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

HTC Already Finished with Workaround for Patent Issue

kasei said:
I was thinking in place prior. It is hard to believe their legal team did not look at patents prior to development and recommend contingence be put in place in case legal action occurs. However, it was mentioned in a previous post we do not know how big of fix was required for HTC to get around the tech in question.
Click to expand...

Impossible. That'd be like asking musicians to go back and check every song for the past twenty years to make sure they didn't use a musical riff someone else had played... or even written down... before.

kasei said:
I completely understand what you are saying and the enormity of the problem at hand. I find it interesting that we have seen more of these lawsuits when it comes to mobile devices and their OS's. We have not seen this level of activity in the car industry or appliance industry. All of which have been around far longer than mobile devices. Do you think this is the nature of the industry or is it solely based on gaining or maintaining a completive advantage?
Click to expand...

I think part of it is the nature of the software industry:

Unlike physical inventions, for which it takes time to create factories and molds and so forth, software inventions are instant products, infinitely reproducible and without corporeal form.

The ease of software invention is such that the same thing can (and is) "reinvented" all the time.

Every day, every one of the millions of software developers on the planet invents new (to him/her) ways of doing something. A very few of those developers happen to work for companies who can afford to take time and effort to patent those "new" things. Most cannot.

So it's no wonder that many people call for the abolishment of software patents. They really favor litigious corporations with time on their hands.

Originally, software was just covered by copyrights, which makes more sense. That protects a specific implementation of code. Now, software patents protect much more vague ideas instead.
 
rmwebs said:
I disproved it because you provided no initial evidence. I've not got a source, hence the 'IIRC'. You've come across and stated something as fact, so please - back it up.

I'm not saying you are wrong at all - I'm simply asking for some factual evidence that Apple was the ones who first had it.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that Samsung was judged to be in violation of that particular patent? Seems likely that if applicable prior art existed Samsung's lawyers would have brought it forward to challenge Apple's patent ...
 
Swift said:
[snip]
Here's the truth about Microsoft: most of its market dominance comes from its near-total adoption by business in the 1980s of DOS and then Windows.
Click to expand...

I bought my first computers in the 80's, and that's only half of the story. MS's dominance also came from its near total adoption of the consumer market. DOS computer were about half the cost of a Mac ($1,000 vs. $2,000) in the mid-80's and came with a larger screen that you could get for the mac (13" or even 14"!) *and* it was in color.

I think it was the huge price differential more than anything else that drove the mac into obscurity (and after inflation, those prices are more like $1500 vs. $3000); if they could have narrowed the gap to, say $300, they may have done much better.

This was really the critical time, too - because while MS began working with Windows soon after they saw the Mac, they didn't really get it working reasonably well until Windows 95 - 11 years later.

And, yeah, the adoption by businesses led to a nice synergy - but those decisions were also price driven.

Microsoft's Windows was designed for a centralized business command structure with professional users-- and young porn-seeking game-playing nerds at home learned BASIC and wrote software. Now these kids are taking over the world. Hierarchical networks aren't cool.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure what the first part of your sentence means. Or how it applies to windows more than to the mac.

Sony took over its market not in the beginning, when they copied American technology for the most part, but then they started designing new things. Trinitron. Walkman. Betamax. Then they switched their business model by buying Columbia Pictures. Sounds good, but the business model is monopolism.
Click to expand...

Betamax was a copy of American technology as well. It's just that the people who developed the VCR thought that their customers were TV studios and the price should be $50,000. And of course Sony didn't invent the stereo cassette recorder, either - they just realized how to turn it into a product that millions of people would buy.

Both of those seem like something Apple would do, really.
 
dethmaShine said:
HTC is NOT. But if they did, they should pay penalty for that.

Bouncy scrolling may sound trivial but its a great UI design which Apple came up with. Now that its common and has been there for a while doesn't give them (HTC) any permission to use it in their products.
Click to expand...

