Google Stands Behind HTC in Patent Dispute With Apple

[DaveSW]

I'm not surprised that Apple is going after HTC first. Confronting Google head-on would result only in getting shamefully steamrolled.

This epic ex-lover saga of fail is becoming excruciating. Perhaps a steep loss will encourage Apple to innovate more instead of employing strong arm tactics.

Apple is going after HTC because HTC manufactured and imported the device that infringed on the patent. they are being sued for direct infringement.

Google is going to get dragged into this and maybe at best will only be liable for indirect infringement for supplying a multi-touch enabled Android OS.


it's not because Apple is "afraid" of Google.

what a maroon.

 

[macUser2007]

... If the unlikely scenario occurs that Google pulls their toys from the iPhone, there are an ocean of developers and big name industry players who would kill each other just to develop whatever is necessary for Apple devices, if Apple doesn't do anything in-house. And chances are, their solutions will probably be more elegant. Google pulling out would actually be *good* for developers and would attract even more talent to Apple and the App Store.

Hm, If Google pulls the plug on the iPhone it will hurt the iPhone. Google will lose a few million iPhone users, but Android may gain at least some iPhone users who miss the Google products.

I am actually done with the iPhone, once I see a larger AMOLED screen Android with Flash.

And it's not just Google. If Adobe pulled CS from Mac OS, the Mac will die withing a couple of years.

... All the iPad has to be is an incredibly "cool" device. Which it is. Just make the coolest gadget on the block....

Yes, but it's NOT the coolest gadget. Without Flash, it sucks as a web device, unless you like to look at the "lite" versions of most major websites. It has an already outdated processor, based on the A8 Cortex. It doesn't have a camera....

Android is getting damned close in terms of UI, and some of the upcoming Android phones and tablets ARE cool. They will have the ability to browse the REAL web, just like on a desktop. Some of the larger tablets will have chips based on new A9 Cortex. As more devices come on board, the apps numbers will explode.

HTC does great design and UI, and Apple sees their Android products as the biggest threat to the iPhone. Thus the lawsuits.

I have been an Apple user for ages, but I am beginning to see Google as the new Apple, and Apple is becoming the evil empire.

I am not buying the iPad, mostly because of its crippled web-browsing capabilities, but also because of other shortcomings. I really think its another Apple TV flop, high on promise, short on delivery.

 

[ajbrehm]

i guess you are the same that instead of buying armani, prada, chanel, or whatever brand, buy the chinese replica for few bucks on the street.
probably you never ever bought a software but just downloaded for free off internet
way to go for the humanity....

Who buys Armani?

And there is plenty of free software available, yes.

But the most important part is that there is also plenty of commercial software available.

Luckily patent law has not yet succeeded in making it illegal to compete with established software companies.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Hm, If Google pulls the plug on the iPhone it will hurt the iPhone. Google will lose a few million iPhone users, but Android may gain at least some iPhone users who miss the Google products.

I am actually done with the iPhone, once I see a larger AMOLED screen Android with Flash.

And it's not just Google. If Adobe pulled CS from Mac OS, the Mac will die withing a couple of years.



Yes, but it's NOT the coolest gadget. Without Flash, it sucks as a web device, unless you like to look at the "lite" versions of most major websites. It has an already outdated processor, based on the A8 Cortex. It doesn't have a camera....

Android is getting damned close in terms of UI, and some of the upcoming Android phones and tablets ARE cool. They will have the ability to browse the REAL web, just like on a desktop. Some of the larger tablets will have chips based on new A9 Cortex. As more devices come on board, the apps numbers will explode.

HTC does great design and UI, and Apple sees their Android products as the biggest threat to the iPhone. Thus the lawsuits.

I have been an Apple user for ages, but I am beginning to see Google as the new Apple, and Apple is becoming the evil empire.

I am not buying the iPad, mostly because of its crippled web-browsing capabilities, but also because of other shortcomings. I really think its another Apple TV flop, high on promise, short on delivery.

Except, show me a tablet or any device that uses the A9?

If Adobe pulled Photoshop from the Mac, the design people will have a massacre.

