Company That Sued Apple for iPhone 6 Patent Infringement 'Barely Exists'

[ahireasu]

Well then why would the competitors use swipe to unlock in their products? There are many other ways to unlock a phone. A button. Swirl your finger around in a circle to unlock. Type in a passcode.

The reason they used it is because Apple thought of something really obvious, but effective. A gesture that couldn't unlock a phone accidentally when in your pocket, but which is easy and intuitive to do when you do want to unlock it.

The competitors knew that was patented. They used it anyway, because they couldn't think of anything just as effective. They hadn't thought of it before, even in its most simplistic form. So yes, I very much agree with Apple suing over that. It's not like there wasn't a different way to do it.

You might see it as something simple and natural. It's easy to say that with hindsight. Even so much as a swipe unlock had a lot of thought and time that goes into it, especially when you consider what the phone industry looked like before 2007.

It's funny that you mention it,but this is also what bugs me,you talk about "how much thought and time goes into it" but apple was/is the one that doesn't give a rats ass about the people that really spend time and effort to create "something so simple and natural"and stole the idea in the first place and then they patent it and sue everyone else in the process ..... really apple?i mean Really?if you want to use it use it but don't try to sell it like it was your idea to begin with.
If you wonder there was a company that launched a mobile phone called Neonode N1 and guess what it had slide to unlock long before apple and Steve Jobs patented the hell out of it.

 

[skinned66]

the company "is still operational in its necessary functions," according to Digione lawyer Andy Yang.

What "necessary functions" look like:

 

[Rocketman]

So this is pretty much a hail Mary suit!

 

[DevNull0]

Perhaps it's finally time to slap a certain nation with some tariffs.

Or maybe Apple could stop sucking up to a country with a long track record of screwing over foreign companies (including Apple). I mean these days Apple is really taking their home turf for granted and really seems to have a huge middle finger pointed at the American market.

This is what investing in China means. Apple needs another good harsh lesson.

 

[Zirel]

Actually, the specific design pieces (in red below) that the Beijing administrator looked at between the Apple and Chinese phones, especially for the side view, are more similar...


...than the same curves between the Apple and Samsung phones in the California trial:



So anyone who still actually believes the Samsung phone looked "exactly like" the Apple one, has little choice but to agree with Beijing that the Apple phone infringes the Chinese one. (In both cases, the decisions ignored all the camera / port / button / logo placements and other details that were different and that easily alerted a consumer.)

(C) 2012 Apple, Inc.

Samsung not only copied Apple in the exterior shape, they mimics Apple A LOT in all their phones, and instructed sales people to say that "Samsung makes the iPhone for Apple", "it's the same thing as the iPhone".

Samsung is a crappy company, they tell their costumers their phones are something extraordinary and they believe it, when they are nothing more than just a skin over Android, with more bloatware.

 

[apolloa]

I wonder how many posters here believe a Wall Street Journel negative story when it's about their political party they support?
[doublepost=1466618197][/doublepost]

I realise China is a huge market but if the Chinese courts don't respect western companies and their IP then why don't the likes of Apple threaten to start producing their products elsewhere?
If I was Apple I would be doing feasibility studies on opening factories elsewhere (I know Pegatron/Foxcon etc build the devices), perhaps with greater automation they could be built in the West again?

Did you forget the UK courts also didn't respect any of Apples American patents when they tried to sue competitors based on patent infringement in the UK?
Kinda makes your comment look silly, and that's not even mentioning the rest of the world that threw Apples case out or where Apple lost its case.
[doublepost=1466618398][/doublepost]

Or maybe Apple could stop sucking up to a country with a long track record of screwing over foreign companies (including Apple). I mean these days Apple is really taking their home turf for granted and really seems to have a huge middle finger pointed at the American market.

This is what investing in China means. Apple needs another good harsh lesson.

Or Apple could stop chasing those massive mark up on prices and huge profits by getting its iPhone made for the cheapest it can in China...
People seem to forget things are made in China because its first and foremost cheap to have things made there.

 

[robertmorris2]

When you’re the leader, you’re the target.

