The United States International Trade Commission just ruled in favor of Apple in its case against HTC and banned the importation and sale of HTC Android devices including the Sprint Evo 4G, Verizon Droid Incredible, AT&T Aria, and T-Mobile G2. After a lengthy review, the Commission found that HTC devices infringe two claims of patent #5,946,647 — ultimately implicating the heart of Android itself and not HTC's specific implementation. The patent issued in 1999 and, in general terms, covers a device that scans computer text for data, like a phone number, and turns that number into a link that the user can then select to perform an act, like calling the number. The requirements and language of the patent claims are obviously more complicated, but that's a decent overview of what's covered. The ITC decision now goes to the desk of the president, who has 60 days to issue a rarely-used veto; the ban itself will go into effect on April 19, 2012 to provide HTC with a transition period, and HTC will be allowed to import refurbished products for warranty replacement purposes until December 19, 2013.
It's important to note that the ITC issued an exclusion order and not a cease and desist; HTC's current products already on US shelves will be unaffected. However, exclusion orders are generally broadly worded and aren't limited to any specific products — so we would expect Apple to use this ruling to go after all HTC phones running Android, from Android version 1.5 all the way up to and including version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich).
It's a significant victory for Apple, especially since it can presumably now attack every other Android manufacturer with the same patent and its first favorable substantive ruling on the merits, but the ban may not ultimately have any real effect on consumers if HTC and Google can develop a patch that works around Apple's two specific claims. And indeed, that's what HTC is promising to do — here's the official statement we just received:
We are gratified that the commission affirmed the judge's determination on the ‘721 and ‘983 patents, and reversed its decision on the ‘263 patent and partially on the ‘647 patent. While disappointed that a finding of violation was still found on two claims of the ‘647 patent, we are well prepared for this decision, and our designers have created alternate solutions for the ‘647 patent.
Update: HTC just revised its statement on the case, saying that Apple's patent covers only a "small UI experience" and saying it will be completely removed from HTC phones "soon." We'll see how quickly that happens; any changes would have to first be deemed compatible with Android by Google and then approved and pushed to customers by HTC's carrier partners.
We are gratified that the Commission affirmed the judge's initial determination on the ‘721 and ‘983 patents, and reversed its decision on the ‘263 patent and partially on the ‘647 patent. We are very pleased with the determination and we respect it. However, the ‘647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.
For its part, Apple is just repeating its previous statements on the case:
We think competition is healthy but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.
We've asked for clarification on whether Apple will pursue further action against Android 2.3 and up; we'll let you know if we hear anything.

There are 863 Comments. Add yours.
Justice. Good news.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:07 PM EST reply Recommend (59) Flag actions
You think that’s justice?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:08 PM EST reply Recommend (80) Flag actions
I do. Innovate. Don’t copy. Don’t steal. It’s tacky and low class.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:09 PM EST reply Recommend (51) Flag actions
Apple copied and Apple stole, everyone does it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:09 PM EST reply Recommend (102) Flag actions
Then they should be sued, right?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
No. Companies should get over themselves and software patents should be reformed.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:32 PM EST reply Recommend (67) Flag actions
I disagree, patents should be enforced. Agreed the system is a tad archaic but this system SHOULD be enforced until something better comes along. Laws are laws.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
“Laws are laws”
Unjust and unfair laws should be opposed. Following the law blindly is idiotic. Real life is rarely black/white and simple.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend (41) Flag actions
They should, but right here and right now these are the rules of the game. I agree the rules should be changed, but until they are – Apple is entitled to play by them.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:40 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
“but right here and right now these are the rules of the game.”
Ever wonder why the economy is in the toilet in the US? Because a bunch of people decided to take advantage of loopholes and “just play by the rules of the game”, thus causing massive failures in banks, housing, etc.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
Well putting aside my political views (ie the people that put those loopholes in place in the first place)
You are wrong. These people were criminals and many of them were jailed. On top of that the US economy is not in the toilet, far from it. But the main reason its in trouble now is because congress won’t ratify anything for the greater good and are hoping to delay everything until re-election time when they can promise to fix it if you elect them.