Copying bouncy scrolling is what snapped Samsung in the butt in Australia. Companies that copy innovators will inadvertently copy more then they should because they aren't thinking during the process.

At the end of the day, all the tiny little details that a company develops to set themselves apart from the crowd, are theirs to protect and represents their assets.
 
SandynJosh said:
Because this is the kind of stuff you automatically do when you copy someone. Had it been innovative design, they would have automatically done some things different, maybe even better.
Click to expand...

While that might apply to the bounce-back visual UI situation, none of that is true in this HTC case about internals.

First off, when presented with the same problem, many developers will come up with the same or very similar solutions.

So A) they (and others) could easily come up with the same methods, and B) the idea that they would somehow "automatically" (i.e. magically) derive a different solution for this common operation is ridiculous.

Secondly, this particular patent is so vaguely written as to be able to be interpreted in different ways. It's hardly an open and shut judgement.

All of that is why the ITC gave HTC so much time and leeway to find a different method... and did not ban the sales of millions of phones using the current method.
 
Maury said:
SideKick is a single application (or bundle really) and did not offer system-wide data detection. You could not, for instance, find phone numbers in your text editor and dial them directly
Click to expand...
This is absolutely untrue.

SideKick autorecognized phone numbers from text and highlighted them and if you clicked them it would dial your modem.
 
alhedges said:
I bought my first computers in the 80's, and that's only half of the story. MS's dominance also came from its near total adoption of the consumer market. DOS computer were about half the cost of a Mac ($1,000 vs. $2,000) in the mid-80's and came with a larger screen that you could get for the mac (13" or even 14"!) *and* it was in color.

I think it was the huge price differential more than anything else that drove the mac into obscurity (and after inflation, those prices are more like $1500 vs. $3000); if they could have narrowed the gap to, say $300, they may have done much better.
Click to expand...

You remember history incorrectly. The comparison at the time was between an Apple II and the new IBM computer. While the Apple II was inexpensive, had color and even a graphic screen and Visicalc... it did come with magic letters I B M on the box. As a non-distributed computing device, the Apple II was dominate in business and home markets. Even CP/M which was what Bill Gates knocked off to fulfill IBM's request for a computer OS for their Personal Computers wasn't all that popular.

What flipped the switch for most buyers at the time was that one box said Apple and the other said IBM. IBM was the gold standard in computing, it the box said IBM it could not be a bad buying decision, or so the thinking went.

It wasn't until chip sets for IBM knockoffs became available that the clone market erupted and price became a big deal. Since IBM had allowed Microsoft to sell the OS to other computer companies, the gates were open and the PC era began in earnest.

The Mac came to the party after it was already going strong and initially captured only a niche market in desktop publishing.
 
Am I the only one who this really pisses off? Patent rulings should not simply extend to a ban on imports but also to retrospective profits made on the devices which have been infringing on the patent. Its not right for HTC to infringe on a patent not because there is no way around it but because they are lazy. Clearly the route around it is simple because it has taken them one day to implement it.

There needs to be more respect for patent law - if you design a product and it is found to have broken a patent you shouldn't simply be allowed to change one little thing (be it HTC or the Galaxy 10.1 Tab replacement in Germany) to dodge the ensuing ban. There should be punishment beyond a simple demand that the device be altered or else and then a company sits down for a day and solves its intellectual theft with a little effort and innovation.

I am unaware of the penalty for theft (actual theft) in any country being 'if you continue to steal in 6 months time we will intervene and stop you stealing but nothing else'. Patent violations are intellectual theft. That goes for all companies, Apple included. Personally I think Apple should have just bought the patents belonging to Motorola Mobile (or shared them with Google) and let Google take the phone development arm: its not like they don't have the cash.
 
alhedges said:
Betamax was a copy of American technology as well. It's just that the people who developed the VCR thought that their customers were TV studios and the price should be $50,000. And of course Sony didn't invent the stereo cassette recorder, either - they just realized how to turn it into a product that millions of people would buy.
Click to expand...