 

[kas23]

It does exist. It is just on the verge of bankruptcy. You are reading the headline too literally.

Have you actually read the WSJ article?

Phone calls to the company, Shenzhen Baili Marketing Services Co., ring unanswered. Its websites have been deleted. Visits to its three registered addresses found no company offices.

 

[TallManNY]

China is a massive country and with it has a very large legal system. Getting too worked up about one decision at the low level of the court system isn't worth it. Maybe there was a bribe, maybe there was favoritism, or maybe the administrator just had an off day and is about to be smacked by the appeals court. This happens all the time. Apple will appeal at least up to a couple of levels and something will be worked out one way or another. The suggestions that the U.S. government needs to swoop in to make sure China stops bullying Apple based upon one administrative court decision applicable to one city (albeit a very big and important city) is ridiculous. Apple can take care of itself and the U.S. can save its influence for more important matters.
[doublepost=1466619923][/doublepost]

Or Apple could stop chasing those massive mark up on prices and huge profits by getting its iPhone made for the cheapest it can in China...
People seem to forget things are made in China because its first and foremost cheap to have things made there.

That is no longer the main reason. Things are made in China because of the manufacturing infrastructure it has built up. You may be shopping between different Chinese manufacturers to get a good price, but sometimes there aren't even logical alternatives outside of China. And this is definitely the case with the super high volume iPhones. At one point it was price, but now price is secondary to China's combination of skill, speed, and capacity.

 

[thermodynamic]

It's only okay when big companies play this When smaller companies try to compete using the same practices,
it's obviously "patent trolling". Just make it even more expensive to file than what it is already, that'll fix things and restore innovation (or it won't, costs prevent me from filing what is actually a good idea worthy of reward, more than curved edges...)

 

[2457282]

Therein lies the issue. No company seems to be willing to stop. The ROI is too great to ignore. I personally believe nothing will change until the dollars do. It's just the way the business world typically seems to work. None of them seem to be complaining either. The complaints come from people like us. I wonder... will our complaints dry up if companies do as we say they should and we end up paying more for products. I've noticed a lot of conviction tends to have a dollar threshold. <-- That's not a knock, because I am one of those people. I definitely don't want to pay more just so a company can maintain it's Chinese era margins. A bit callously, I look at it like, if the companies don't care, why should I?

I do care. But the problem is even more complicated. Because if you paid people well, the price would not matter as much. If we built it in environmentally friendly ways, we would reduce our health cost and could therefore afford a slightly more expensive toy. If we built it in America, we would employ more Americans and increase the GDP and could afford slightly more expensive toys. The bottom line is that we could do a lot of things that would help us tolerate a potential price increase. But your point is that no one seems willing to stop the status quo. And in this year of election the rhetoric does not suggest that anything will change. But my point is that Apple has the ability to do something if it wants. The question is does it want. You seem to have settled on that they don't want. I am (probably naively) hopeful that someone will do something, and that Tim may be that someone.

(I understand that this is even more complicated than what I just laid out, but wanted to keep it simple - and naive)

 

[HCLibertarian]

Chinese Gov did this as a response to the Huawei ban in US. I know it's sounds weird, but it is the truth.

 

[Carlanga]

...
The government does own China a lot... Better use wiser arguments to avoid laughs...

Lmao, Do you NOT understand that it was a sarcastic comment? Someone needs to wise up and it's not me

 

[jayducharme]

Nonetheless a patent for swipe to unlock?

Yes. Remember at that first iPhone keynote, Jobs said, "We've patented the hell out of it." The company had been burned before by not managing their innovations. Swipe-to-unlock truly was an innovation when Apple introduced it. No other smartphone at the time used it, mainly because it depended on Apple's touch technology that was developed for the iPhone. I remember the gasps in the audience when Jobs demoed it. After that, every other smartphone manufacturer began either copying it or creating a very similar system. So yes, Apple had every right to sue for patent infringement.

