ITC Rules For Apple in HTC Patent Case

[*LTD*]

Seriously, get off the 'Fanboy bandwagon'.

Why? i kinda like being right.

When reality happens to suck, and some of us point that out (and have pointed it out well in advance), we're not fan-anythings.

Just prescient. In fact, it shouldn't have taken too many brain cells to see this coming. Everyone knew the precarious position Google was in. It was just a matter of time.

Eric Schmidt was almost in a state of abject panic in his most recent patent-related interview. Why do you think that is?? MS, for example, is already on the road to pulling money from Google. Like I said, one is forced to wonder what in Android is actually Google's.

The hilarious part in all this is that both Google and their partners are at risk. One necessarily follows the other.

 

[unlinked]

This is not accurate. IP exists to benefit the user. The idea is that it provides an incentive to innovate, which benefits the user. When IP starts suppressing innovation, then it is defeating its own purpose.

WP7, WebOS, even Blackberry's new OS are good attempts at innovation. The original Android was anything but. It was simply a ripoff of many different technologies.

Can someone explain what the 2 patents are on? I tried to read the first one but patents melt my mind. It seems to be about automatically hyperlinking emails and URLs but there must be more to it than that.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Seriously, get off the 'Fanboy bandwagon'. I have stated before that I do like some of your posts, but your ridiculous insight to the Godlike Apple and ****-like other companies is very disgusting to read.

Apple may well being doing good; but they are not the only one innovating or doing good. Get a thought please; this time around a decent one.

Just do what some of the rest of us do. If the argument is from LTD consider it the fanboy argument and therefor invalided.

 

[addicted44]

There are lots of patent "trolls". There are painfully few patent rights licensing "trolls".

Rocketman

Exploit the world, don't improve it!

Apple, by definition and actions, is not a patent "troll", if that is what you are implying.

Patent "trolls" are those who don't create any technology themselves, don't use their patents, but rather just use them to sue others. Apple develops its own technology, and uses it in all their products.

And if you are saying Apple doesn't improve the world, well, then, all I can do is laugh... The Apple II, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad (and much much more).

Yeah, no improvements...

 

[SiPat]

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/1...r-exiting-as-htc-and-samsung-disputes-simmer/

The comments by HTC now make more sense, as they probably received prelim reports of the likely judgement.

 

[dethmaShine]

Just do what some of the rest of us do. If the argument is from LTD consider it the fanboy argument and therefor invalided.

I better ignore your comments than adding him to my ignore list.

Don't mind, its just a personal opinion.

 

[*LTD*]

Just do what some of the rest of us do. If the argument is from LTD consider it the fanboy argument and therefor invalided.

So what happens when I'm right? Fanboy or not, reality is what it is. It doesn't matter who is pointing it out. If it doesn't happen to sit well with you, there's really not a whole lot you can do about it. Except resort to the immaturity of an Ignore list. Congratulations. You can't hang with the debate so you cover your eyes and ears.

But funnily enough, you've put me on, removed me, and put me on your Ignore list, only to remove me how many times now? If you're going to ignore me, then MAN UP and stick with it. Announcing to everyone here you'll be ignoring me is lame enough, but then addressing me and putting me back on and off is just sad.

This is getting ridiculous. No, wait, it already is. I'm all for everyone patenting their inventions but eventually some of these shouldn't be patentable or in the long run we will only see Apple having the best of the best.


Fair to Apple to have a big slice of the smartphone cake since they were the ones who sparked the smartphone market in the first place. But if Apple becomes the sole competitor in a race the rest will fall behind just because of things like patents. What I'm trying to say is that I would like to see what the competitors could come up with if they weren't restricted by patents.

That's a fair point. But it seems, coincidentally or not, that all they can really come up with are subtle (sometimes too close for their own comfort) variations on Apple's model. Unfortunately, perhaps this is all that's really possible for the time-being. Apple scored big, very big, with the original iPhone. It became the blueprint for all that followed. One can reasonably expect them to watch everyone else like a hawk.

However . . . I'm not calling for the competition being barred here, I *am* calling for more rulings in favour of IP, and I'm perfectly happy with license agreements. However, the latter is really up to the party holding those licenses. We'll find out just how critical they are to the market at large. This last point is significant.

 

[slrandall]

This is not accurate. IP exists to benefit the user. The idea is that it provides an incentive to innovate, which benefits the user. When IP starts suppressing innovation, then it is defeating its own purpose.