Laws did not allow the banking crisis to happen, the regulator not enforcing laws and people abusing and breaking laws caused the banking crisis.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:48 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
“These people were criminals and many of them were jailed.”
But they were just playing by the rules at the time. Aren’t they entitled to that? Lol. See, this is where I’m going.
“On top of that the US economy is not in the toilet, far from it.”
Take a look at those unemployment rates and come back to me. Then take a look at the DOW for the past 5 years. See that huge dip? Remember the Great Recession? That’s what I’m talking about.
“Laws did not allow the banking crisis to happen, the regulator not enforcing laws and people abusing and breaking laws caused the banking crisis.”
No, regulation laws themselves were taken away. The LAWS were taken away that allowed regulatory power. Those laws needed to be modified again to make sure that banks could (at least for now) never do what they did again.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
They werent playing by the rules at the time or they wouldn’t have been jailed. You can’t jail someone for a law you made up after the crime was committed
The american unemployment rate is 8.6%, thats not in the toilet. The great depression was 37% unemployment. I live in Ireland (but am american) and the unemployment rate here is 15% and Ireland isn’t in the toilet. A recession is a temporary down turn not a permanent one and the US is recovering (a lot slower then it should be because of an idiotic congress but its getting there). So I don’t need to get back to you, I know all this, and I’m telling you right here you are drinking opposition kool-aid here. America is doing just fine (like I said would be better if congress would actually vote something through but there ya go)
The government now has greater regulation over the banks now then before this happened….what am I missing? :S I don’t understand your point.
.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
This is getting increasingly irrelevant to the argument at hand. The point is that software patents are broken, the patent office isn’t following their own procedure, and people are exploiting loopholes.
This will cause a standstill in competition and innovation.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Yes, so the point is the system is broken. Therefore it should be fixed. BUT that does not mean throw away the old system and have nothing until something new is found. It means enforce the current system to the latter until something new is found.
I agree there are loopholes and it is not being enforced to the latter right now which is why I am saying they should start enforcing it properly which is why I don’t have a problem with this decision.
If the system is broken (and it is) the answer is to come up with a new one rather then failing to enforce the current one. Laws must be fair and the only way to do that is to enforce them as written.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:09 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
" BUT that does not mean throw away the old system and have nothing until something new is found."
When did I say this? I’m saying that someone should use this case to reform patent laws. They need reformation.
“which is why I don’t have a problem with this decision.”
You should have a problem with this ruling. They’re enforcing one part of the law to the letter while neglecting the latter. It would be like someone getting wrongfully convicted due to negligence of following the letter of the law, and then when they appeal, the judge decides to follow the letter of the law and deny it.
“Laws must be fair and the only way to do that is to enforce them as written.”
Wait, what? Are laws inherently fair?
“If the system is broken (and it is) the answer is to come up with a new one rather then failing to enforce the current one.”
A better solution would be to MODIFY the existing system. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
by fair he means applicable to all equally, not to some sometimes
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
My point is that it’s being applied incorrectly. The prosecution of patents isn’t broken. The admission and validity of them are.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
i totally agree, its all fucked up
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Woah.. how deep do these threaded comments go?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
My post would be the 20th layer.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
deeper than an old pornstar.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:58 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Great similar discussion with Nilay and Leo on it in the latest TwiT. There’s a perfect solution out there, but nobody has it. So we deal with what solution we have at the moment until we find a better one.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Yes! This is what I am trying to say =P
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeouch. It seems like a minor syntactical issue has caused this hullabaloo.
Basically, the problem lies in what can actually be patented. This is idiotic in its current form, as most people can see.
