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

Google Stands Behind HTC in Patent Dispute With Apple

How is protecting one's patent thwarting competition?
Click to expand...

That's what patents are for.

If inventors didn't have limited exclusive rights to their works there would less incentive to innovate.
Click to expand...

That assumption has never been proven. The greatest inventions in the last hundred years have never been patented.

And what's a "limited" right in this age? In the 19th century, when there were fewer people and even fewer who had the education to invent complicated things, 25 years seemed apt. These days, with ten times the population and more than 95% literacy rate, two years would still be comparatively more than was originally held necessary.

We'd all be riding horse and cooking our fresh kill deer on an open flame and sending messages out via smoke puffs.
Click to expand...

The Ford Model T was introduced in 1908. It revolutionised America's industry. With the help of patent law Ford couldn't have started selling cars until 1910 (Benz's patent was granted in 1885).

Can you imagine a world without Henry Ford's invention of massproduction?

The telephone is not a really good example for the benefits of patents either. Several people invented the telephone. But only one company ultimately held the patent for the "invention" of "the telephone".

That company became a famous monopoly (a real one, not just a company with high market share). Luckily some people could still imagine a world as it could be without that monopoly and that's why we have competing phone companies now.

Note that the telephone was invented by lots of people, and they didn't do it because patents were there to reward them. But patents made the invention into a monopoly. So both the invention of the telephone and the patent for the telephone changed the world. But while the invention changed it for the better, the patent only changed it for the worse.

I am not saying that patents are bad or always hurt innovation. But to argue that they create innovation so exclusively that they are definitely needed is foolish as is arguing that they must cover the same period of time they had to cover in 1846.
 
Erwin-Br said:
Don't expect people to look at things like this from a business perspective. They're customers, not Apple board directors.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that most people wouldn't give a damn either way. Whatever device they use, if they like it, they like it, regardless of the patent litigation activity or any lack thereof.
 
twilson said:
Do a bit of fact checking. Apple does want to pay for GSM patents from Nokia. They want to pay the same license fee as everyone else has to (which Nokia is obliged to do, as their patents were considered as part of a standard).

Apple have acknowledged that they need Nokia's patents. But Nokia is trying to get more money, and a cross-licensing deal, which they don't have any right to.
Click to expand...

This is still an irrelevant point. Nokia is the patent holder, and can levy variable pricing if they damn well want. Apple has no right to demand fairness. Just like Apple could license one of it's patents to Adobe for $1 million and then turn around a license the same patent to Microsoft for $5 million. Microsoft has no right of recourse.

Apple is, in fact, being very hypocritical. This is an act of lawfare against HTC.

It's estimated that most software patents -- in any case -- are invalid.

Look at the RIM (Blackberry) case, where they were sued by patent troll NTP for infringement on multiple patents and lost. The irony was that all the patents that NTP claimed RIM to be infringing were eventually rejected by the USPO, and five of them were already in Non-Final Rejection at the time of judgement against RIM.

The same will apply to a lot of these multi-touch patents. Since touch-screens have been around for over twenty years, Apple will need to prove how they are revolutionary, not evolutionary, and not simply pairing prior art into a new application -- which is usually not patentable, unless it contains significantly new invention around it.

Apple can still win lawsuits on invalid patents, since the USPO moves far more slowly to reject invalid patents than the courts of Texas or Delaware do.

People fail to realize that the USPO pretty much rubber-stamps most patents, and when push comes to shove, on thorough review -- most of them are simply not defensible.

One NTP patent was specifically for the concept of transmitting email messages over a wireless network. A patent they obtained in 1998. This patent was ultimately defeated on prior art, from peopling using packet radio service all the way back into the 1980s.

One of these Apple patents is for the idea of putting a proximity sensor in the phone to turn off the screen when held up to the ear. Except, there's plenty of prior art here: in digital cameras. Canon has been putting proximity sensors on the back of their cameras to turn off the LCD when people use the viewfinder for years before Apple put it in the phone. Just like the USPO decided with the RIM dispute over wireless email, and even though the prior art had nothing specifically to do with mobile phones, I'm sure that this patent will eventually be struck down.

For these reasons: patents are used more as legal weapons than legitimate defences of intellectual property. And since Apple is suing HTC for the aforementioned patent violation -- where prior art exists out the ying-yang -- it's clear that Apple is purely being malicious.
 
ajbrehm said:
Yes, that's becoming a real problem.

