HTC Responds to Apple Patent Lawsuit

[JGowan]

The innovation Apple brought was the iPhone OS. They didn't take multi-touch from Apple, Apple cares little of that since they didn't develop it themselves anyway.

That's crap! Multi-touch is a part of the NEXUS PHONE. It might not be a part of this particular suit because it will simply be addressed when Apple sues Google --> NEXT. But you can bet your butt that Apple cares and not "Little", as you say, but a whole hellavu lot.

The part that people are really concerned with is probably the pettiness of the suit. So what that Android unlocks phones with a swipe. Or a phone has pinch to zoom. I wouldn't go as far as saying Apple is the bastard for suing, but what does a company with as much street cred as Apple care for a company like HTC?

First of all, if they sued over A SINGLE PATENT, perhaps it could raise eyebrows. Perhaps. But 20 VIOLATIONS! Perhaps if you look at them one at a time, one might say "petty", but 20 is a company trying to steal the Experience AS A WHOLE. Don't you people see this?! Incredible.

How did Palm escape this Apple onslaught with the Palm Pre, and all the iTunes syncing garbage that went on?

Their day could be coming. But Apple started HTC because it was "Google's baby" -- They are squeezing Google indirectly at the moment. Depending on the outcome of this trial, Apple will have either more or less leverage in the next trial.

There are posters here who want to portray as Suit Happy. This isn't true. They sue when people infringe. Mostly it's parasites suing Apple.

 

[SteveSparks]

apple is a cry baby.....they know they will be killed by Big G in this decade..so they are just nervous .... Android market share is going up and iphone is going down...they didn't expect this to be happen that soon...
go fight with Big G.....Are u scared ..huh...Are u scared...if you are creative, let the industry copy you and move forward and create something new...thats called creativity...not fighting with a weak kid in the game...

Please excuse this, and don't take it too personal. However consider what you just typed. If that represents the arguement from Google, HTC or anyone else, Apple has already won.

Apple is far more creative than Google, considering they actually invent physicial stuff. Google on the other hand does do stuff, and programs good stuff but they mostly re-package ideas.

Google did not invent email, or searching, or voip, or the cloud. They do however re-package very well other peoples ideas. They are the new Microsoft of the Internet.

 

[Wolfie Scooter]

To infringe, ALL limitations must be present. An infringing device must exhibit that docked behavior.

And to the other poster, I was using "docked" as shorthand. And, no, the computer cannot be the same device as the phone.

I stand corrected.

After reading the figure descriptions very closely, it seems that last line (the "not connected" line) was included to show that the camera and display of the portable electronic device are not dedicated to the computer-connected video conference (they function normally when not connected to the computer).

 

[str1f3]

Even from the pure marketshare standpoint, the growth of iPhoneOS has stalled. Android has posted 4.3% market share increase during the last quarter while iPhoneOS went up by a mere 0.3%. Look it up.

This statement is true but keep in mind it is just one quarter you're pointing to. Every other quarter Apple has shown incredibly more growth. How do think it will look next quarter when Apple releases the next iPhone?

BTW the Nexus One, Android's flagship phone, has sold less phones so far than Apple has sold iPads over the weekend.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Their day could be coming. But Apple started HTC because it was "Google's baby" -- They are squeezing Google indirectly at the moment. Depending on the outcome of this trial, Apple will have either more or less leverage in the next trial.

There are posters here who want to portray as Suit Happy. This isn't true. They sue when people infringe. Mostly it's parasites suing Apple.

You missed a fact about palm. Palm owns a lot of patents that Apple could easily not want to risk being brought against them. Remember Palm was once a leader in Smartphones and PDAs so it stands to reason they own a lot of patents on that tech. Tech that the iPhone/iPod Touch could easily be using.

 

[Xavier]

Of course they are not going to agree with Apple.

It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out.

 

[Digital Skunk]

That's crap! Multi-touch is a part of the NEXUS PHONE. It might not be a part of this particular suit because it will simply be addressed when Apple sues Google --> NEXT. But you can bet your butt that Apple cares and not "Little", as you say, but a whole hellavu lot.

I never said that the Nexus one didn't have multi-touch. Apple may go after Google for it, but that will be a harder case to win over the specific uses of MT.

First of all, if they sued over A SINGLE PATENT, perhaps it could raise eyebrows. Perhaps. But 20 VIOLATIONS! Perhaps if you look at them one at a time, one might say "petty", but 20 is a company trying to steal the Experience AS A WHOLE. Don't you people see this?! Incredible.