However, instead of fighting it, HTC has capitulated. Which sucks, because it’ll hurt someone else down the line. It also makes sense, as they most likely are also abusing the hell out of the patent system.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:51 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I think patents are too broad and they last too long for the current industry.
However thats not easily fixed. How do you argue that slide to unlock should not be patented, are you influenced by the current industry copying it already?
I’m of course not saying that slide to unlock should be patented but it is hard to make these calls in such a fast paced industry.
But yes it sucks, and I hope someone smarter than me figures it out.
However until then I still support them upholding the law, for no other reason then it was, and is, the law. And laws should always be upheld totally until somebody tells them to stop with a new law.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
We’re only beginning to even pay attention to patent issues when it comes to the phone market.
Look at the landscape of patent change when it came to the computer industry. That grew quickly over a couple decades, with even the largest disputes taking ~5 to 10 years.
Enter the smartphone/mobile boom, which arguably started with the release of iPhone in ’07 "And boy, we’ve patented it!". It’s grown much faster compared to the computer industry, it’s been heavy with innovation, and companies have thrown themselves into rapid development for this larger market.
Of course, the patents are being dealt with the same way they’ve always been, because that’s how the system worked in the past, and it’s how they worked (relatively alright) during the computer era.
But, all of a sudden, people are taking notice of patent disputes, not entirely because they’re controversial and overly generic (as they were in the PC boom era), but also because people (smartphone users) are more personally involved with their mobile devices (vs. a PC).
So this involvement translates to high profile cases, on a much larger scale than even the biggest MS patent wars from back in the day, and people are screaming for (rightly) patent reform. All within a short span of 3 to 4 years.
It would be a miracle if they could actually do that, but the reality is: it’ll take probably around a decade to even come up with a barebones solution to the problem.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What part of the law are they neglecting?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Specifically, the part saying that algorithms cannot be patented. That is an excellent idea. It’s still enforced. Problem is, one CAN patent an algorithm (and a vague one at that) by simply saying “method and apparatus”.
I couldn’t patent the idea of sorting numbers on a piece of paper. The second I perform that operation on a computer, it’s fair game. Isn’t that nuts?
Here’s something else that’s crazy: Doubly Linked Lists are patented. That’s right! Linked lists are A-ok. You can do them backwards, forwards, but if you do both, you’re screwed! The mere idea of creating two pointers, one of which points forewards and the other that points backwards, is patented.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I am not as familiar with the law as I would like to be when answering this but I would feel thats probably a problem with the way the law is written rather than them not enforcing it.
I think if it wasn’t being enforced they would allow people to patent algorithms directly. There’s obviously a loophole there that nobody has plugged and they should plug but thats not an enforcement problem if ya get me.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I get you. Perhaps I made a syntax error. However, you see my point. It’s a loophole that’s being exploited. It’s not right to exploit it. And yet some are claiming it is.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well I would argue that it is legal so in that sense it is right but is it right for congress not to act to plug it?
Well…..don’t get me started on congress at the moment, thats a whole different debate.
Just saying I think the responsibility here lies with the law makers not the law enforcers and they are quite different.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The law doesn’t say what you think it says – as I linked elsewhere.
Double linked lists though? :Eyeroll:
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I know. I was just as shocked as you. Seriously, wtf??
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hmm, you mean http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7028023/fulltext.html ?
I think technically that’s a bit different from a DLList, because going forwards then backwards doesn’t necessarily return you to the same place. But it’s still a bloody silly patent.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100303/1846198404.shtml
Yes. Completely absurd.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
this thread is great, it’s like two inches wide and still going, also the kitten avatar just makes everything better :D
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Mr. Mike, sir, I’ve been reading your posts on random, inconsistent occasions for a while now. And this goes back to the Engadget golden age. I must say, I really respect your individualist, skeptical perspective on various matters. You’ve approached politics, hardware, and the Android culture with both fairness and critical thought. I hope this message lets you know that your lengthy typing efforts are appreciated.