 

[Zaft]

Yes. Remember at that first iPhone keynote, Jobs said, "We've patented the hell out of it." The company had been burned before by not managing their innovations. Swipe-to-unlock truly was an innovation when Apple introduced it. No other smartphone at the time used it, mainly because it depended on Apple's touch technology that was developed for the iPhone. I remember the gasps in the audience when Jobs demoed it. After that, every other smartphone manufacturer began either copying it or creating a very similar system. So yes, Apple had every right to sue for patent infringement.

http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+N...oUnlock+3+Years+Before+Apple/article24046.htm

 

[apolloa]

Yes. Remember at that first iPhone keynote, Jobs said, "We've patented the hell out of it." The company had been burned before by not managing their innovations. Swipe-to-unlock truly was an innovation when Apple introduced it. No other smartphone at the time used it, mainly because it depended on Apple's touch technology that was developed for the iPhone. I remember the gasps in the audience when Jobs demoed it. After that, every other smartphone manufacturer began either copying it or creating a very similar system. So yes, Apple had every right to sue for patent infringement.

Apple didn't invent swipe to unlock and didn't come up with the idea so should not hold a patent for it:

Note the date the video was uploaded, it is well known Neonode were first to market with swipe to unlock:

 

[Analog Kid]

The health of the IP holder isn't really relevant. The whole point of "Intellectual Property" is that you have created an idea of value and own that idea. Whether you are successful marketing or implementing that idea yourself isn't really relevant, any more than it's relevant with physical property.

Focusing on the health of the company is like saying it's ok to steal Billy's lunch money because he's sickly.


That said, China has been showing a pattern of abusing IP law in some rather corrupt ways. I don't know if that's happening in this case, but regardless, it's a different story than the health of the company suing.

If the problem is the law, focus on the problems in the law. If the problem is corruption, focus on corruption. There's no point blaming/praising companies for using/violating existing law, and there's no point getting spun up about innuendo.

The WSJ article is somewhat more balanced than the extract shown here, but this story is still mostly innuendo-- implying corruption but not actually substantiating the implication. They were once a company with good prospects, with solid investors, and that now seems to be collapsing for a variety of reasons. I'm sure they'd argue that the 800lb gorilla stealing their design is part of the reason, and the court seems to agree.

Whether that's true or not, and whether the court made a sound decision are valid discussions, but the health of the company isn't a factor.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It does exist. It is just on the verge of bankruptcy. You are reading the headline too literally.

Yes, and even more to the point, the company can claim that their financial state is due to Apple walking all over their patents. That's exactly how you can claim damages. In any case it's always more than a bit ironic when a court in China rules in favor of patent and trademark protection.

 

[sudo1996]

One of the costs of selling in China...
You'd think the government would be more grateful after all the manufacturing Apple has done there.

 

[69Mustang]

I do care. But the problem is even more complicated. Because if you paid people well, the price would not matter as much. If we built it in environmentally friendly ways, we would reduce our health cost and could therefore afford a slightly more expensive toy. If we built it in America, we would employ more Americans and increase the GDP and could afford slightly more expensive toys. The bottom line is that we could do a lot of things that would help us tolerate a potential price increase. But your point is that no one seems willing to stop the status quo. And in this year of election the rhetoric does not suggest that anything will change. But my point is that Apple has the ability to do something if it wants. The question is does it want. You seem to have settled on that they don't want. I am (probably naively) hopeful that someone will do something, and that Tim may be that someone.

(I understand that this is even more complicated than what I just laid out, but wanted to keep it simple - and naive)

Yeah, you're right. The solution is far too involved for a mere forum conversation. Too many moving parts that go beyond the actual products. You're also right about the political angle. It's useless. You're right even further in that Apple has the ability to do something if it wants to do so. So does Microsoft, Ford/GM/Chrysler, Nike, etc. Any number of American companies. To not derail the conversation, I'll focus on Apple. I can appreciate your hope that Apple steps up, but nothing so far indicates they will. To the contrary, everything Apple has done seems to indicate they look at it as just the cost of doing business in China. As I said up thread, Apple seems to be doubling down on it's "China or bust" policy. Toss a billion at Didi, make sure there's a Chinese element to almost every newly introduced feature, nary a complaint when China shut down services because of a movie... not exactly "step up to the plate" behavior. You've always seemed to be an optimist with a touch of pragmatism. I am more of a pragmatist with a touch of pessimism. Here's one time I hope your optimism wins out. Not just with Apple, but with all those companies with the power to make a difference.