WP7, WebOS, even Blackberry's new OS are good attempts at innovation. The original Android was anything but. It was simply a ripoff of many different technologies.

Intellectual property exists to protect the people who created a product from competitive infringement. The user plays no part in this. It incentivizes innovation by guaranteeing that if you invent a great product that makes a lot of money, no one else can steal it.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Why? i kinda like being right.

But you're not. Just because you are a fan of a company that makes a lot of money does not in any way reflect on you. In fact many of your posts that talk about things like "paradigms" are so myopic that it's impossible to discuss anything. If you think you are "right" about anything, why don't you get out there and make a product like some of us? If you know how it's done, go build a fortune. You criticize everyone BUT Apple so much, but something tells me these companies are far more successful at making great products than yourself. The reasons why I can assume that should be clear.

I have as many Apple products as anyone, but I don't blindly think they are the only ones doing good work. Microsoft does incredible work, for example. Windows 8 could potentially be a huge threat to Apple's products, and I know several people just don't understand why. 2012 will be an amazing year.

 

[winston1236]

can anyone here explain what exactly those patents were for? i read it but dont really understand what the function was

 

[alent1234]

This is not accurate. IP exists to benefit the user. The idea is that it provides an incentive to innovate, which benefits the user. When IP starts suppressing innovation, then it is defeating its own purpose.

WP7, WebOS, even Blackberry's new OS are good attempts at innovation. The original Android was anything but. It was simply a ripoff of many different technologies.

Except the pinch and zoom on my htc android phone works exactly like it did on my old 3GS and like it does on my iPad. Behind that is an algorithm that apple engineered and patented. Htc and google should put some money in r and d and make their own algorithm that is better than apple.

 

[yg17]

can anyone here explain what exactly those patents were for? i read it but dont really understand what the function was

No one does, which is why software patents are so stupid. I don't believe for a second the judge who ruled on this case had a clear understanding of what those patents mean. I'm a software developer myself and those patents don't make any sense, they're so cryptic and vague. Someone who spent his entire life in the legal profession and not a computer science profession can't possibly have a full understanding of them.

 

[*LTD*]

But you're not. Just because you are a fan of a company that makes a lot of money

That's only part of the story. Where's the rest of the sentence? You know, the part about them actually giving a damn about what they put their name to, the part about creating entire markets almost overnight, the part about their entire philosophy when it comes to PEOPLE and tech.

All that has to be earned. And I make no apologies for being a fan of it.

I'm an even bigger fan, however, of REALITY, and of trends that are the starting point for lasting changes to it. You side with this, and you'll very rarely be wrong, and in fact, you'll be doing yourself and everyone else a favour by being genuine to what *is* and what *will be.* That is the best and most reasonable contribution anyone can make.

No one does, which is why software patents are so stupid.

Tell that to those who rely on their integrity to make a living. They aren't all big companies.

Microsoft does incredible work, for example.

Ok, cut out the jokes and be serious.

 

[Justinf79]

- U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 on a "system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data."

- U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263 on a "data transmission system having a real-time data engine for processing isochronous streams of data includes an interface device that provides a physical and logical connection of a computer to any one or more of a variety of different types of data networks."

Wow, these sound vague and extremely confusing.

 

[unlinked]

can anyone here explain what exactly those patents were for? i read it but dont really understand what the function was

The first one seems to be for detecting URLs and emails in text and presenting links to perform actions on the data detected. Is that really the secret sauce behind the iPhone?

 

[BC2009]

can anyone here explain what exactly those patents were for? i read it but dont really understand what the function was

I will try below....

No one does, which is why software patents are so stupid. I don't believe for a second the judge who ruled on this case had a clear understanding of what those patents mean. I'm a software developer myself and those patents don't make any sense, they're so cryptic and vague. Someone who spent his entire life in the legal profession and not a computer science profession can't possibly have a full understanding of them.

That first patent is one I did not know Apple had, but it does make sense, but you have to look at how they define the terms used in the claims within the body of the patent. Here is my take on it:

It basically says they have patented scanning data for elements that match specific patterns and then turning those parts into links to activate some sort of handler.

For example, Apple scans text and finds phone numbers and makes them tappable so you can call them.

OR, they scan and find a URL and make it into a link to launch Safari.

OR, if they recognize an email address, you can tap it and start an email.

