HTC Responds to Apple Patent Lawsuit

[rolphi]

Although I agree with Apple defending it's own IP, their actions do sometimes comes across as anti-competitive and stifling innovation. Go HTC! (But I'd still prefer an iPhone!)

I'm not picking on this poster specifically, but can anyone explain to me how this is stifling innovation. How can people make that claim as if it's self-evident?

I won't go so far as to require empirical evidence or data which would be nice.

Just give me the rationale! That's all I request.

If you want more innovation, then isn't a copy-cat company the OPPOSITE of what you want?

Why does it seem like the only innovation you want is for a copy-cat company to innovatively offer you their copy-cat product for cheaper?

 

[cmaier]

There must be a balance, surely, between protecting IP and allowing general and collective progression in human developed technologies, no?

that's how patents are supposed to work. In exchange for publicly disclosing an invention (even an incremental invention) in sufficient detail that a person having ordinary skill in the art would know how to utilize the invention, you can, for a limited time, prevent others from practicing the invention. The point is not "protecting IP" - it's advancing technology, the theory being that such a system eliminates the free-ride problem (why should anyone bother doing any R&D - particularly R&D that costs a lot and which has a risk of not producing immediate profit - if they can wait for their competition to do the work for them?)

Believe it or not, the current system works fairly well for that. There have even been changes, recently, that limit the ability of trolls to wreak havoc. Probably the main problem with patents in the computer arts is that the 20-year period is too long. It makes sense in many other fields, but 20 years is infinity in computer engineering.

 

[RazHyena]

Apple's "sue-happy" nature as of late leads me to believe their Well of Innovation is running dry.

Patent lawsuits over touch gestures? Oversized iPod Touch? Someone's running out of ideas...



What happened to Apple's computers? Do they still make those?

 

[Smoother]

Apple are starting something that will be bad for innovation, imagine if Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung and all these companies would behave like this back in the days. My iPhone would have practically nothing. I think this lawsuit will take years as much as 10 years to reach something. Cause about 80-90% of these suits will not stand in court. Specially not the swipe to lock which is making biggest headlines. I think Apple knows that they can't win.

It's all PR tactics, for me it's looking like a hit or miss. Apple are trying to state to the world that Android is a copycat and if you wan the real deal you should get an iPhone. If it works that the hit. If it misses, the miss is that people will buy Android cause Apple seems to be afraid of Google and can't keep up, so they're trying to slow their roll. Kind of risky, but Steve Jobs is known for knowing his moves.

 

[hitekalex]

What happened to Apple's computers? Do they still make those?

Barely. I mean they will sell them, as long as it doesn't interfere with the sales of their iToys (you know iPhones and iPads). Check the MBP "Waiting for Arrandale update" threads lately?

 

[mAc-warrior]

Barely. I mean they will sell them, as long as it doesn't interfere with the sales of their iToys (you know iPhones and iPads). Check the MBP "Waiting for Arrandale update" threads lately?

You obviously haven't been a Mac user for very long. Ten years ago, when there were no iPods or iPhones or anything like that, Apple would often not upgrade their computers for at least a year. It doesn't mean they're sitting still, it just means that they don't necessarily feel the need to incorporate the latest chip in the month that it is released.

Macs still make up the majority of revenue at Apple. Apple still releases OS X 10.x upgrades every two years at minimum, which is a lot more than you can say about M$. And Mac sales continue to accelerate.

--mAc

 

[mAc-warrior]

Apple are starting something that will be bad for innovation, imagine if Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung and all these companies would behave like this back in the days. My iPhone would have practically nothing.

So, what do you propose they do? Allow everyone to use their ideas for anything they want?

Please, tell me exactly what that will gain for Apple.

--mAc

 

[m0dern]

Google should buy Palm and counter sue.
http://gizmodo.com/5491521/why-google-should-buy-palm?skyline=true&s=i

 

[mags631]

Google should buy Palm and counter sue.
http://gizmodo.com/5491521/why-google-should-buy-palm?skyline=true&s=i

If Palm has patents which can be used against Apple, then why isn't Palm using them now?

 

[RazHyena]

It doesn't mean they're sitting still, it just means that they don't necessarily feel the need to incorporate the latest chip in the month that it is released.



--mAc

Right..

Latest chip in the month that it is released? We're talking about chips that are behind by YEARS, not months.

You obviously haven't been a Mac user for very long.