Actually - the reason why VHS won over Betamax (despite Betamax providing better picture/audio and also offering professional grade early on) was pretty much one factor and one factor only. The porn industry. The porn industry chose VHS as their format of choice and that was that.

Not being funny.
 
Maury said:
No, it covers the entire suite of system-wide data-detection services.

It appears, although there is basically no real info here, that HTC has turned off the system-wide service and replaced it with a phone-number only system within certain apps. That is, one might expect to be able to click a phone number in the browser, but not mail (etc).

While this would certainly bypass the patent, it makes the system far less useful. The CEO downplays this by stating no one uses it, which, IMHO, is complete BS.

If, on the other hand, the new code is in a shared library, it is highly likely they will lose this as well.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that's a much better explanation than the article of the preceding 4 pages of comments could give.

The fact that HTC dismissed the feature as "not important" means that the "workaround" was to remove the feature, not that they implemented it in some other way. This makes a lot more sense in the context of "the feature" being the system-wide implementation of data detection and direction, not the specific instance of clicking on a phone number in a mail app to call that number. I suspect that HTC's "workaround" is to hard-code the specific data detections and tie them directly to the using applications rather than using the approach Apple patented. Alternately, they have just removed that feature altogether.

In terms of "real world effects", the possibilities here range from:

1. The feature is phone number (etc) detection, and that is removed altogether from HTC handsets and then from other Android handsets. That is, no matter what the HTC guy says, a major feature which is used quite often, meaning that Android buyers will be missing out on a critical phone integration feature. I hope that's not the case, but if it is it's hard to see this as a non-win for Apple.

2. The feature is the framework integrating data detection into the system at large, piping data detection classes to an internal "clearing house" and then out to various client apps. HTC eliminates the framework to do this and does it instead as a series of one-offs. The impact on the consumer isn't as direct, but Android (or at least SenseUI, if that's where this was happening) ends up being more of a kludgy mess under the covers, development and release stability suffer, etc. Not a clear win for Apple in the short term, but a bit of an underhanded long-term win like putting itching powder in your opponent's jockey shorts.

Unfortunately, I can't find any discussion of the ruling which gets down to those details, especially what the HTC "workaround" is. I suspect we will just have to wait for the dust to settle on this, and hopefully someone then will be able to put it all together and say, "This is what Apple's patent covers; this is what the infringing system looked like; this is what the workaround looks like."
 
SandynJosh said:
Copying bouncy scrolling is what snapped Samsung in the butt in Australia.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. You're thinking of the Netherlands case. Samsung fixed the issue before the ban went into effect in early October.

In Australia, the 2 patents in question are a multi-touch gesture (not the bouncy animation) and a screen manufacturing process. The Appeals court of Australia has also overturned the ban.
 
KnightWRX said:
A picture from after the iPhone was released. And frankly a picture that means nothing :

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

A good for anyone who still believes the "Android looked like Blackberry before iPhone" myth. ;)
Click to expand...

The takeaway I got from that was that he's arguing that Android was a straight up Windows CE clone... without mentioning Windows CE.

Okay, that sounds plausible.

----------
jettredmont said:
Thank you, that's a much better explanation than the article of the preceding 4 pages of comments could give.

The fact that HTC dismissed the feature as "not important" means that the "workaround" was to remove the feature, not that they implemented it in some other way. This makes a lot more sense in the context of "the feature" being the system-wide implementation of data detection and direction, not the specific instance of clicking on a phone number in a mail app to call that number. I suspect that HTC's "workaround" is to hard-code the specific data detections and tie them directly to the using applications rather than using the approach Apple patented. Alternately, they have just removed that feature altogether.

In terms of "real world effects", the possibilities here range from:

1. The feature is phone number (etc) detection, and that is removed altogether from HTC handsets and then from other Android handsets. That is, no matter what the HTC guy says, a major feature which is used quite often, meaning that Android buyers will be missing out on a critical phone integration feature. I hope that's not the case, but if it is it's hard to see this as a non-win for Apple.