The Web is an amazing medium. Cheers.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
dudeyouarejustsosmart.justwakesmeup.greatcriticalthinkingwow
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“These people were criminals and many of them were jailed.”
Um…please give me a list of the MANY people jailed from the financial meltdown led by mortgage backed bonds. THe truth is they weren’t criminals, they were playing by the law, they were just immoral. If you are a lawyer, you are a bad one.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Not a lawyer, just have an interest, but am flattered that you would think I was one.
Many is an exaggeration but people were jailed. They were breaking the law in many cases and the regulator was not enforcing the law. It is difficult to jail a corporation, especially when it is a cornerstone of an economy. These guys are and were intelligent. They knew how to cover their asses but that doesn’t mean they weren’t breaking the law.
At any rate even if they were completely law abiding that is reason to review the law not to stop enforcing it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, most were convicted of knowingly performing immoral actions. The actions themselves were legal (ie selling sub-prime mortages was technically ok since they didn’t know they were sub-prime), but the plausible deniability was busted open, meaning that they did in fact know that they were abusing the system.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Hey I am an optimist but unfortunately the US economy really is in the toilet. Not a little bit. All the way.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/50-economic-numbers-about-us-are-almost-too-crazy-believe
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
’ These people were criminals and many of them were jailed’.
Go watch the Inside Job. Its on BluRay. Its an eye opener.
And then tell him you’re wrong.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 6:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Look! So many Stars – Happy Holidays everyone!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:39 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Which is why you can appeal decisions, and we have a system to revise unfair and unjust laws. This law is not injust, its just archaic. The industry develops too quickly for these broad type patents. Thats not something that is easily addressed but until something better comes along this needs to be enforced.
Its like the occupy protestors. They shout and shout but if they want change why not get into politics? In order for the patent system to be reformed this one has to keep doing its job until a viable alternative comes along.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:40 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Or, how about this: this case is used as justification to MODIFY existing patent laws.
That’s how the law works. Cases are used to change existing laws. They cannot be modified any other way.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, but the current process needs to stay and be enforced to the latter until something can replace it. Otherwise laws are meaningless.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
dont argue with him, his beliefs bend to the will of google
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:49 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Thanks for that ad-hominem. Want to just step out of the way and let the adults discuss?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
want to ever admit google or anyone related to android ever did anything wrong?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:52 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
If you don’t feel like actually bringing up points relevant to the discussion, I won’t be continuing it with you.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:53 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
fine, software patents exist, follow the law and lobby congress to change the law…until then dont break the law…its incredibly simple
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:54 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Follow the law: no patents on algorithms. It already exists. The patent office just doesn’t follow it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This precisely. Although there are more than one equations that equal the number 10. Figuring them out does not mean you own them.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:58 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
it does if the law says it does…thats how it works
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Then wouldnt you agree that the law needs immediate change?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
of course…but you dont change laws by blatantly ignoring them
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thats exactly what you do.
When you dont have the money to lobby. You need ways to get people to see, review, and change these laws. Otherwise the community as a whole will suffer under an unjust system that only benefits rich congressmen and whoever has enough cash to give to them.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:05 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
ROFL. The law says it DOESN’T.
This is why you can’t patent the idea of rotating a cube in real life. When you’re talking about data on a computer system, evidently it’s ok. (Hint: it’s not, but loopholes are allowing people to do so)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
exactly mike….so lobby to close loopholes and then do w/e you want after
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Lol. Lobby? Me? I don’t have millions of dollars. Apple has tons of money in the bank to lobby that loopholes should NOT be closed.
Lobbying money != justice.
Might != right.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
then make products within the current environment until you have enough money to have might….everything that will ever be invented has not been invented yet
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What???? Are you advocating that money does in fact equal right?
