HTC Files Complaint Against Apple for Patent Infringement

[Core.Rot]

Oh you mean Patents #5,519,867 and #6,275,983: Object Oriented Multitasking System and Object-Oriented Operating System.

Patent #5,566,337: Method and apparatus for distributing events in an operating system.

Patent #5,969,705: Message protocol for controlling a user interface from an inactive application program.

Amongst others...

 

[BaldiMac]

Oh you mean Patents #5,519,867 and #6,275,983: Object Oriented Multitasking System and Object-Oriented Operating System.

Patent #5,566,337: Method and apparatus for distributing events in an operating system.

Patent #5,969,705: Message protocol for controlling a user interface from an inactive application program.

Amongst others...

Yes. What's your point?

 

[Jaro65]

Here's an idea for HTC, Nokia and Apple:

Start assembling your phones in the USA, and no one will be able to ask for an injunction against importing them.

Now how about that!

 

[Core.Rot]

My point, Apple Sucks!

Why the hell would anyone go out and buy a status symbol like a iPhone? When they first appeared they where over priced, expensive and they didn't support 3GS instead they came with all of 2GB and a price tag close to £600.00 and for your money you got one locked to one network provider.

If your tempted to go out and buy an iPhone or a iBook, iMac you'd have to be an idiot at the price tag they carry.

Look what you can buy in Tesco for £399.00 http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.208-4552.aspx

Still want an apple? Go buy one then.. Dont let me sway you in any way.. They've only recently dropped there price tag on there iPhone but thats because now they have stiff competition (which they don't like!) I can hear Steve Jobs going "eh, my money! Nooo!"

 

[cmaier]

Now how about that!

Wouldn't work. Instead of the ITC, they go to federal district court and ask for an injunction on manufacturing, sales, and offers of sale.

 

[BaldiMac]

My point, Apple Sucks!

Why the hell would anyone go out and buy a status symbol like a iPhone? When they first appeared they where over priced, expensive and they didn't support 3GS instead they came with all of 2GB and a price tag close to £600.00 and for your money you got one locked to one network provider.

If your tempted to go out and buy an iPhone or a iBook, iMac you'd have to be an idiot at the price tag they carry.

Look what you can buy in Tesco for £399.00 http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.208-4552.aspx

Still want an apple? Go buy one then.. Dont let me sway you in any way.. They've only recently dropped there price tag on there iPhone but thats because now they have stiff competition (which they don't like!) I can hear Steve Jobs going "eh, my money! Nooo!"

So, all of your posts in this thread about "open source" did not have a point. You were just looking for some good old Apple bashing. Next time, just start your own thread! There is never a shortage of people who would want to participate.

 

[Core.Rot]

Well unless Windows has turned into an Object Oriented Multitasking System and Object-Oriented Operating System over night then they are effectively saying the operating system on the HTC Shift infringes on there iPhone OS which is based on Open Source and being Open Source that means its based on something free!

 

[BaldiMac]

Well unless Windows has turned into an Object Oriented Multitasking System and Object-Oriented Operating System over night then they are effectively saying the operating system on the HTC Shift infringes on there iPhone OS which is based on Open Source and being Open Source that means its based on something free!

No, Apple is saying that HTC is infringing on their patents, not the iPhone OS.

The iPhone OS is not based on open source in the way that you are implying. It contains components, including the kernel, that are open source. That does not make the entire OS open source or free.

 

[Core.Rot]

Yes but one of the patents they are claiming damages for is Patent #6,275,983

Which is the Operating System!

You are aware I trust that the words OS = Operating System?

I doubt HTC would steal Apples COCOA.

Android OS is Open Source so how have they infringed Apples Patent?

Is the light dawning yet??? Ah at last clarity!

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes but one of the patents they are claiming damages for is Patent #6,275,983

Which is the Operating System!

You are aware I trust that the words OS = Operating System?

I doubt HTC would steal Apples COCOA.

The OS is not patented. It is protected by copyright. The patent is not for the OS. It is for a method for an application to access the OS in a specific manner. I don't pretend to understand the method described.