 

[ajbrehm]

huh? Like the microprocessor? (US 3757306) The lightbulb? (okay, more than a hundred years - US 233,445) Television? (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae408.cfm) The bra? (http://inventors.about.com/od/bstartinventions/a/brassiere.htm)

Which great inventions have not been patented?

I should have added "by their inventors".

Of course someone eventually patented these innovations.

The digital computer was invented by Konrad Zuse in 1942. American companies obviously ignored his patent, probably in the spirit of knowing that patents are good for innovation. Zuse himself didn't invent the computer because he could patent the invention but because he was a construction engineer and needed a way to make calculations faster.

The microprocessor is nice but as an improvement not as important as the computer as such. It's up to you. You can recognise Zuse's patent and stop using computers based on the American invention that violated his patent or you can dismiss as patent invalid and add the computer to my list of non-patented great inventions.

The light bulb was invented by lots of people and eventually patented by Edison, I think. I don't see how the patent helped innovation. Without the patent, we would have seen more inventors competing rather than one "inventor" making lots of money.

Television was likewise invented by many people and not all of them patented their particular version of it. Some of those versions were pretty much the same invention.

The bra... you got me there. I cannot imagine any woman using such a device before somebody invented and patented it. Unless of course you cound the brassieres already in use 4000 years ago in Greece and the Levant. I'm not sure the world really depended on the patent to enjoy this invention.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I should have added "by their inventors".

Of course someone eventually patented these innovations.

The digital computer was invented by Konrad Zuse in 1942. American companies obviously ignored his patent, probably in the spirit of knowing that patents are good for innovation. Zuse himself didn't invent the computer because he could patent the invention but because he was a construction engineer and needed a way to make calculations faster.

The microprocessor is nice but as an improvement not as important as the computer as such. It's up to you. You can recognise Zuse's patent and stop using computers based on the American invention that violated his patent or you can dismiss as patent invalid and add the computer to my list of non-patented great inventions.

The light bulb was invented by lots of people and eventually patented by Edison, I think. I don't see how the patent helped innovation. Without the patent, we would have seen more inventors competing rather than one "inventor" making lots of money.

Television was likewise invented by many people and not all of them patented their particular version of it. Some of those versions were pretty much the same invention.

The bra... you got me there. I cannot imagine any woman using such a device before somebody invented and patented it. Unless of course you cound the brassieres already in use 4000 years ago in Greece and the Levant. I'm not sure the world really depended on the patent to enjoy this invention.

Without the Edison Patent, The world would have seen Tesla's true superiority and talent.

Tesla had Near 100% efficient 'wireless' electricity transmission!

 

[pmjoe]

FYI information I hate software patents but here you are wrong.

Apple doesn't want to pay the GSM patents because Nokia demands a cross licensing deals for certain technologies which it doesn't ask to other manufactures. Apple wants to pay for the GSM patents but asks to be treated the same way as other manufactures... .

Uh, this is because Apple thinks their bogus UI patents that steal from prior art are worth something and Apple has proven they are willing to sue over them to obstruct innovation. Nokia's patents to actually be able to make the iPhone are worth way more in context. No GSM license = no iPhone.

Apple wants the keys to the car, but wants to be able to scream bloody murder if the paint gets scratched. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

 

[dextertangocci]

I have $100 on Apple winning the Nokia and HTC lawsuit. They have a killer legal team and HTC can't innovate to save their lives - and the courts know this. Nokia is just really pissed off that Apple is a far better company in every respect than they are and that they didn't think of an 'iPhone' concept before Apple did.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I have $100 on Apple winning the Nokia and HTC lawsuit. They have a killer legal team and HTC can't innovate to save their lives - and the courts know this. Nokia is just really pissed off that Apple is a far better company in every respect than they are and that they didn't think of an 'iPhone' concept before Apple did.

Your Dexter Avatar says everything.

 

[*LTD*]

From the wording of Apple's claim, they truly believe they are the injured party. The wording of their claim - those are the words of someone who is truly aggrieved. Apple isn't scared, they're monumentally offended. This isn't some bogus attempt to stifle innovation via patent suits. Apple is, however, reaching very, very far with the suit.

