac Pro, 2 24" LED LCD's, an iPad, every iPhone incarnation, and am writing on a MacBook Air. I used to WORK for Apple Corp., but I suppose someone who can objectively critique a company they value must be a "troll" (I loathe that term and as a 35 year old man, 36 tomorrow, hate that I have to use such a childish term in response to an immature post).

Blind infatuation will yield to stagnation, however objectively stating "I don't agree with said product or such act" and voting with your dollars will get a company's attention. Take a look at Apple stock, maybe a hiccup, maybe not. Regardless, I hope it wakes them up a bit to innovate more. I'm glad Forstall is gone, and thrilled Browett is as well; that duo would have walked Apple down a dark path (Johnson was/is amazing in retail, shame Apple lost him to Penny's).

(PS if I really hated Apple as you claim, why would I donate annually to a site dedicated to Apple products? I guess I really must hate Apple )

I loved Apple (Still like it much but not as before). I think because their company politics, making me less liking them. And I really want see othe Samsung HTC and some Chinese (may be Huwaye or something like that) become really Apple competitors. And then they will "Think different"

swy05 · Nov 12, 2012

KnightWRX said:
Can you even pinpoint that event ?

Apple never dominated the Smartphone segment. Nokia and it's Symbian platform were overtaken by Apple after Android in general had over taken it and I think after Samsung itself had over taken Nokia already.

Apple for a while had a battle for 2nd place with RIM with Nokia being well ahead of both.

In the end, Apple never really dominated the smartphone market. That doesn't mean they didn't do very well in the market.

----------

Especially since a few of the items in that document were outright "Our stuff is too iPhone like, change it to be less like the iPhone".

A lot of it was also "iPhone looks/does this better, make ours better" not necessarily "make ours like the iPhone".

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/04/apple-now-the-worlds-largest-smartphone-manufacturer-samsung-c/

It may have been short-lived but, they were at one point.

KnightWRX · Nov 13, 2012

swy05 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/04/apple-now-the-worlds-largest-smartphone-manufacturer-samsung-c/

It may have been short-lived but, they were at one point.

So, we've gone from "5 years ago" to 1 quarter last year, where if you look at Units sold per vendor. And Apple's dominance was a whopping 20%. Over 80% of the market wasn't Apple.

Looking at the platform breakdown for Q2 '11 though, Android was chief with 43% of the market to Apple's 20% with iOS (Source: Gartner).

So dominating isn't exactly the word I'd use... At least have the decency to admit you didn't follow the smartphone market close enough and were just a bit too enthusiastic with your original post. Trying to keep saying you weren't wrong when the facts are plain as day just hurts your credibility.

Ryan John · Nov 13, 2012

LagunaSol said:
With Samsung sucking up all the air in the Android space, this is a good move for HTC. Android fans love to talk about "choice," then they all buy Samsungs.

And just where did these statistics come from? I own Apple, Samsung, HTC and Motorola and consider myself a typical consumer.

lordofthereef · Nov 13, 2012

alexgowers said:
Erm apple invented GUI's full stop. Xerox park agreed to let them have the idea of a 'graphical user interface' but apple developed it into the modern desktop and everything that spawned.

This crap about apple not coming up with GUI's annoys me as much as your misinformation annoys you.

And when did they come up with GUIs good sir? By now it should be available for all to use anyway under patent law, regardless of what Apple came up with 30+ years ago... Patents aren't forever. They weren't designed that way. Rather they are good for a 20 year span. Unless of course they can be proven irrelevant, too broad, etc. etc. But... that's not quite what we are talking about here anyway.

swy05 · Nov 13, 2012

KnightWRX said:
So, we've gone from "5 years ago" to 1 quarter last year, where if you look at Units sold per vendor. And Apple's dominance was a whopping 20%. Over 80% of the market wasn't Apple.

Looking at the platform breakdown for Q2 '11 though, Android was chief with 43% of the market to Apple's 20% with iOS (Source: Gartner).

So dominating isn't exactly the word I'd use... At least have the decency to admit you didn't follow the smartphone market close enough and were just a bit too enthusiastic with your original post. Trying to keep saying you weren't wrong when the facts are plain as day just hurts your credibility.