Android OS is Open Source so how have they infringed Apples Patent?

Open source is not a defense to patent infringement.

 

[GamecockMac]

So, all of your posts in this thread about "open source" did not have a point. You were just looking for some good old Apple bashing. Next time, just start your own thread! There is never a shortage of people who would want to participate.

Took you awhile to figure this out. Don't feed the trolls.

 

[marksman]

Baldimac is a patient soul.

 

[Core.Rot]

The OS is not patented. It is protected by copyright. The patent is not for the OS. It is for a method for an application to access the OS in a specific manner.

It is NOT protected by copyright, that copyright does not give apple exclusive rights to call it their product, they may own the patents to certain features of the hardware and the COCOA programing language but that is all they have a copyright for.

My OS is Open Source and I can assure you Apple do NOT own any rights to it what-so-ever, here's my browser header:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux; x86_64; en-US) OpenWebKit (KHTML) Gecko Sunmoth

The patent IS for the OS - Clearly stipulated by the wording "Operating System."

It is NOT a method for an application to access the OS in a specific manner, it is the method by which the operating system chooses to execute the application as a process which is controlled by the Micro-Kernel.

They can not claim Android infringes there Patent or Copyright, just because gOS uses a interface similar to Apples does not give apple the right to challenge there ownership of the product.

Does anything about this Operating System look familiar to you??

See photo:

Thats the Gnome Desktop manager and X11 and I can assure you apple own neither the copyright nor the patent to it!

 

[cmaier]

It is NOT protected by copyright, that copyright does not give apple exclusive rights to call it their product, they may own the patents to certain features of the hardware and the COCOA programing language but that is all they have a copyright for.

You have just jumped back and forth between patents and copyrights in a way that indicates that you do not understand the difference.

Copyrights protect tangible expressions of ideas. For example, they protect the words in a story, or the lyrics or music in a song. (no one else can create tangible copies) They can protect source code for a software program, or the way the user interface appears. Copyrights last for a very long time, and have their own sets of laws.

Patents protect inventions. Typically we are talking about "utility" patents which protect articles of manufacture, or methods of making or doing something. Patents last for 20 years, and have their own sets of laws which are completely different than copyright.

Copyright protects the actual source code of a program (the exact words used in the programming). They are automatic, as soon as you write something. Patents protect the way the source code operates to produce a particular tangible result. For example, I might patent a particular way of interpreting screen gestures to produce a particular result. You must obtain a patent by filing for one and proving to the USPTO that the invention is new and not obvious.

 

[Core.Rot]

I'm not jumping between patent & copyright, that's you guys not getting the gist of what I am saying, they cant claim Android infringes there patent or there copyright, it's a totally separate OS.

 

[cmaier]

I'm not jumping between patent & copyright, that's you guys not getting the gist of what I am saying, they cant claim Android infringes there patent or there copyright, it's a totally separate OS.

I highlighted in bold where you jumped back and forth.

But let's look at your argument:

Copyright:

First, Apple is not alleging copyright infringement. But if they were, copyright infringement would mean using copied source code. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Android is using any source code that Apple holds a copyright on, other than various open source projects that Apple has granted everyone a license to. So it's true that there is likely no copyright infringement. But Apple is not alleging copyright infringement, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

Patents:

Apple is alleging infringement of various patents, some of which are allegedly infringed by software. The software that allegedly infringes is probably open source software, it is true. But so what? Open source software can infringe patents. If Apple had contributed the allegedly infringing software to open source, then it is true that Apple would likely be unable to assert a patent infringement action against folks for using the open source components that Apple, themselves, contributed (apple would be granting the world an express or implied license). But the open source software that allegedly infringes was not written by Apple. It was written by others. And as long as the software performs the steps in the patent claims, it infringes Apple's patents.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sigh.

It is NOT protected by copyright, that copyright does not give apple exclusive rights to call it their product,

All software is protected by copyright.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#protect

they may own the patents to certain features of the hardware and the COCOA programing language but that is all they have a copyright for.