It isn't that Apple is using the system to attack competitors out of fear or as a way to "cheat", but they're looking to make competitors pay very, very dearly for the injuries Apple believes they've caused. Some think, too dearly. This of course depends on the belief that Apple's motivations are genuine and they truly believe that something has been taken from them unjustly, motivations which I believe to be true. Whether something *has* been taken from Apple unjustly is for the courts to decide.

 

[dgree03]

From the wording of Apple's claim, they truly believe they are the injured party. The wording of their claim - those are the words of someone who is truly aggrieved. Apple isn't scared, they're monumentally offended. This isn't some bogus attempt to stifle innovation via patent suits. Apple is, however, reaching very, very far with the suit.

It isn't that Apple is using the system to attack competitors out of fear or as a way to "cheat", but they're looking to make competitors pay very, very dearly for the injuries Apple believes they've caused. Some think, too dearly. This of course depends on the belief that Apple's motivations are genuine and they truly believe that something has been taken from them unjustly, motivations which I believe to be true. Whether something *has* been taken from Apple unjustly is for the courts to decide.

Yea man, I just dont get how apple or better yet, the legal system, can make a claim that gestures on a touch screen device is "patentable."

Apple didnt invent the touchscreen or touchscreen phone, or a GSM radio, Keyboard, Multitouch?etc... they took previous technology and put their spin on it.

Honestly I can think of any apple "Invented" that wasnt just a improvement on a previous technology? And being that apple was one of the last to the cell phone party... I have a hard time believing they are "the victim."

 

[*LTD*]

Yea man, I just dont get how apple or better yet, the legal system, can make a claim that gestures on a touch screen device is "patentable."

Apple didnt invent the touchscreen or touchscreen phone, or a GSM radio, Keyboard, Multitouch?etc... they took previous technology and put their spin on it.

Honestly I can think of any apple "Invented" that wasnt just a improvement on a previous technology? And being that apple was one of the last to the cell phone party... I have a hard time believing they are "the victim."

Thing is, some very low-level, fundamental UI elements are part of Apple's claim, going back quite a few years. The interesting thing is that Apple might very well own some of these, if not all of them. Apple's only been in the phone business for a short time, but they've been in the User Interface business for nearly 30 years. In that sense the issue might be with the patent system itself and not Apple's claims. Apple might simply be using the mechanism that is in place to deal with such issues. It's a pretty sticky situation.

 

[distortedloop]

And, finally, here's a freebie for Google: to work around the patent just remove any visual indication in the form of a moveable object or predefined channel. Alternatively, use spin wheels (like a padlock) that respond not to the gesture, but to the final location of the touches. Or just put up a numeric keypad like everyone used to do, and make you enter a code. Or put up a grid and require the user to chord (simultaneously press) certain locations. Or swipe a predetermined number of times. Or a predetermined sequence of taps, like morse code (which has the benefit that someone can't examine your grease smears to figure out your code). Or dial a phone number with a faux rotary-dial phone dial. Or arrange a series of blocks into a predefined shape. Or write your signature with your finger. Or biometrics using the camera, microphone, or additional hardware. Or use the mic to listen for a particular hummed musical sequence. Or do exactly what iPhone does, but instead of depending on gesture, depend on the result (the slider ending up in its final position) - this probably means that lifting your finger can't reset the slider to the start, but you can make it so lifting your finger moves to any random location other than the start or end, if you'd like.

A lot of those sound like some kind of "gesture" to me. "Gesture" being some sort of movement of the finger(s) in a pattern or signal to cause the screen to unlock. It just depend on how loosely you want to interpret it while enforcing the patent, or more accurately, how loosely you can convince the judge/jury to interpret it.

Additionally, you're mostly delving into things that unlock some kind of pin/password-like protected screen, not just wake the phone.

Android 2.1's unlocked home screens slide to the right to unlock is clearly copied from Apple, however the locked screen pattern drawing seems like an original idea to me, even if it does include "gestures" of sliding your finger around the screen.

Not discrediting your comments, just pointing out it's not as black/white to everyone as it seems to be to you.

I think patent and copyright laws in the US are broken beyond belief, or at least the real-world interpretation of them, but I also believe if a company has a patent, they have every right to enforce it.