I admitted the "5 years ago or so" statement was offpoint. I already said this before. You want me to admit and apologize again? Am I sitting here and saying I wasn't wrong? I already said I was wrong. Or better yet, you want me to get on my knees and polish off your knob?

It still doesnt change the fact that samsung and apple are the only dominant players today.

And back to my original point once again which was directed at someone else.

Why only try to control Samsung. Why not Apple?

You can pick apart my statement (which I admit was off) but try to look at the point of my statement (which wasnt even directed at you.)

http://macdailynews.com/2012/08/06/...et-with-6-market-share-and-77-of-the-profits/

http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/q2-2012-smartphone-market-share-us-npd/

Not just market share, but also profits. Apple may not have dominated the market single handed. But they did it better than any other company. Whether it's for 1 or 2 quarters.

Or are you going to keep attacking a point which wasn't the focus of my argument.

Or would you like to answer why Samsung should be controlled and not Apple.......on his behalf.

Imhotep397 · Nov 14, 2012

lordofthereef said:
I dont understand this statement. Windows Mobile (not phone), Blackberry and Symbian had similar UIs, both of which were customizable to be a grid of icons with a "dock", if the user chose. This was all MANY years bef_

Uh...no. Newton and the Apple Newton PDA/iPhone UX predates the device interfaces you're talking about. Just because Steve Jobs didn't like the form factor of the Newton doesn't make in a non-Apple invention and it doesn't disqualify it as the first "PDA" and a blueprint for a lot of copycats.

----------

iGrip said:
That's like saying that Henry Ford invented having four wheels ON A CAR with A GAS ENGINE.

The tiled interface was tired and old way back when Win95 made it easy to keep scads of icons on a naive user's desktop. Apple should have done something better then, but as of now, the launcher on iOS is a joke.

...interesting notion considering every phone manufacture hides the same "Old" and ripped off interface behind a pre-launched app acting like a screen saver basically (Calendar, Weather, etc.)

Vitrum · Nov 14, 2012

Sure buddy.

Imhotep397 · Nov 14, 2012

Oletros said:
You know that the LG Prada had a tiled interface, don't you?

The LG Prada phone was poorly designed from illegally obtained surveillance information, probably no different than the pre-release component pictures you see here and on other Mac rumor sites. While pictures of the Prada phone were available a couple of months before the iPhone there were no working iPhone copycat Prada phones from LG in the "wild" until after the iPhone was released. It's important to note at this point that LG has not moved anywhere near filing suit against Apple at this point...probably seeing glimpses of idiocy like Samsung's "Bowl of Water" as inspiration to design the phone...lol.

When you don't have the design chops to build something unique it becomes obvious when people start peering into the history of the design and find the explanations to be quite flimsy.

kdarling · Nov 14, 2012

Imhotep397 said:
When you look at the tiled interface of some older devices from the "PDA Era" even they heavily draw on an older product from Apple...The Newton.

Imhotep397 said:
Uh...no. Newton and the Apple Newton PDA/iPhone UX predates the device interfaces you're talking about.

Apple did not invent the grid or even the dock.

Humans have been putting things in grids for thousands of years. It's a natural inclination to make order of things. It's easier for people to pick something out of. Think of a chess board. Calculator keys. Even the layout of many towns is a grid.

That's why, long before Apple existed, we programmers often put dynamic choices in a multi-column grid with static choices (sometimes mapped to function keys) across the bottom (what would later be called a dock).

When small screen device makers did the same, they were just repeating what had already been done for years on green screen terminals.

lordofthereef · Nov 14, 2012

Imhotep397 said:
Uh...no. Newton and the Apple Newton PDA/iPhone UX predates the device interfaces you're talking about. Just because Steve Jobs didn't like the form factor of the Newton doesn't make in a non-Apple invention and it doesn't disqualify it as the first "PDA" and a blueprint for a lot of copycats.

Sigh... You clearly missed my point. I am not going to keep repeating myself. Waste of time. In short, I am talking about the way UIs look now, not how they looked 3-4 decades ago. Grid, dock, etc. etc. Apple neither invented those, nor were they part of their original UI on either the Mac or the Newton.