Cool story bro, but speak for yourself.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Right..

Latest chip in the month that it is released? We're talking about chips that are behind by YEARS, not months.



Cool story bro, but speak for yourself.

Actually he has a point.

 

[mags631]

Barely. I mean they will sell them, as long as it doesn't interfere with the sales of their iToys (you know iPhones and iPads). Check the MBP "Waiting for Arrandale update" threads lately?

Last quarter they sold more Macs than they have ever sold before. But, don't let the facts stop you from making your argument.

 

[Cuju]

Google should buy Palm and counter sue.
http://gizmodo.com/5491521/why-google-should-buy-palm?skyline=true&s=i

Giz has been going downhill lately, I wouldn't take their advice. What proof does Giz have that Palm has patent infringements lined up agaisnt Apple. The answer is none .

/ Is 800 million (Giz's estimate of Palm's value?!) really worth using against Apple, what if Apple never sues?

Cheers,

Cuju

 

[err404]

Apple are starting something that will be bad for innovation, imagine if Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung and all these companies would behave like this back in the days.

I don't have to imagine since they already behave the same way. You may recall that Nokia recently sued Apple for patten infringement.
The only thing stopping the established cell phone players from suing each other on a regular basis are cross licensing agreements. Basically if Nokia were to sue Sony, Sony would just counter sue and then they both lose. These days, unless you have a big enough patten portfolio, you can't compete in the cell phone market.
Frankly this salvo from Apple could be little more then posturing.
Put it this way. If Apple wins, I will bet Nokia will drop their case in fear of Apple doing the same to them. Nokia would just cross license and call it a day.

What Apple is doing, is simple the way the game is played.

 

[pdjudd]

Giz has been going downhill lately, I wouldn't take their advice. What proof does Giz have that Palm has patent infringements lined up agaisnt Apple. The answer is none .

/ Is 800 million (Giz's estimate of Palm's value?!) really worth using against Apple, what if Apple never sues?

Cheers,

Cuju

Right. What proof is there that Apple is going to sue Google? Not much. Google has huge means to go after Apple if they really want to, but their Android OS is a free system. Apple has no reason to go after Google directly. It isn’t as if any lawsuit would kill Android - it would just re-spawn in another form. Plus I don’t see Palm as a company that Google would want to acquire other than to kill it as a competitor. Palm is more compatible with Apple - closed OS and phone hardware. Maybe Google could get some patents, but patents don’t last forever and we don’t know what if anything they could sue for.

Lets look at things this way - if Palm had any patents that they could go after Apple for, why did they never do it on their own when the iPhone first came out? It’s not as if Palm is exactly helpless nor were they back then.

There is alot of drama in all this.

 

[m0dern]

Giz has been going downhill lately, I wouldn't take their advice. What proof does Giz have that Palm has patent infringements lined up agaisnt Apple. The answer is none .

/ Is 800 million (Giz's estimate of Palm's value?!) really worth using against Apple, what if Apple never sues?

Cheers,

Cuju

Here's an old article on Engadget showing a few of Palm's and Apple's patent portfolio.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/

Also, I read somewhere that Palm have a patent on the ringer switch that ALL iphones uses.

 

[Cuju]

Here's an old article on Engadget showing a few of Palm's and Apple's patent portfolio.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/

Also, I read somewhere that Palm have a patent on the ringer switch that ALL iphones uses.

I skimmed through it, and what I got is that: Apple and Palm both patented some sort of capacitive touch screen? Correct me if I'm wrong since I went through it quick!

This patent could potentially be used against Apple except every smartphone has a capacitive touch screen now. I doubt it would hold up in court, that's like saying I patented the idea of OS on a computer, Apple and MS you owe me money lol!!!!

 

[mags631]

Right. What proof is there that Apple is going to sue Google? Not much. Google has huge means to go after Apple if they really want to, but their Android OS is a free system. Apple has no reason to go after Google directly. It isn’t as if any lawsuit would kill Android - it would just re-spawn in another form. Plus I don’t see Palm as a company that Google would want to acquire other than to kill it as a competitor. Palm is more compatible with Apple - closed OS and phone hardware. Maybe Google could get some patents, but patents don’t last forever and we don’t know what if anything they could sue for.

Lets look at things this way - if Palm had any patents that they could go after Apple for, why did they never do it on their own when the iPhone first came out? It’s not as if Palm is exactly helpless nor were they back then.