I just hope for Apple's sake that this doesn't spark a backlash of suits against Apple for all the patents they've violated over the years.

EDIT: after reading a few more of your posts after the one I quoted, I understand your arguments more, but I'm not sure that as a juror on a trial over this matter that you'd convince me that some of the other examples people have given aren't prior art. I understand the technical difference of the actual motion being the important part vs. the start here and it doesn't matter how you get to the end point method, but I don't know that the average Joe that would end up on a jury would understand, or even care. All they'll ever see is that I start here and draw a pattern and end there.

 

[flyguy206]

Appe has a right to protect what is theirs.

 

[dgree03]

Thing is, some very low-level, fundamental UI elements are part of Apple's claim, going back quite a few years. The interesting thing is that Apple might very well own some of these, if not all of them. Apple's only been in the phone business for a short time, but they've been in the User Interface business for nearly 30 years. In that sense the issue might be with the patent system itself and not Apple's claims. Apple might simply be using the mechanism that is in place to deal with such issues. It's a pretty sticky situation.

Yea I think we are all in this thread arguing about apple this, HTC that... but I honestly think the patent office is at fault here. In some why or another then need to make "clearer" lines on how or what is patentable!

I dont think people in this thread disagree on that, I also believe that the "code" to get to gestures MAY be patentable, but as we all know there is more than one way to skin a cat... So Google or who ever else is mimicking Iphone gestures.. may be doing so with different code...

 

[cumanzor]

i guess you are the same that instead of buying armani, prada, chanel, or whatever brand, buy the chinese replica for few bucks on the street.
probably you never ever bought a software but just downloaded for free off internet
way to go for the humanity....

Ahhhh, the failure of logic, way to go for the humanity.

 

[cmaier]

I have lots of experience with this: trust me, a jury will understand. There will be visual aids, etc. Plus, the judge decides what the word gesture means - not the jury. The jury only gets to decide whether the gesture - as defined by the judge - exists in the prior art reference.

Sorry, but there is no way any of those references is anticipatory and no way you convince a jury of it.

What you should argue, instead, is obviousness. Unfortunately, you lose that one too - this is probably the textbook example of "success as a secondary indicia of non-obviousness.". Meaning, if it was so obvious how come no one did it until apple achieved massive success (sales, reviews, press coverage) by doing it?

A lot of those sound like some kind of "gesture" to me. "Gesture" being some sort of movement of the finger(s) in a pattern or signal to cause the screen to unlock. It just depend on how loosely you want to interpret it while enforcing the patent, or more accurately, how loosely you can convince the judge/jury to interpret it.

Additionally, you're mostly delving into things that unlock some kind of pin/password-like protected screen, not just wake the phone.

Android 2.1's unlocked home screens slide to the right to unlock is clearly copied from Apple, however the locked screen pattern drawing seems like an original idea to me, even if it does include "gestures" of sliding your finger around the screen.

Not discrediting your comments, just pointing out it's not as black/white to everyone as it seems to be to you.

I think patent and copyright laws in the US are broken beyond belief, or at least the real-world interpretation of them, but I also believe if a company has a patent, they have every right to enforce it.

I just hope for Apple's sake that this doesn't spark a backlash of suits against Apple for all the patents they've violated over the years.

EDIT: after reading a few more of your posts after the one I quoted, I understand your arguments more, but I'm not sure that as a juror on a trial over this matter that you'd convince me that some of the other examples people have given aren't prior art. I understand the technical difference of the actual motion being the important part vs. the start here and it doesn't matter how you get to the end point method, but I don't know that the average Joe that would end up on a jury would understand, or even care. All they'll ever see is that I start here and draw a pattern and end there.

 

[*LTD*]

Yea I think we are all in this thread arguing about apple this, HTC that... but I honestly think the patent office is at fault here. In some why or another then need to make "clearer" lines on how or what is patentable!

I dont think people in this thread disagree on that, I also believe that the "code" to get to gestures MAY be patentable, but as we all know there is more than one way to skin a cat... So Google or who ever else is mimicking Iphone gestures.. may be doing so with different code...

Your wavelength is more or less in tune with what's going on here - in terms of the issues with the patent system.