So Apple patented the experience? Or the tech? Many of the devices are similar. . . all too similar. So why is Apple just attacking Google and HTC? And not the still failing fast Palm? Or RIMM?

Their day could be coming. But Apple started HTC because it was "Google's baby" -- They are squeezing Google indirectly at the moment. Depending on the outcome of this trial, Apple will have either more or less leverage in the next trial.

There are posters here who want to portray as Suit Happy. This isn't true. They sue when people infringe. Mostly it's parasites suing Apple.

I agree with you on everything including this. I guess there are times when Apple's suits hold water in the public's eye because they are obvious ones... like the Psystar suit.

Other times, it's Apple nitpicking and attacking their direct competition for reasons we all may never know. We can speculate, but it won't be clear until after the case. I don't think Apple will push other cases in the future.

I will be honest, I know NOTHING of law, but I don't see where Apple has a case against a company that decides to make a candy bar handset with a large touch screen that uses certain gestures. . . . and doesn't do anything with another one that has more closely infringed up Apple's tech.

 

[cmaier]

I stand corrected.

After reading the figure descriptions very closely, it seems that last line (the "not connected" line) was included to show that the camera and display of the portable electronic device are not dedicated to the computer-connected video conference (they function normally when not connected to the computer).

And that, friends, is how we do claim construction

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Huh? Apple is several decades old and has lots of patents too.

Apple Computers is several decades old.

The new Apple Inc. on the other hand is not. Apple has nowhere near the portfolio of telecommunications IP as the others. Take into context this discussion about HTC v. Apple.

 

[cmaier]

Apple Computers is several decades old.

The new Apple Inc. on the other hand is not. Apple has nowhere near the portfolio of telecommunications IP as the others. Take into context this discussion about HTC v. Apple.

Again - huh? How does the fact that Apple changed its name factor into this? And what is "telecommunications IP" and why is it more valuable than "computing and electronics IP" when the devices we are talking about contain both telecommunications features and computing and electronics features?

 

[pdjudd]

Apple Computers is several decades old.

The new Apple Inc. on the other hand is not.

Apple Inc. and Apple computers are legally the same entity. I fail to see your point.

 

[jragosta]

Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image

This patent was granted on February 2nd 2010. Why was it not patented when the iPhone first came out in 2007? Was apple waiting (almost 3 years) for others to use a similar way to unlock a phone so they can turn around and sue them? Nice business model.

It would be nice if people who don't have any clue what they're talking about would stop posting.

That patent was applied for on Dec. 23, 2005 - 1.5 years before the first iPhone came out.

We can say it all day. Apple's behavior during the last ~18 months has been worthy of contempt. And not just in terms of this HTC lawsuit, but on a bunch of different fronts. They are quickly alienating even some of their loyal customers, and I think they are just on the wrong path.

I sincerely hope that the outcome of this lawsuit will be like a bucket of icy cold water on Apple's corporate head. Go HTC.

Name those 'most loyal customers' who have been alienated. Most of the people who are whining are avid Apple-haters who don't buy Apple products and are proud of the fact that they never would.. There's absolutely no evidence that loyal fans (or anyone else, for that matter) have stopped buying Apple's products because of Apple's legal actions.

The patent was granted this February. It is clear now that Apple was just waiting for this patent granted before filing the complaint with HTC.

Too simple. There must be some hidden conspiracy that you're missing.

I was more referring to underlying patents.
There may be something in HTC's portfolio that interests Apple.

As for your assumption that the device be "docked", that's not how I read it.

"device is connected to a computer through a transmission interface"

That could be any type of connection. Be it via wireless, BT, cell connection, you name it.
The connection itself is not fully defined.
It also doesn't explicitly say the modules cannot be contained in a single unit or device.

The vagueness leaves a lot open to interpretation.

There's no vagueness at all. You're simply trying to read things in that aren't there. Read the claims - they're quite clear.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Apple Computers is several decades old.

The new Apple Inc. on the other hand is not. Apple has nowhere near the portfolio of telecommunications IP as the others. Take into context this discussion about HTC v. Apple.

Are you failing to look at what I am saying. This discussion is based on Apples technologies with Cell Phones. Apple Computers never made cell phones it wasn't until Apple decided to change its name and its philosophy that it started working with the iPhone. Same company, yes, different name and different technology/market YES. So in conclusion, name one mobile phone device/technology Apple has before there big change from a Computer Company to a "Lifestyle" company.

 

[pdjudd]

So in conclusion, name one mobile phone device/technology Apple has before there big change from a Computer Company to a "Lifestyle" company.