2. The feature is the framework integrating data detection into the system at large, piping data detection classes to an internal "clearing house" and then out to various client apps. HTC eliminates the framework to do this and does it instead as a series of one-offs. The impact on the consumer isn't as direct, but Android (or at least SenseUI, if that's where this was happening) ends up being more of a kludgy mess under the covers, development and release stability suffer, etc. Not a clear win for Apple in the short term, but a bit of an underhanded long-term win like putting itching powder in your opponent's jockey shorts.

Unfortunately, I can't find any discussion of the ruling which gets down to those details, especially what the HTC "workaround" is. I suspect we will just have to wait for the dust to settle on this, and hopefully someone then will be able to put it all together and say, "This is what Apple's patent covers; this is what the infringing system looked like; this is what the workaround looks like."
Click to expand...

Given that it sounds to me to be a HTC/SenseUI specific case and not against Android in general, I think it's likely that they just removed the feature or crippled it as you suggested.

To all other Android users, this probably isn't a big deal since they never had the feature to being with.
 
thepowerofnone said:
Am I the only one who this really pisses off?
Click to expand...

That should be your first clue that perhaps your anger is misplaced :)

It should also be a flag that you must've missed all the previous posts that explained the situation.

Patent rulings should not simply extend to a ban on imports but also to retrospective profits made on the devices which have been infringing on the patent. Its not right for HTC to infringe on a patent not because there is no way around it but because they are lazy. Clearly the route around it is simple because it has taken them one day to implement it.
Click to expand...

If it was an intentional infringement, you'd have a good position. However...

As is common with software writing, HTC apparently came up with the same internal method on their own. (Plus the patent is ridiculously vague and should probably have never been granted as is.)

So HTC did the same thing that Apple does when they're sued over a patent: challenge it and see if they actually have to change anything. After all, the ITC dismissed 90% of Apple's patents in this case. In the meantime, somebody worked on the problem just in case.

There needs to be more respect for patent law - ... snip
Click to expand...

You seem to think that patents are not only somehow magically known to every developer on the planet, but that they're also actually unique and valid.

With software, it's quite easy to write code that inadvertently is close to something somebody else has patented... and it's just not possible or practical to search out and check everything you write each day.

This is not theft. It's coincidence, with one party getting dibs to an idea without the other one knowing about it until an examiner says so. That's why there's no real punishment involved.
 
Last edited:
rmwebs said:
Since when is a Samsung Galaxy S, HTC Sensation or LG Optimus 3D 'cheap' exactly? These are three phones that cost around the same as an iPhone.
Click to expand...

Your statement leaves much to be questioned.

When you say the above phones "cost" about the same, do you mean they cost the end user about the same? Or do you mean they cost the various manufacturers about the same to produce?

Then there's the subjective value of "cheapness" that some products have, and that perceived value exists independent of the cost to produce or the cost to the end user.

To someone with a good sense of taste, many Android devices feel or appear to be "cheap," while an iDevice does not. Additionally, Apple has paid for high quality components in vast quantities making their iDevices cost far less to produce then the competitive Android devices. To be competitive, brand X devices need to find components of lesser quality ... and so it goes...
 
SandynJosh said:
Your statement leaves much to be questioned.

When you say the above phones "cost" about the same, do you mean they cost the end user about the same? Or do you mean they cost the various manufacturers about the same to produce?

Then there's the subjective value of "cheapness" that some products have, and that perceived value exists independent of the cost to produce or the cost to the end user.

To someone with a good sense of taste, many Android devices feel or appear to be "cheap," while an iDevice does not. Additionally, Apple has paid for high quality components in vast quantities making their iDevices cost far less to produce then the competitive Android devices. To be competitive, brand X devices need to find components of lesser quality ... and so it goes...
Click to expand...

Wow, pretentious much?
 