But Apple offended or not, 6 bucks and my left nut says Apple knows EXACTLY what they're doing here, that they know for certain they've got HTC (and likely Google) nailed on a few key patents at least, and that that'll be enough to cause HTC some real hardship - whom Apple genuinely views as patent violators. Apple has shown some amazing legal prescience (besides amazing prescience in virtually everything else for the past decade) and you can bet it'll get quite messy.

 

[ArrowSmith]

Appe has a right to protect what is theirs.

Sig Heil Mein Jobs!

 

[ArrowSmith]

I thought the patent system was to protect small inventors from being ripped off by large corporations. Not to protect large corporations' profit streams.

 

[Cavanboy18]

honestly this pissed me off reading this. apple needs to be the adult. us patent scene is fcken crazy and bullsht. thats the only reason why apple filed in the US. because thats the only place it could. apple just made me sick because it wants to squash any competition. man up and let the best product win. fcken disgusting how apple works. i love there products. but maybe i might not to much after this case. its something a money mongering company would do. when you put money as your priority over anything els thats when you lose quality. hence the big iphone coming out in a few weeks lawls. all these apple fan boys talked sht about Microsoft for so long because they were a bully now look who is the bully.

 

[cmaier]

I thought the patent system was to protect small inventors from being ripped off by large corporations. Not to protect large corporations' profit streams.

No, it's not for either of those purposes. It is to encourage investment in R&D. Why should Pfizer spend billions of dollars trying to find the cure for some disease if as soon as they put in on the market everyone else is allowed to copy them? Why should Apple take the risk of developing iPhone and putting it on the market - the risk of looking ridiculous and failing like many of the pundits said they would - if there was no upside reward because everyone can wait and see if it's successful and then copy it?

 

[Cavanboy18]

No, it's not for either of those purposes. It is to encourage investment in R&D. Why should Pfizer spend billions of dollars trying to find the cure for some disease if as soon as they put in on the market everyone else is allowed to copy them? Why should Apple take the risk of developing iPhone and putting it on the market - the risk of looking ridiculous and failing like many of the pundits said they would - if there was no upside reward because everyone can wait and see if it's successful and then copy it?

then that caveman who came up with the wheel should sue the pants off of every one.

 

[cmaier]

honestly this pissed me off reading this. apple needs to be the adult. us patent scene is fcken crazy and bullsht. thats the only reason why apple filed in the US. because thats the only place it could. apple just made me sick because it wants to squash any competition. man up and let the best product win. fcken disgusting how apple works. i love there products. but maybe i might not to much after this case. its something a money mongering company would do. when you put money as your priority over anything els thats when you lose quality. hence the big iphone coming out in a few weeks lawls. all these apple fan boys talked sht about Microsoft for so long because they were a bully now look who is the bully.

It filed in the U.S. because it is a U.S. corporation. I don't know which of its patents have foreign equivalents, but I've read the claims of each of the patents, and all would be patentable subject matter in any Patent Cooperation Treaty nation (they may or may not be invalid as to prior art, however. I refer only to the subject of patentable subject matter).

 

[kdarling]

I have $100 on Apple winning the Nokia and HTC lawsuit. They have a killer legal team and HTC can't innovate to save their lives - and the courts know this.

HTC has innovated plenty with their Sense UI, which is highly regarded. They've even pulled WinMo back from the dead with their replacement of much of its normal apps with touch friendly ones.

Apple no doubt wishes that they had innovated with things like HTC's animated weather icons. Or at least, _I_ wish they had ... and I bet they will.

From the wording of Apple's claim, they truly believe they are the injured party. The wording of their claim - those are the words of someone who is truly aggrieved.

Why, because Apple says they're "irreparably" harmed? Nokia used the same phrase in their suit against Apple, but it's more believable in their case.

It's one thing to copy a software unlock screen that can easily be changed. It's quite another to fail to pay hundreds of millions in radio tech license fees and thus undercut prices and reap undeserved profits. (Assuming Nokia is in the right.)

Thing is, some very low-level, fundamental UI elements are part of Apple's claim, going back quite a few years.

Not sure what you're talking about. What are the low-level fundamental UI elements in Apple's claim? Thanks!