Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Files Lawsuit Against HTC Over Alleged iPhone Patent Infringement

cmaier said:
Patent misuse is defined by 35 USC 271:
I did read that article. Note that it talks only about ONE of the 20 patents that Apple is asserting. Second, the article goes around and around talking about efficiency or inefficiency, and doesn't actually apply the simple test that will determine whether this particular patent is infringed. All one has to do is look at the claims of the patent. Here's one, for example:
Click to expand...

Well, it's been a few hours since I've read the article, but as I recall it was talking about the inefficiency vs. efficiency to more clearly illustrate the technical differences as far as how it actually works. I could be mistaken. We'll have to see what happens I guess.

cmaier said:
The whole point of a patent is to grant a limited, 20-year monopoly.
Click to expand...

If this is true, why did the gvmt. go after Microsoft for having an alleged Monopoly? Certainly that period of time was within 20 years from the time they would have patented any of their technology. Is it because that beef was about software, which is not patentable?
 
Lazerlike42 said:
If this is true, why did the gvmt. go after Microsoft for having an alleged Monopoly? Certainly that period of time was within 20 years from the time they would have patented any of their technology. Is it because that beef was about software, which is not patentable?
Click to expand...

Monopolies can be either legal or illegal. Microsoft was ruled the latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly
 
Lazerlike42 said:
If this is true, why did the gvmt. go after Microsoft for having an alleged Monopoly? Certainly that period of time was within 20 years from the time they would have patented any of their technology. Is it because that beef was about software, which is not patentable?
Click to expand...

Because Microsoft violated the antitrust laws. They were not accused of using their patents illegally. They were accused of doing things like predatory pricing, intentionally crippling the operation of competitors' products on their operating systems, providing kickbacks to computer manufacturers to prevent competitors from gaining a foothold, and using their monopoly in operating systems to gain a monopoly in unrelated markets (for example web browsers). None of that has anything to do with their patents.

The 20-year monopoly you get from patents is perfectly legal, no matter how big you are.
 
cmaier said:
Because Microsoft violated the antitrust laws. They were not accused of using their patents illegally. They were accused of doing things like predatory pricing, intentionally crippling the operation of competitors' products on their operating systems, providing kickbacks to computer manufacturers to prevent competitors from gaining a foothold, and using their monopoly in operating systems to gain a monopoly in unrelated markets (for example web browsers). None of that has anything to do with their patents.

The 20-year monopoly you get from patents is perfectly legal, no matter how big you are.
Click to expand...

Thanks greatly.
 
roach said:
I think this is the start of patent war when every company is going to patent everything. Not necessary to use it but to protect and counter against getting sued themselves. I think this will limit innovation from moving forward. Apple better be careful with such things that are already out there that iPhone has yet to implement like front facing camera and features that Apple already implemented that's been in the market already like compass, GPS, etc.
Click to expand...

You're a bit late to that conclusion. Its a hard out cold war. We just don't hear about them unless it happens to a big company.
 
cmaier said:
You are joking, right?

Patents, by definition, grant the right to exclude. The whole point of a patent is to grant a limited, 20-year monopoly. That's what they're for. No company has ever been sued by the government for exercising it's patent rights.
Click to expand...

Then how come United Shoe Machinery Company got successfully sued by the government on the very grounds you mentioned? :confused:

HTC will use the US v. United Shoe Machinery Company cases as legal precedent to get Apple's lawsuit thrown out, especially given how fast Apple has taken market share in the "smart" cellphone market. This is a classic case of Apple using the legal system to intimidate LG, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson from selling touchscreen phones based on the Google Android operating system, pure and simple. Apple taking on HTC is one thing, but eventually taking on the FTC/US Justice Department and/or EU antitrust authorities is quite something else.
 
ddubbo said:
I own one. It's better then any iphone from any point of view. It's more robust, cheaper, faster. I don't even talk about childish iphone design.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself! The HTC is a step backward from the iphone IMHO. The iphone has the most unbelievable integration of software I have ever seen in a consumer product. Nobody in the cell phone game does it like Apple. No one!
HTC is all bells and whistles. Apple can also just release one iphone a year and still make a killing in the market. Can HTC do that. NO!
 
carmenodie said:
Speak for yourself! The HTC is a step backward from the iphone IMHO. The iphone has the most unbelievable integration of software I have ever seen in a consumer product. Nobody in the cell phone game does it like Apple. No one!
HTC is all bells and whistles. Apple can also just release one iphone a year and still make a killing in the market. Can HTC do that. NO!
Click to expand...

I gave my wife the 3gs once I got the nexus one. So much nicer, with no walled garden.
 