 

[jayducharme]

http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+N...oUnlock+3+Years+Before+Apple/article24046.htm

Fascinating! I never knew about that device. Thanks for posting the link. It could be argued that on the iPhone, it's a graphical button that you slide. But that would be a tenuous argument.

 

[jpn]

I find it funny that the term "marketing ploy", as stated by the one former employee, is the Chinese translation of "Shakedown." Cultural differences or not, I find it sad that a Chinese court, assuming they saw the financial state of affairs of the company that brought this lawsuit, let this pass. Even under an attitude of "China first" that is just sad.

Edit: Even the Chinese should have limits....it's one thing to culturally accept bribes as a way of doing business....but this is just flat out embarrassing on the world stage that their court system allowed this to get this far.

hi

you make good points.

"marketing ploy" and "shakedown" : although different (to be sure!) , the common denomintor simply being both are attempts to make money via means other than through the merits of the product itself.

"even the chinese should have limits": being able to just simply say " we are filing motions against apple" can have a positive effect on creditors willing to wait a few weeks before they bring in their own thugs and debt collectors that break bones.

but the lesson that apple will pay eventually (i doubt this is the case on the merits of this case however), is that the actual, real price for doing business in china is a result of china's policies that have as their root "if you just stay out of politics, you businessmen can do whatever you want". operating within this business-cultural framework does mean that law and legal corporate rights (and being "right") are in the hands of those with money and business networks, not with just what is legal or common sense or fair.

there is no way that apple in the long term will be successful in china. its a market that operates on totally different business ethics and principles from what apple subscribes to.

 

[MH01]

Perhaps it's finally time to slap a certain nation with some tariffs.

Ha ha ha ha ha ......and if you think I'm laughing, Chinese are hysterical right now....

I think Tim Cook should take action, and next keynote ......not bow to the Chinese ....serious stuff!!!
[doublepost=1466631140][/doublepost]

I realise China is a huge market but if the Chinese courts don't respect western companies and their IP then why don't the likes of Apple threaten to start producing their products elsewhere?
If I was Apple I would be doing feasibility studies on opening factories elsewhere (I know Pegatron/Foxcon etc build the devices), perhaps with greater automation they could be built in the West again?

You are correct, but it's about cheap labour at a large scale. I'm sure they have made up plans for other countries, but apple wants to keep China sweet, cause they are also a huge consumer of apple products, and growing. Short answer, greed keeps apple in China , they just have to do business the Chinese way. China will flex its muscle now and than to show who is boss

 

[Mtmspa]

As ridiculous as this is its karma for Apple. Apple sued for petty things like swipe to unlock.

Which they had the right to do. Samsung copied way more than that.

 

[kdarling]

Thanks for this. I have been saying this for a long time but people don't seem to get it.

Perhaps because Apple didn't invent swipe unlock, inertial scrolling, multi-touch, pinch zoom, or most everything else which awed people who had never seen those things before.

No other smartphone at the time used it, mainly because it depended on Apple's touch technology that was developed for the iPhone.

Swipe to unlock was not dependent on capacitive touchscreens (which Apple did not invent, eiither). For example, the 2002 NeoNode did it using IR LEDs for its touchscreen. Heck, gesture unlocks had been used on resistive sceen PDAs and phones since the 1990s. There was even a pretty big market at one time built around them, with all sorts of clever methods and patterns.

The reason phones didn't use gestures any more by the time the iPhone came out, is because they had fallen out of favor as a secure unlock mechanism, after it was noticed that they often left telltale finger grease marks that could be followed.

Therefore business and many consumer users switched back to using passcodes for security.

Proving that life repeats itself, now the iPhone itself is dropping swipe to unlock in favor of a secure method.