SandynJosh said:
Your statement leaves much to be questioned.

When you say the above phones "cost" about the same, do you mean they cost the end user about the same? Or do you mean they cost the various manufacturers about the same to produce?

Then there's the subjective value of "cheapness" that some products have, and that perceived value exists independent of the cost to produce or the cost to the end user.

To someone with a good sense of taste, many Android devices feel or appear to be "cheap," while an iDevice does not. Additionally, Apple has paid for high quality components in vast quantities making their iDevices cost far less to produce then the competitive Android devices. To be competitive, brand X devices need to find components of lesser quality ... and so it goes...
Click to expand...

Actually - Apple has pretty much locked in the market so that other manufacturers CAN'T use the same components. It's not just the quantities - it's the contracts Apple has been able to negotiate.

And where is your evidence that, for example, the Samsung Galaxy IIs has cheaper parts or less quality.

If you're going to make a statement like that - I hope you have some documentation. Otherwise you're just spreading FUD
 
kdarling said:
You seem to think that patents are not only somehow magically known to every developer on the planet, but that they're also actually unique and valid.

With software, it's quite easy to write code that inadvertently is close to something somebody else has patented... and it's just not possible or practical to search out and check everything you write each day.

This is not theft. It's coincidence, with one party getting dibs to an idea without the other one knowing about it until an examiner says so. That's why there's no real punishment involved.
Click to expand...

I remember when the patents covered by a product used to be listed on the product. An AM radio might only have eight patents listed.
 
hchung said:
The takeaway I got from that was that he's arguing that Android was a straight up Windows CE clone... without mentioning Windows CE.

Okay, that sounds plausible.
Click to expand...

Mind pointing out where you got that notion from the article ? Seems to me he says calling anything a "clone" is rather dubious and shows an agenda on the part of the poster.

If anything, Android is an OS, designed to be an OS rather than a vertically integrated platform and as such is agnostic to the hardware it runs on. If you want to claim that makes it a Windows CE clone... frankly I don't know what to say. That's just how OS development has been since OSes have been around.

Android is Android. iOS is iOS. Both may sometimes take cues from each other but to say either is a clone of one another is entirely another thing. They have such different design and implementation philosophies that I wouldn't even know where posters get the idea that one is a rip off of the other and which is which in that case.
 
Swift said:
The antidote for getting booted around by Apple is to invest in being a "first mover" and doing the work yourself. You'll notice, there are no patent or trademark suits against Windows Phone 7, as far as I can remember? I think Microsoft has spent a long time developing their interface. All those sliding cards and such, that's not copying from the beginning. Their failure has forced them to rethink and rework. So they now have a decent chance of picking up more users.

Here's the truth about Microsoft: most of its market dominance comes from its near-total adoption by business in the 1980s of DOS and then Windows. That's their customer: the IT guy or the VP of office supplies. American business retooled in the '80s by investing in low-cost and business-friendly PCs. Now, after the iPhone and iPad, when a business gives their staff their choice of devices, Apple takes a big share of their purchases.

Microsoft's Windows was designed for a centralized business command structure with professional users-- and young porn-seeking game-playing nerds at home learned BASIC and wrote software. Now these kids are taking over the world. Hierarchical networks aren't cool.

Sony took over its market not in the beginning, when they copied American technology for the most part, but then they started designing new things. Trinitron. Walkman. Betamax. Then they switched their business model by buying Columbia Pictures. Sounds good, but the business model is monopolism.
Click to expand...

Both WP and Android uses multi-touch, so we can write that out of your reasoning. What then follows boils down to icon grids; these were de facto standard long before the unveiling of the iPhone. I really don't get your point. Not at all, really.
 
kdarling said:
Ha! That brings back memories! Not a bad idea.

Thought it's a bit hard to imagine anyone getting Apple to micro-engrave all the related patents and patents pending on the back case of each iPhone :)
Click to expand...

and if they ever figured out a way - that would be patented too!
 
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