OR, if they recognize a date or phrase like "next friday" they can add an event to your calendar.

etc....

The alternative to this is to require the document being scanned to specifically have markup identifying parts of data that represents a phone number, email address, dates, or web links rather than inferring it from the data matching a pattern.

Certainly Apple's method is not perfect since I have clicked on tracking numbers thinking that UPS made it a link and I get prompted to call the tracking number, but I had no idea they patented that.

I have not yet done a read on the second patent to see what the practical applications of it are.

 

[yg17]

The first one seems to be for detecting URLs and emails in text and presenting links to perform actions on the data detected. Is that really the secret sauce behind the iPhone?

http://www.google.com


Oh look, vBulletin turned that into a link. Apple better sue!

 

[unlinked]

No one does, which is why software patents are so stupid. I don't believe for a second the judge who ruled on this case had a clear understanding of what those patents mean. I'm a software developer myself and those patents don't make any sense, they're so cryptic and vague. Someone who spent his entire life in the legal profession and not a computer science profession can't possibly have a full understanding of them.

I tend to think anything reducible to one line of Perl should not be patentable.

 

[mtbgtr]

If ya got tons o money and can make it to Texas you can patent just about anything, then sue anyone who comes even close to your thoughts without even having a working prototype. Its the American way!!

 

[JGowan]

I am in favor of the filings and rulings, but the whole principal of patent law is not to prevent folks from using intellectual property, but paying for it.

Really? I found this over on wikipedia under "Patent", written by far smarter people than I...

The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.[1] It is just a right to prevent others' use​

Apple warned people to not rip off their IP. They didn't patent their stuff so that people could (a) Use it anyway (b) cause Apple to have to sue (c) then just pay a patent fee. First off, HTC should owe Apple some serious coin for ripping off the the IP. Secondly, why should be generous? The others were warned.

Apple did not create their technologies to share or to make money on the patents. They have plenty of money. They did it to give their products an advantage.

 

[*LTD*]

http://www.google.com


Oh look, vBulletin turned that into a link. Apple better sue!

Just take the sour grapes back to the store and exchange them.

Really? I found this over on wikipedia under "Patent", written by far smarter people than I...

The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.[1] It is just a right to prevent others' use​

Apple warned people to not rip off their IP. They didn't patent their stuff so that people could (a) Use it anyway (b) cause Apple to have to sue (c) then just pay a patent fee. First off, HTC should owe Apple some serious coin for ripping off the the IP. Secondly, why should be generous? The others were warned.

Apple did not create their technologies to share or to make money on the patents. They have plenty of money. They did it to give their products an advantage.

I suppose we'll get people here who will now argue against the entire concept of patents. I wish them luck.

 

[Lochias]

Saying don't make it so

I am in favor of the filings and rulings, but the whole principal of patent law is not to prevent folks from using intellectual property, but paying for it. The outcome here will not be exclusion of products or of usage rights, but compensation for same.

Apple values exclusivity over money so despite fully winning they lost.

Rocketman

Insight over noise. Want exclusivity of IP? Never, ever disclose it.

The "principal of patent law" is precisely the "exclusion of products or of usage rights," unless and until the patent holder agrees otherwise.
A patent is the grant of a limited-term exclusive right. There is nothing about payment.
The owner can make whatever business decision he finds prudent, e.g.,
- sharing
- laughing in any wannabe's face.

 

[Piggie]

Thank god Apple never invented the motor car

Thank god Apple never invented the motor cycle

Thank god Apple never invented the Television

Thank god Apple never invented the Flat screen computer monitor.


Seriously, Even people who like Apple, must realise, all this does at the end of the day is to hurt the consumers.

Some things should be so basic and fundamental to a world wide technology that no-one should be able to claim it for themselves.

 

[yg17]

I tend to think anything reducible to one line of Perl should not be patentable.

Yeah, they basically patented a regular expression that's probably the first assignment in many Computer Science 101 classes.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

There are lots of patent "trolls". There are painfully few patent rights licensing "trolls".

Rocketman

Exploit the world, don't improve it!

It's called competition on a level playing field. HTC has equal rights to patent their IP and defend it against Apple or any other competitor.

Either one can invest into R&D and actually hire professionals to do the research or risk legal action for IP theft.

It appears this generation thinks now, more than ever, that IP theft is virtuous and investing in the education of a growing technical staff is not an action of virtue.