Google Stands Behind HTC in Patent Dispute With Apple

[thermodynamic]

HTC.

Good ol' HTC.

http://www.htcclassaction.org/

It was because of the utterly poor "AT&T Fuze" (rebranded HTC model, just as the AT&T Tilt was) that had me absconding that second-rate company to begin with. Even the forged ATi driver for those models isn't a panacea, to say the least. It helps, but even then one still has Windows Immobile on it. (the jibe is most deserved, rest assured. Even Linux on my old iPaq ran legions faster than what's little more than a re-tooled Windows 98...)

 

[thermodynamic]

It's hard to say for sure if you ask me. My guess is that there are alot of patents filed by companies because they are never sure what is going to take off and what isn't. I also think that determine what is valid and what is not at any given time is also quite complex. It is very possible that at the time, the filers thought that what they were patenting was indeed valid.

I would guess that companies are over protective to please their financiers and we cannot read too much into the intent of things at any given time.

You know what they say, "patent everything now and then jump when somebody else does the work to make it viable."

 

[pdjudd]

You know what they say, "patent everything now and then jump when somebody else does the work to make it viable."

Hold on a second there - I was not condoning anything related to patent trolling. My comment was supposed to apply to created content - in other words, you patent anything related to what you are designing and making so that you cover yourself as much as possible. My entire point was contingent on actually producing something from said patents.

It's better to have possession and control of something you are allowed to have and possibly loose it rather than never having it at all. In other words, better to get that patent before somebody else has it even if it ends up to be worthless. You never know.

 

[cmaier]

Hold on a second there - I was not condoning anything related to patent trolling. My comment was supposed to apply to created content - in other words, you patent anything related to what you are designing and making so that you cover yourself as much as possible. My entire point was contingent on actually producing something from said patents.

It's better to have possession and control of something you are allowed to have and possibly loose it rather than never having it at all. In other words, better to get that patent before somebody else has it even if it ends up to be worthless. You never know.

If you've already made the product you don't have to patent it to protect it. No one else can patent something that's already been invented by another (and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed). The reason you patent it in that case is to prevent others from competing by practicing the patent.

 

[pdjudd]

If you've already made the product you don't have to patent it to protect it. No one else can patent something that's already been invented by another (and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed). The reason you patent it in that case is to prevent others from competing by practicing the patent.

Right - I forgot one important word - "process". My comments were supposed to generally apply to the process of creating something. That is the spirit of things. When you have something that is a possible hit, you want to protect as many parts as possible to maximize profits. Nature of business and everything. Last thing you want is someone to beat you to the punch and create more work.

To use a better phrase "Better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all".

 

[joaoferro37]

There are only so many ways you can make and configure a cell phone. There are bound to be similarities between phones. In fact, the majority of cell phones are just spin-offs of each other and we don't see widespread lawsuits.

We really don't want one major mobile OS, do we? If it wasn't for competition to dive innovation, then we would be sending out smoke puffs.

YES!!!

 

[aegisdesign]

Nobsuch thing as a "software patent.". All those patents claim the device. For info on where the liNe is drawn, google "In re Bilski". Supreme Court will let us know soon.

Sure they do. But the invention is implemented in software. It's disappointing that someone can patent a fairly simple technical process such as the the object oriented notification pattern they picked up from Taligent, and use it as a stick to beat competitors with.

Business processes aren't patentable but technical processes in software are. It's just wrong.

The famous one I remember is the XOR cursor patent. The 'obvious' way to get a cursor where you can still read text the cursor is on is to XOR the current character cell. But some CAD company patented it and made a tidy packet out of IBM, Microsoft and everybody else in the 80s. Silly. Some of Apple's patents are that level of silliness.

 

[cmaier]

Sure they do. But the invention is implemented in software. It's disappointing that someone can patent a fairly simple technical process such as the the object oriented notification pattern they picked up from Taligent, and use it as a stick to beat competitors with.

Business processes aren't patentable but technical processes in software are. It's just wrong.

Business processes ARE patentable. They are called "business method patents." They became patentable after the famous State Street case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_v._Signature_Financial_Group)

Some of Apple's patents are that level of silliness.

Which ones?