HTC and other phone vendors were out before Apple but Apple turned the industry on its a**!
Look at Sony Erricson and al them phones on their site. Look back fve years and you can count like 300+ models. Apple in 2 more years would have had only about 5 models of iphone. One iphone a year. How many cell phone vendors bring out one cell model a year? NONE! Apple doesn't even bring out new models of their computers well into the 3rd year. Wow! That is a very sustainable business model. Keeps you alive longer. Too bad the rest of the industry can't that. God know how many Dells and HPs get dropped ever other month just to keep the geeks happy.
The iphone is a killer product with a legendary integration scheme no other cell vendor can match. Not even SE. Hell Sony has a music and movie empire and they don't even have a music/video store that can rival itunes. What's up with that?
 
SactoGuy18 said:
Then how come United Shoe Machinery Company got successfully sued by the government on the very grounds you mentioned? :confused:

HTC will use the US v. United Shoe Machinery Company cases as legal precedent to get Apple's lawsuit thrown out, especially given how fast Apple has taken market share in the "smart" cellphone market. This is a classic case of Apple using the legal system to intimidate LG, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson from selling touchscreen phones based on the Google Android operating system, pure and simple. Apple taking on HTC is one thing, but eventually taking on the FTC/US Justice Department and/or EU antitrust authorities is quite something else.
Click to expand...

As I just said, they were NOT successfully sued. The United States Supreme Court, which has the final word, said the US lost. Further, that is a 1918 case that has no precedential value since, as I pointed out a few messages back, long after the case Congress, which makes the laws, specifically codified the patent misuse statute. This statute specifically permits what United Shoe was doing (and thus simply codified the result of that case).

Once again: no company can be found to be misusing it's patents to create an illegal monopoly simply because it exercises its patent rights (except for the exceptions for inequitable conduct and tying which I already mentioned).

Please go re-read the history of that case - you have it exactly backwards.

cumanzor said:
that kind of arrogant answer, coming from a guy who claims to be a pro in the field, leaves A LOT to be desired.
Click to expand...

What's arrogant about it? The guy provided as evidence of his contention that the sky is yellow a picture of the blue sky. Worse, it was a hand drawn picture (in patent law terms, a hundred year old case is not going to have a lot of precedential value since patent law is statutory). I figured he was joking since his argument was that when the law says "the point of a patent is to give you a 20 year monopoly" he argues "exercise that monopoly and the Feds will go after you" and his supplied evidence is a 100 year old case that says the opposite.

Now I know he is joking - I told him the US lost the case and cited what the supreme court said, and his answer is "then how come the supreme court won?"

I mean, it has to be a joke?
 
cmaier said:
What's arrogant about it? The guy provided as evidence of his contention that the sky is yellow a picture of the blue sky. Worse, it was a hand drawn picture (in patent law terms, a hundred year old case is not going to have a lot of precedential value since patent law is statutory). I figured he was joking since his argument was that when the law says "the point of a patent is to give you a 20 year monopoly" he argues "exercise that monopoly and the Feds will go after you" and his supplied evidence is a 100 year old case that says the opposite.

Now I know he is joking - I told him the US lost the case and cited what the supreme court said, and his answer is "then how come the supreme court won?"

I mean, it has to be a joke?
Click to expand...

Don't try to confuse the guy with facts.:D I thought this party was over last night, so I didn't see your last post re: fictional devices from movies. I think a case can be made for either view, but legally (real world) you're right. I would still say that seeing, or creating a light saber in a movie is not the same as reducing it to practice, so even if you accomplish that, that just makes the movie image irrelevant. I can see where some design patents could be had, such as a frisbee, where the design is quite clear in the movie. However, I can't think of a patent other than toys (i.e Pixar films) which have arisen from movie images or concepts.
Thanks for your posts, tho.
 
farmboy said:
Don't try to confuse the guy with facts.:D I thought this party was over last night, so I didn't see your last post re: fictional devices from movies. I think a case can be made for either view, but legally (real world) you're right. I would still say that seeing, or creating a light saber in a movie is not the same as reducing it to practice, so even if you accomplish that, that just makes the movie image irrelevant. I can see where some design patents could be had, such as a frisbee, where the design is quite clear in the movie. However, I can't think of a patent other than toys (i.e Pixar films) which have arisen from movie images or concepts.
Thanks for your posts, tho.
Click to expand...

I agree. But for something like slide-to-unlock, if you see it done that's probably enough enablement. (it doesn't have to be reduced to practice to be prior publication art).
 
iBlue said:
Up yours, Apple. Yours too, patent office, for putting through some of the idiotic patents Apple has been granted that they probably shouldn't have.


Lets not pretend for a second that this isn't just Apple being butthurt that other phones are succeeding.
Click to expand...

But what is the reason for that success?
 
Funny stuff from Engadget :

htchiring.jpg
 
MorphingDragon said:
Now if only there was some patent system that has the equivalent effect of the GPL licence.
Click to expand...

There is. Just publish your invention. Then no one else can patent it.

Or patent it first. Then you can grant a free license to whoever you want and impose restrictions like "you cannot use this in a product protected by patents other than this patent unless the other patent is subject to the same license conditions as this one." (At least I don't see any reason you can't do that. Don't think it's ever been tested in the courts).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back