You argument is a bit like saying Bell invented the phone, therefor Apple copied him.

Imhotep397 · Nov 21, 2012

lordofthereef said:
Sigh... You clearly missed my point...

No, I didn't miss anything I'm just not willing to concede to your point of view. The reality is that while you're attempting to argue that Apple's UI is un-patentable and other such nonsense Microsoft went and built a functioning mobile phone that isn't a slavishly copied iPhone. Samsung, HTC and the other companies that have ripped off the iPhone were unwilling to develop the Android UI into something radically different, similar to what MS was willing to do because there was no guarantee of success while the iPhone and it's UI were already madly successful, so they just copied it as best they could and now we get to have all of the ridiculous conversations about clear IP infringement.

----------

kdarling said:
... been done for years on green screen terminals.

I don't know what green screen terminals you're working with, but most of those types of terminals I worked with in the past were purely command line.

lordofthereef · Nov 24, 2012

Imhotep397 said:
No, I didn't miss anything I'm just not willing to concede to your point of view. The reality is that while you're attempting to argue that Apple's UI is un-patentable and other such nonsense Microsoft went and built a functioning mobile phone that isn't a slavishly copied iPhone.

It's a grid... of a bunch of icons. Why isn't Apple going after them? WP is not a known threat, YET. How long did Apple wait to go after Android and Android OEMs? A long, LONG time, right when they started pulling in a bit of marketshare.

I think the deal here is that the icons in Windows Phone don't look as similar. But in terms of function and how you use them, they are almost identical, down to how you move them around, rearrange them, etc. They are as similar, in this way, as iOS is to Android. And THAT is what the lawsuite is about, is it not?

xofruitcake · Nov 25, 2012

lordofthereef said:
I And THAT is what the lawsuite is about, is it not?

No, that is just the design patent. And there is a few other patents in the Samsung and HTC (which was settle with HTC taking a license from Apple) lawsuit. If you are really interested, google it and read up yourselves. I think everyone who know how to post in this forum know enough to educate ourselves to an issue. If all else fail, this site give a really good run down on the global mobile patent war between all the parties.

http://www.fosspatents.com/

lordofthereef · Nov 25, 2012

xofruitcake said:
No, that is just the design patent. And there is a few other patents in the Samsung and HTC (which was settle with HTC taking a license from Apple) lawsuit. If you are really interested, google it and read up yourselves. I think everyone who know how to post in this forum know enough to educate ourselves to an issue. If all else fail, this site give a really good run down on the global mobile patent war between all the parties.

http://www.fosspatents.com/

I am aware that this encompasses more than what I said, BUT, let's not forget, that it DOES encompass the grid, which is sort of the point, and sort of what the discussion has morphed into. I never made claims that everything Apple believes is theirs to protect is out of bounds (to be clear I am not claiming you accused me of this, but others have). There are some legitimate patents out there that Apple, and of course other companies, are deserving of and license justly. But when you paint with broad strokes (again, this isn't just Apple in the current tech space), it's a little ridiculous that you can be awarded the patent in the first place. And THAT is the problem with the system.

Mark my words, unless we have patent law reform, Apple is going to find something to get on MS about if/when their WP market share starts rising. And it's going to start with their UI. I am willing to guarantee it.

xofruitcake · Nov 25, 2012

lordofthereef said:
I am aware that this encompasses more than what I said, BUT, let's not forget, that it DOES encompass the grid, which is sort of the point, and sort of what the discussion has morphed into. I never made claims that everything Apple believes is theirs to protect is out of bounds (to be clear I am not claiming you accused me of this, but others have). There are some legitimate patents out there that Apple, and of course other companies, are deserving of and license justly. But when you paint with broad strokes (again, this isn't just Apple in the current tech space), it's a little ridiculous that you can be awarded the patent in the first place. And THAT is the problem with the system.

Mark my words, unless we have patent law reform, Apple is going to find something to get on MS about if/when their WP market share starts rising. And it's going to start with their UI. I am willing to guarantee it.