I fail to see how that is relevant. What they decide to call their company has no bearing on their IP portfolio.

 

[cmaier]

Are you failing to look at what I am saying. This discussion is based on Apples technologies with Cell Phones. Apple Computers never made cell phones it wasn't until Apple decided to change its name and its philosophy that it started working with the iPhone. Same company, yes, different name and different technology/market YES. So in conclusion, name one mobile phone device/technology Apple has before there big change from a Computer Company to a "Lifestyle" company.

But what does any of that have to do with Apple's depth (or lack thereof) of a patent portfolio applicable to cell phones? Just because apple doesn't have a lot of patents on, for example, basebands or radios doesn't mean they don't have a boatload of patents on other aspects of cellphones (after all - what's a smartphone other than a Newton with a radio in it?)

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

But what does any of that have to do with Apple's depth (or lack thereof) of a patent portfolio applicable to cell phones? Just because apple doesn't have a lot of patents on, for example, basebands or radios doesn't mean they don't have a boatload of patents on other aspects of cellphones (after all - what's a smartphone other than a Newton with a radio in it?)

Its relevant to my comparison of the Nokia lawsuit to this.

 

[cmaier]

Its relevant to my comparison of the Nokia lawsuit to this.

How so?

 

[mAc-warrior]

It doesn't matter. Steve Jobs feels aggrieved. This is not about money, but about his sense of honor being violated or something like that.

You seriously believe the third largest corporation in the United States will launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit because of the feelings of its CEO? Seriously? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, whatsoever.

--mAc

 

[Darkroom]

A lot of you (probably the majority) show in your posts a deep, deep misunderstanding of how business (particularly in technology) actually works.

Corporations are in business to make money, regardless of what many of you think Google's (or Apple's) noble intentions are. Increase the amount of dollars that they have. Period. What's one of the best ways to increase your cash? By creating new, compelling things for the market to consume. The entire reason why we have seen innovation and new inventions pick up in the last century is the patenting system. Without it, there is no innovation! Because, without the patenting system to guarantee the profits from your invention, you won't make any money because everyone will copy your invention immediately! What is the point of developing something new if you can't profit from it!? There is no point, from the viewpoint of a corporation. And if you cannot make money, then you're not in business!

So all of you are crying that Apple should just innovate harder instead of enforcing their patents, because enforcing the patents will stifle innovation in the market. You're missing the entire point of the patent system! If the market operated in the way of your little fantasy world (where everyone creates new things and shares ideas and makes no money) then the world economy would collapse entirely. Eventually everyone would rely on everyone else, and nobody would create anything new.

It is much easier to assume that Apple is correct in these lawsuits at this time, because they have a large army of lawyers who are paid a lot of money to make sure of these things before bringing a suit forward. So, assuming that Apple is correct, and HTC is infringing on their patents (and unless you're a trained patent lawyer, you really have no friggin clue whatsoever), then you should be arguing for HTC to be innovating more. HTC should be trying to come up with new methods of doing things that are NOT like the iPhone's methods. This is where innovation in the market comes from, and this is what Apple originally did with the iPhone.

Flame all you want, but I'm right, and you're wrong.

--mAc

software patents are not available outside of the USA, as least not in Canada, Europe and Japan. this should give you a clue about the validity of apple's so-called "patents" when addressing the potential failure of global markets.

 

[rolphi]

So Apple patented the experience? Or the tech? Many of the devices are similar. . . all too similar. So why is Apple just attacking Google and HTC? And not the still failing fast Palm? Or RIMM?

I think you just proved others' points that Apple are NOT a trigger happy lawsuit company. They sue someone when they are good and ready and think they have a good chance to win.

Other times, it's Apple nitpicking and attacking their direct competition for reasons we all may never know. We can speculate, but it won't be clear until after the case. I don't think Apple will push other cases in the future.

I will be honest, I know NOTHING of law, but I don't see where Apple has a case against a company that decides to make a candy bar handset with a large touch screen that uses certain gestures. . . . and doesn't do anything with another one that has more closely infringed up Apple's tech.

I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking of Apple as a person, and then for criticising them as if they had a personality. Yes, a colleague who tried to push these points could be described as "nitpicking". But in the realm of IP law, it's call "how things work."

And you may excuse the plucky underdog in a feel good movie as the one willing to take on the system. But in this case, HTC are grown ups too, and they make enough money to afford lawyers who should have told them what risks they were going to be exposed to by Apple's patents. Either 1. They didn't know about Apple's IP, which means they have bad lawyers. or 2. They didn't think Apple's IP would hold up, which means that this lawsuit is the WAY that we find out the answer to that question.