Patents can cover hardware and software processes and even design. They do not cover software programs as a whole. Copyright covers the actual code. OS X or the iPhone OS is protected by copyright.

My OS is Open Source and I can assure you Apple do NOT own any rights to it what-so-ever, here's my browser header:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux; x86_64; en-US) OpenWebKit (KHTML) Gecko Sunmoth

Your assurances aside, it is likely that almost any OS currently available violates a patent held by Apple (or Microsoft or somebody else.)

The patent IS for the OS - Clearly stipulated by the wording "Operating System."

No, the patent is for a technique that could be used in any OS. With Apple's permission as patent holder.

It is NOT a method for an application to access the OS in a specific manner, it is the method by which the operating system chooses to execute the application as a process which is controlled by the Micro-Kernel.

Whatever, I said I don't understand the patent claims.

They can not claim Android infringes there Patent or Copyright, just because gOS uses a interface similar to Apples does not give apple the right to challenge there ownership of the product.

Apple is not claiming Android infringes because is use a similar interface to Apple. They are claiming it infringes because they believe it uses the exact process described in the patent.

Does anything about this Operating System look familiar to you??

See photo:

Sure, it looks familiar. It also look like you stole the picture from Softpedia.

Thats the Gnome Desktop manager and X11 and I can assure you apple own neither the copyright nor the patent to it!

You are probably right about the copyright. You are probably wrong about a patent.

 

[Core.Rot]

I didn't bring it up. I brought up the subject of the patent not the copyright.

Scroll up and read back, what it boils down to is, strip away the COCOA and you have open source free software being sold to consumers who know no better buying into it saying Apple made it which is bull.

Patent #6,275,983 is the operating system which is one of the 20 patents there claiming for, look into it, if you dont believe it, all I can say is sit back and watch the fireworks.

End of discussion.

 

[BaldiMac]

I didn't bring it up. I brought up the subject of the patent not the copyright.

Scroll up and read back, what it boils down to is, strip away the COCOA and you have open source free software being sold to consumers who know no better buying into it saying Apple made it which is bull.

Patent #6,275,983 is the operating system which is one of the 20 patents there claiming for, look into it, if you dont believe it, all I can say is sit back and watch the fireworks.

End of discussion.

There's the source of all the confusion. OS X is not an open source OS with Cocoa on top. Darwin is the open source kernel that OS X uses. The kernel is only one part of the OS. Read this for more information:

http://developer.apple.com/mac/libr...y_Overview/MacOSXOverview/MacOSXOverview.html

 

[cmaier]

I didn't bring it up. I brought up the subject of the patent not the copyright.

Scroll up and read back, what it boils down to is, strip away the COCOA and you have open source free software being sold to consumers who know no better buying into it saying Apple made it which is bull.

Patent #6,275,983 is the operating system which is one of the 20 patents there claiming for, look into it, if you dont believe it, all I can say is sit back and watch the fireworks.

End of discussion.

Only the claims in a patent define what the patent covers. Here's claim 1:

1. A computer system, comprising:
computer hardware for performing native system services;

a procedural operating system, having a native interface, for controlling the computer hardware to perform the native system services;

object oriented methods requiring native system services;

procedural program logic code, responsive to invocations of the object-oriented methods during runtime, for causing the procedural operating system to control the computer hardware to perform the required native system services;

executable program memory associated with the computer hardware for runtime execution of the procedural operating system, invocations of the object-oriented methods and related portions of the procedural program logic code;

means for making determinations during runtime execution if object-oriented methods to be invoked are present in the executable program memory; and

a runtime loader, responsive to the determinations, to selectively load required object-oriented methods into the executable program memory during runtime before invocation of the object-oriented methods.

So a couple of points. You keep saying something about Apple claiming they "made" it. No they didn't. They claim they patented the above device. They have a patent on computers which have each of the pieces listed in the above claim.