If this continues we'll soon have to choose between lots of different great products. Oh the humanity...
Click to expand...

People like to pretend that every touchscreen phone is a copy of the iPhone. When, in fact, the iPhone was an evolution of an idea that both Palm and Microsoft had been pushing for a decade -- with touchscreen Palm and Windows Mobile phones.

Sure, they used a stylus. And Apple really pushed finger-based UIs into the mainstream, but the idea that this was not an evolution of existing ideas is absurd.

Most people here act as if Apple invented the idea of the touchscreen phone. They clearly did not.

The LG Prada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850) ) was a fully finger-based, capacitive touchscreen (glass) phone that was demoed and sold before the iPhone was released. Which is prior art to the idea of the touchscreen phone. There were also plenty of niche products over the years, and mainstream ones in places like Japan.

The idea that people are copying the iPhone and stealing from Apple is absurd. I would agree it's accurate to say that people are trying to enter the space that Apple created. But almost none of the features in the iPhone are completely innovative. Almost every feature in the phone has prior art somewhere else.

And don't take my word for it. Steve Jobs himself has openly bragged about stealing all the best ideas and putting them together.
 
I figured something like this was going to start happening. Large companies with the closest things to 'legitimate' patent portfolios as you can get these days (given the piss-poor patent approval system) are starting to go for each-other's throats, instead of sitting there waiting for someone else to make the first move. Patent trolls have always been going after everyone, but this seems to be the start of companies with more than just patents doing it (Nokia, Apple, etc.).

I won't be surprised if more companies follow along shortly, nor if this ends up being really nasty in the end.

As far as patents in general, the patent system is broken. Software patents are just idiotic, 'business method' patents are even worse, and the patent approval process is horrible. I doubt even a single patent clerk really understands what they're reading -- for some patents, you almost have to have both a heavy technical background (in the specific area of the patent) and some sort of legal background, just to understand a patent. And they're not paid enough to get anyone with near that level of expertise in even one area.

Patents are also only a real barrier to smaller companies, who can't just throw some cash (or licences to their own patents) around when challenged. Unfortunately, like most things, the patent system has been co-opted to only benefit large corporations in most cases.
 
brockm said:
Nokia is the patent holder, and can levy variable pricing if they damn well want. Apple has no right to demand fairness. Just like Apple could license one of it's patents to Adobe for $1 million and then turn around a license the same patent to Microsoft for $5 million. Microsoft has no right of recourse.
Click to expand...

Actually, Nokia agreed, as part of the process of getting their patents into the GSM standard in the first place, to license those patents under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms. Based on a reading of the filings of *both* Apple and Nokia, it appears that Nokia has gone back on that agreement by attempting to force Apple to provide reciprocal patent licenses where no other company has had to do so.

brockm said:
Apple is, in fact, being very hypocritical. This is an act of lawfare against HTC.
Click to expand...

Please point to the hypocracy. Apple is not disputing that it owes Nokia licensing fees. It is disputing that Nokia, under the FRAND terms dictated by their patents being included in the GSM standard, has the right to charge Apple *different* license fees than any other phone maker. Apple wants the court to settle the question of how much it owes, not whether it owes.

brockm said:
The same will apply to a lot of these multi-touch patents. Since touch-screens have been around for over twenty years, Apple will need to prove how they are revolutionary, not evolutionary, and not simply pairing prior art into a new application -- which is usually not patentable, unless it contains significantly new invention around it.

Apple can still win lawsuits on invalid patents, since the USPO moves far more slowly to reject invalid patents than the courts of Texas or Delaware do.

People fail to realize that the USPO pretty much rubber-stamps most patents, and when push comes to shove, on thorough review -- most of them are simply not defensible.

One NTP patent was specifically for the concept of transmitting email messages over a wireless network. A patent they obtained in 1998. This patent was ultimately defeated on prior art, from peopling using packet radio service all the way back into the 1980s.

One of these Apple patents is for the idea of putting a proximity sensor in the phone to turn off the screen when held up to the ear. Except, there's plenty of prior art here: in digital cameras. Canon has been putting proximity sensors on the back of their cameras to turn off the LCD when people use the viewfinder for years before Apple put it in the phone. Just like the USPO decided with the RIM dispute over wireless email, and even though the prior art had nothing specifically to do with mobile phones, I'm sure that this patent will eventually be struck down.