Don't hate the players; hate the game.

And to anyone who claims that they are the "most loyal" fans but are questioning this move, are BY DEFINITION not their "most loyal" fans.

This is why I don't think of myself as a loyal anything. If they make what you want for a price you like, then buy it. If not, then don't.

And can't we all agree not to use Big Brother unless we're discussing government? I think it belittles the concept to apply it to a consumer goods company.

 

[rolphi]

software patents are not available outside of the USA, as least not in Canada, Europe and Japan. this should give you a clue about the validity of apple's so-called "patents" when addressing the potential failure of global markets.

I think you may be illustrating why the US has more than their fair share of successful global software companies.

 

[cmaier]

software patents are not available outside of the USA, as least not in Canada, Europe and Japan. this should give you a clue about the validity of apple's so-called "patents" when addressing the potential failure of global markets.

That's not true. Software patents are available, at least in Europe, so long as they do more than merely solve a business problem. In other words, if the means of solving a technical problem is implemented in software, that does not exclude it from patentability in Europe.

In Japan, software patents are acceptable.

I don't know what the story is in Canada, other than I have litigated patents in the U.S. that derive from software patents first filed in Canada.

 

[mAc-warrior]

software patents are not available outside of the USA, as least not in Canada, Europe and Japan. this should give you a clue about the validity of apple's so-called "patents" when addressing the potential failure of global markets.

We can debate back and forth the merits and demerits of software patents all day but that won't change the following facts:

a) The patents in question were granted in the United States.
b) Both companies do business in the United States.
c) The litigation was filed in the United States.

In the context of this lawsuit (the topic of this thread) it simply does not matter what the state of software patent law is throughout the rest of the world. What matters is what the law is in the United States.

Further, it is absolutely valid to discuss US software patents in regard to the potential failure of global markets. As has been pointed out, most of the best software companies in the world are based in the US. Coincidence? Even more applicable is the fact that if the US economy collapses, so does the rest of the world. Now, nobody is saying that without software patents in the US the world economy will collapse. But, without patents in general it most certainly would.

FWIW: I don't live in the US, and I'm not a US citizen. I'm also not a patent lawyer, but I do have at least somewhat of a clue.

--mAc

 

[cmaier]

From Arstechnica

Deutsche Banks analyst Chris Whitmore noted recently that Apple has amassed a much larger patent portfolio than HTC, or even Google, whose Andriod operating system is believed to be the real target of Apple's legal ire. Since 2000, Apple has been awarded over 3,000 patents, compared to Google's 316 and HTC's 58. Prior to the launch of the iPhone, HTC actually filed zero patents with USPTO. Sheer numbers don't guarantee a slam dunk for Apple, but they do certainly give Apple a much larger cache of ammunition to draw from.

Many have criticized Apple for "competition by litigation" by filing complaints against HTC, but as The New York Times recently reported, lawsuits are not at all uncommon in the mobile space. Apple believes it has a right and duty to protect its own innovations, apparently just as other companies in the mobile market do. "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours," Apple CEO Steve Jobs said earlier this month.

Furthermore, Microsoft VP and deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said the lawsuits are merely a sign that the modern smartphone market is still in its early stages, and that this particular lawsuit won't stifle innovation as some believe. "The smartphone market is still in a nascent state; much innovation still lies ahead in this field," he wrote in an analysis of Apple's patent litigation. "In all nascent technology markets, there is a period early where IP rights will be sorted out."

 

[Mr Fish]

Oh FFS! If you hate Apple, just say it outright. Don't do this little dance for us.

You're so wrong about me. I've been an Apple fan since the 80s. I've used Mac Classics, SE30s, IIVXs, right the way through to my current Macbook Pro.

I'm not dancing at all for you. I'm sorry I've upset you so much, I was just thinking aloud. Sorry that upset you.

Frankly, HTC has no legal ground to speak of if they have encroached on any of those patents, whether you or I or the guy down the street agree with it or not. That's how it works.

I didn't say they didn't have a legal high ground, I said that I feel they do sort of have a moral high, or at least I think that there might be a case for saying that. And I don't think that that's how patents work. I didn't say they had a legal case against Apple. There must be a balance, surely, between protecting IP and allowing general and collective progression in human developed technologies, no?

Also, I must apologize once again, as I thought this had something to do with Multi Touch, as it was only when Android running on HTC phones implemented Multi Touch that Apple decided to sue them, so I figured that there would be some sort of connection.

I retract my naive assumption now, in the face of your superior knowledge of how the world works.


Cheers