There is alot of drama in all this.

What are basing your point about Google having the means to go after Apple? I think I saw a recent article showing that Google has few patents covering the mobile space vis-a-vis Apple.

And, Google obviously believes that patents are valuable, because they hold them.

I agree with your points about Palm.

 

[mAc-warrior]

Right.. Latest chip in the month that it is released? We're talking about chips that are behind by YEARS, not months.

Vote with your wallet then instead of complaining. Buy an HP Envy or something like that. Obviously Apple is selling a huge amount of Macs right now so they're probably doing something right. Either that or most people don't care if they have a Core2 or Core i7 or Core whatever, as long as the computer does the basic tasks that they need to do.

The chips Apple is currently using in their portables are still newer and much faster than the PC specials I see advertised at the Big Boxes. Half of them are still using T6600 processors, and that is what the majority of people buy.

And, anyone who has purchased Apple products for more than a few years knows not to wait on a purchase because of rumors. Remember the Powerbook G5 days? Didn't think so.

--mAc

 

[mags631]

I skimmed through it, and what I got is that: Apple and Palm both patented some sort of capacitive touch screen? Correct me if I'm wrong since I went through it quick!

This patent could potentially be used against Apple except every smartphone has a capacitive touch screen now. I doubt it would hold up in court, that's like saying I patented the idea of OS on a computer, Apple and MS you owe me money lol!!!!

Most of us are ill-equipped to predict a decision on patents. Even the most capable lawyers can't guarantee an outcome. Patents (in the US) are not just about ideas, but about implementations of ideas. It's not enough to identify a really cool concept -- you have to document it how it would work.

If a technology innovation covered by patent was truly obvious, then why wasn't it put in immediate use once technology advancements enabled it? Because someone had to invent a way of employing those technology advancements in a novel way...

I don't believe the current system is without flaws -- I just don't buy a lot of the social rhetoric around the patent system.

 

[pdjudd]

What are basing your point about Google having the means to go after Apple?

Sorry, I meant to say they have the financial means. They have billions of dollars.

 

[LagunaSol]

If Palm has patents which can be used against Apple, then why isn't Palm using them now?

Patents are like nukes - a weapon of deterrence. You hold patents to counter the other guy's patents. Palm sues Apple, Apple sues Palm, Palm dies (Palm isn't doing so well these days if you haven't heard).

HTC, well, apparently HTC has nothing to wield in this particular war. Which makes their encroachment a very poor idea.

As for Google buying Palm's patent portfolio and suing Apple, well, isn't Google's business really about search and controlling the world's information? Seems to me you wouldn't want to spit in the face of the guy making the marketplace's most-beloved devices that fuel your business.

 

[bks691]

Apple's "sue-happy" nature as of late leads me to believe their Well of Innovation is running dry.

Patent lawsuits over touch gestures? Oversized iPod Touch? Someone's running out of ideas...



What happened to Apple's computers? Do they still make those?

Right, and that's why htc is a patent stealing non innovative company. I would be pissed too if I was Apple. Why can't htc innovate or produce their own ideas? Because it's easier and cheaper to steal and copy! Apple has carefully thought this lawsuit out, and then carefully waited until htc went too far and Apple will prevail. This will change history forever!

"HTC Quietly Copying"

 

[mags631]

Patents are like nukes - a weapon of deterrence. You hold patents to counter the other guy's patents. Palm sues Apple, Apple sues Palm, Palm dies (Palm isn't doing so well these days if you haven't heard).

That is true on some level. But I don't think the only reason to have a patent is because of deterrence. Palm has enough cash to outlast a lawsuit -- it's really a question about the likely outcome.

As for Google buying Palm's patent portfolio and suing Apple, well, isn't Google's business really about search and controlling the world's information? Seems to me you wouldn't want to spit in the face of the guy making the marketplace's most-beloved devices that fuel your business.

I'm not a user of Android -- but answer me this: what about it is about search?

 

[pdjudd]

Patents are like nukes - a weapon of deterrence. You hold patents to counter the other guy's patents. Palm sues Apple, Apple sues Palm, Palm dies (Palm isn't doing so well these days if you haven't heard).

What about as early as back in 2007 - Palm couldn't have been that bad off? None the less from Palms perspective at least, they would have little to loose. They are already big risk takers. The worst that could happen is they go out of business, but that's not so bad if you are already heading that way.