Let's look at another claim:

7. A method for operating a computer system, comprising the steps of:
executing a procedural operating system on computer hardware, the procedural operating system including a native interface, responsive to procedural function calls, for providing native system services;

issuing calls during runtime, compatible with the native interface, to provide the native system services in response to invocations of object-oriented methods requiring such native system services;

determining during runtime if object-oriented methods to be invoked during runtime execution are present in executable program memory associated with the computer hardware; and

selectively loading the object-oriented methods into the executable program memory during runtime before invocation thereof, if not yet loaded.

So Apple also has patented the above method. If you perform that method, you infringe Apple's patent. Apple doesn't claim they wrote the Android OS. They claim the Android OS performs each of the above steps (issuing calls during runtime, determining during runtime, etc.) If true, that means that the Android OS infringes Apple's patent.

This is quite different than copyright. In copyright, you infringe if Apple wrote the code and Google simply copied it.

If you are saying apple didn't invent those things, and they only exist in apple products because someone else wrote open source to provide them, that is simply not true.

 

[Core.Rot]

I could have swore blind Sun Microsystems had the patent on that Java implementation of the Call Stack first, but this argument is starting to bore the hell out of me, hey it's just me against a load of Mac Fan's who think apple's totally in the right and they can do no wrong.

To put it in perspective thats like you lot trying to convince a load of die hard Windows fans that Mac OS X is better than Windows!

They both use Digital rights management and you the end user are the ones paying through the nose for it thinking it's great. So why bother to argue the case. We've just got to see how the ITC rule on it and how the court decides on whats been infringed and where. As for Google, there not even involved in the arguement with HTC & Apple yet, they have yet to join the fray if at all.

(Yawn)

 

[cmaier]

I could have swore blind Sun Microsystems had the patent on that Java implementation of the Call Stack first, but this argument is starting to bore the hell out of me, hey it's just me against a load of Mac Fan's who think apple's totally in the right and they can do no wrong.

To put it in perspective thats like you lot trying to convince a load of die hard Windows fans that Mac OS X is better than Windows!


(Yawn)

I know you'd like to think it's about us being fanboys, but it's not. It's that the things you keep saying show a little confusion about the relationship between patents, copyright, and open source licenses. Just as Apple is likely infringing Nokia's patents, so too is HTC probably infringing Apple's patents. The fact that there are open source components involved is orthogonal to the issue of infringement.

 

[GamecockMac]

(Yawn)

Sleepy troll is sleepy.

 

[Core.Rot]

True, these are all valid points, this SP parody sum's it up nicely for me as an open source user. Trolling away at the stench of decay!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-22EpQOm8c

Hey look at that, I've got a Snow Leopard...

http://i40.tinypic.com/2zznaiu.png

Oh but I cant have that, they'll claim it infringes there copyright!

Ah I know, much better!

http://i42.tinypic.com/wb6txi.png

Can you guess and speculate as to how much it cost me to build my entire dream computer from the ground up, including the operating system?

$500, $1000, more... Nope, it cost me $0.00 and it probably out performs the latest and greatest Mac!

Where is the paper tape functionality on a Mac? Oh it hasn't got one! Quick make one and shaft everyone with a Patent!

Companies still rely on Data Tapes for most of there off-site back-ups you'd think Apple would be quick to realize that and see a potential market for it & profits.

Want to know the secret to getting it all for nothing, do repairs & upgrades for people, when you ask them what do you want me to do with the old one 9x out of 10 they'll say "chuck it out or if you'd like it, keep it!"

2x PATA Disk Drives @ 80G each, 2x SATA at 350G each, one nVidia GForce3 for all those free & open source games. Flat screen, USB budget Mouse from Wallmart, Old Keyboard, Handsfree Headset & Webcam..

The Advantages of Quad Core over Duel Core!? SCSI & Raptor RAID? Scalable architecture so that yes it is possible to Over-clock and Blow it up! Rock on!!!

Oh and more USB & Firewire ports than I know what to do with, so now that your feeling sufficiently green time for me to Jog-on and go play Alien Arena!

Alien Arena - The official MacOS port has been indefinitely postponed.