But isn't that what the court systems are doing it right now trying to sort out what is valid and what is not valid? As layman, we won't be able to interpret the definition of protected idea vs unprotectable idea. If you believe Apple has the right to protect their investment, UI is just one part of it and the court systems is doing it's job to sort it all out. Microsoft and Apple already has a cross patent licensing deal as disclosed in the Samsung/Apple trial. I am not sure what you are talking about Apple finding something on Microsoft.

Look at it the other way, the only way Apple lawsuit is successful is that their patent is valid and enforceable as seen by the court. It won't stop anyone if their patent portfolio is not strong. You don't think Samsung or Google want to stop Apple on it's track by using their own patent portfolio? Why exactly is Google spending so much money buying Motorola? Certainly not for their business since they layoff a bunch of Motorola people in the last few months. be real and be informed..

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...-its-designs-to-microsoft-but-barred-cloning/

Apple's patent licensing chief said here today that an earlier cross-licensing deal allowed Microsoft access to a host of its design and feature patents, but prohibited the copying of Apple's own products.
Apple patent licensing director Boris Teksler made the disclosure during testimony in the company's trial against Samsung, which could wrap up as soon as next week. It's not clear how long the cross-licensing deal he mentioned has been in place, or how long it will last.
"All these patents are in Apple's unique user experience, and not ones we would license," Teksler said during the redirect portion of his testimony. He said the Apple-Microsoft cross-license covers design patents, but added that Apple added "special prohibitions" with an anti-cloning provision.
"There's peace to each other's products; there's a clear acknowledgement that there's no cloning," he said. Teksler added that Microsoft did not receive special rights.

kdarling · Nov 25, 2012

xofruitcake said:
But isn't that what the court systems are doing it right now trying to sort out what is valid and what is not valid? As layman, we won't be able to interpret the definition of protected idea vs unprotectable idea.

Yet that's exactly what many people see as a major problem: patent cases being decided by a mostly laymen jury, such as happened in California. Or with lay judges elsewhere.

Look at it the other way, the only way Apple lawsuit is successful is that their patent is valid and enforceable as seen by the court.

Even that can change.

For example, in the past year Apple won a few cases around the world based in part on their bounceback patent... including in the California trial.

Now, a few months later, the USPTO has decided that it's quite likely it will invalidate almost all the claims of that patent.

xofruitcake · Nov 25, 2012

kdarling said:
Yet that's exactly what many people see as a major problem: patent cases being decided by a mostly laymen jury, such as happened in California. Or with lay judges elsewhere.

Even that can change.

For example, in the past year Apple won a few cases around the world based in part on their bounceback patent... including in the California trial.

Now, a few months later, the USPTO has decided that it's quite likely it will invalidate almost all the claims of that patent.

Most judge that preside over patent case are pretty knowledgeable in patent laws. So I don't have any problem for a non-jury trial. A jury trial is a roll of dice for both party, so there is a lot of incentive to negotiate a settlement before trial. Laws are a living beast. They change over time and different between jurisdiction. Nothing new and it is the best systems we have up to this point. So the companies will struggle in court systems to figure out how to divide the profit of the mobile product wave. For consumer like us, we have no control on these trial and most likely we don't spend enough time in any of them to even understand the basic argument of both side.

lordofthereef · Nov 25, 2012

xofruitcake said:
Most judge that preside over patent case are pretty knowledgeable in patent laws.

Yes. But I propose that patent laws are horrendously outdated when it comes to digital technology. That is the problem. Put another way, just because it currently falls under the law, doesn't make it right. The law, unfortunately, was not written with everything we have today in mind, much like any changes we make now may very well be outdated and archaic 100 years from now.

Simply put, I don't doubt that these companies have legal grounds for what they are doing currently. Much like there are legal loopholes in tax write-offs, there are these wonderful patents laws that people use to take advantage of and pull leverage on other companies. That doesn't make it moral. That doesn't make it ok.

Apple and HTC Settle Patent Dispute, Agree to Ten Year License

macrumors 6502a

macrumors Pentium

macrumors regular

macrumors 604

macrumors 68040

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors Pentium

macrumors regular

macrumors G5

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors P6

macrumors G5

macrumors 6502

macrumors G5

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G5

macrumors 6502a

macrumors P6

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G5

Our Staff