For these reasons: patents are used more as legal weapons than legitimate defences of intellectual property. And since Apple is suing HTC for the aforementioned patent violation -- where prior art exists out the ying-yang -- it's clear that Apple is purely being malicious.
Click to expand...

The trick with determining whether a given patent is good involves reading more than the title and/or the summary. (Too many people see the title and go, "That's obvious") You need to read the actual claims in the patent. For example, the screen proximity sensor patent likely includes some very specific claims which distinguish it from the camera's system. I'm not a patent expert, so I couldn't tell you off hand whether any of the patents in question here are good or not, but that's a question which will be raised in court. The USPTO is *not* the only place where a patent can be ruled invalid, though they are generally the fastest to make a ruling (months rather than the typical *years* of a law suit).
 
brockm said:
Almost every feature in the phone has prior art somewhere else.

And don't take my word for it. Steve Jobs himself has openly bragged about stealing all the best ideas and putting them together.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the courts will get it figured out, but there is clearly a difference between stealing ideas and stealing patented IP.
 
There is no denying that the iPhone changed the smartphone, even the full mobile phone industry.

After the iPhone launched and took off, manufacturer everywhere moved to imitate and touch screens had never been more popular.

When I see "new" smartphone with square app icons there home screen arranged in rows of four, it screams rip off. When I see a new smartphone advertise pinch/zoom gestures, it screams rip off. And when I see a new smartphone advertise rotating the phone to landscape and allowing you to view photos using the flick gesture, it screams rip off.

No one in the phone industry thought to implement these ideas or that user experience into their products until the iPhone came on the scene, so Apple is right to protect patents it invented.

However, Apple too should pay Nokia and Kodak what they are due.
 
ajbrehm said:
Yes, that's becoming a real problem.

If this continues we'll soon have to choose between lots of different great products. Oh the humanity...
Click to expand...

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....
 
Do people even get what the patents are for? They are truly absurd. This is not true "patent theft" it's just Apple trying to practically patent the air we breathe. A grid based UI on a phone? That's a patent? I mean come on.
 
Achiever said:
I haven't reviewed the Complaint, but if the patent violations being alleged are based on hardware patents, then HTC is the proper party as Google only supplies the software.

I also like the idea of going after the Google partner instead of Google from Apple's perspective. Essentially, you send notice that if you partner with a company - here Google - which turns out a product similar to ours, you will be up against us, our attorneys and our $40 billion cash reserves. I don't necessarily think it will cost Google partnerships, but it may certainly make some smaller or less financially secure companies think twice about partnering with them in order to avoid the wrath of Apple.
Click to expand...

exactly. also remember In United States law, an infringement may occur where the defendant has made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported an infringing invention or its equivalent. One also commits indirect infringement if he actively and knowingly induces another to infringe, and is liable for that infringement. Types of "indirect infringement" include "contributory infringement" and "induced infringement."


HTC made and imported the actual devices which means they committed a direct infringement.


Under certain jurisdictions, Google, by allowing Android to run on HTC devices and selling them, "used" and "sold" and may be liable for indirect or contributory infringement.
 
Google + HTC for the win!

I've had enough of the arrogance of Steve Jobs & Co.

I also hope Nokia manages to sue the shirt of Steve Job's back for Apple's patent infringements.
 
TennisandMusic said:
Do people even get what the patents are for? They are truly absurd. This is not true "patent theft" it's just Apple trying to practically patent the air we breathe. A grid based UI on a phone? That's a patent? I mean come on.
Click to expand...

None of the apple patents patent "a grid based UI on a phone."
 
When you are afraid you do one of two things you either flea or fight. Apple is afraid.
 
cmaier said:
When someone steals your laptop from the coffee shop, and you find the guy and press charges, are you "afraid?"
Click to expand...

Judging by the impression of some of the arguments in this thread they would let them keep the laptop and not press charges because 'competition is healthy'.
 
Erwin-Br said:
Yeah, and Nokia deserves to be robbed by Apple because... Well... They're not Apple. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Cute emoticons not withstanding, nowhere am I saying that Nokia has no right to sue Apple. If they feel they've been infringed upon and can prove it in court and win their case then Apple will pay. I expect the same deference and courtesy if Apple can prove and win their case.
 
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