Got it. Just making a future note so as to not waste time arguing with you.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
nope im saying that if you cant change the law legally…..dont change it….this is not a human rights argument its phones…keep perspective
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Perspective? Law is unjust, law is exploitable, law should be changed. Simple as that.
Any way, how would one illegally change a law? That doesn’t even make sense.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
by lobbying lawmakers, staging protests, having petitions signed, hunger strikes….not by profiting from breaking laws
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The law expressly forbids mathematics and algorithms.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
It forbids abstract mathematics, not maths along with a practical application.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
1+1=2 has all sorts of practical applications. Maybe I should patent them all.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the law itself. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t say what you thought it said.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
if ur argument is loop holes….then lobby congress to close loop holes… until then dont break the law…loop holes are legal
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Then lobby congress to close loop holes”
How is this even possible without millions of dollars?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
if you cant afford to do something without breaking the law or changing it…dont do it
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You can’t affrost changing the law – that pretty much sums up teh “democracy” in US. No wonder money is speech and corporations are people.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The law means more than just words in statute, it includes opinions of higher courts, particularly the supreme court – which opened this particular pandora’s box back in the 80s.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“The law means more than just words in statute”
Not according to some on here. Most are arguing that the letter of the laws needs to be enforced without actually knowing what the letter of the laws are.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
With respect, you missed his point. He was talking abou binding precedent of the higher courts, which has equal status in common law jurisdictions with statute. Much of modern IP law comes from such precedent.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:05 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I think he is making relevant points. Just because I disagree with some his points do not make them relevant. If we went through life just MGing around we would never get anywhere.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
just saying mike has an agenda… and always has
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well I feel his points here are relevant anyways so I’ll make my own judgement but thanks for the tip :).
I like to give everyone a chance of a good debate and if they had an agenda previously I will continue to give them a chance again and again. I will judge the comment by its content not by the person who wrote it. Thats just my way of approaching this though, not saying its the right way.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:06 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
not saying its wrong, just saying when i hear the words fandroid the first thing i see in my minds eye is mike and bunch of binary lol
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Thanks for the continuing bad-mouthing and name-calling. Mind actually bringing compelling arguments to the table instead of the ad-hominem character attack?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
i have been, u take offense to being called a fandroid really? lol, u are their king, i figured u were proud of it, if anything if i had the power id hire you as an android evangelist,
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I own my fair share of Android, Windows, and iOS products. However, they do not affect my sense of right or wrong, not the flawed logic of this ruling or the patent system.
Many others well schooled in patent laws say the same thing.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
fair enough
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Lads, take it easy =P
We are all friends here right? :)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Enforced? Selectively. How about the “no algorithms” part of patent law? That should be enforced properly.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Everything should be enforced to the latter thats the point. Otherwise what is the point in law?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The point of law is not to be the be-all, end-all. Judges are allowed leeway in the law, rulings can be made counter to the law, exceptions can be made, modifications to existing rules can be made.
The world isn’t black/white. It can be changed, modified, etc. That’s what law is about. Deciding when it is right to change and when it is right to enforce.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
To a degree. Laws are interrupted and in certain situations can be interrupted differently buuuuuut for most cases its fairly black and white which is why the legal system works.
A judge can’t rule in Apples favour because he likes Apple for example. Laws are written in a way that tries to accommodate the most possible scenarios while having a sense of rigidity.
This went through a lengthy review and they found that in the interuptation of this patent HTC infringed it. They may not agree the patent should have been granted in the first place but it is there so they must enforce it.
Apple were granted these patents on a promise they would be enforced and they should be.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
No such promise is given or required to receive a patent. A patent confers a right with no responsibility to assert it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So why get one?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
To stop the other bugger? Because it looks nice? Whatever reason you like. It confers a special right and rights are good. But it doesn’t obligate anything.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
well how would it stop them so. My understanding was when the patent system was invented it was to try and give other people a basis to improve upon an idea. In order to get the major corporations to play along they had to throw them a bone. They therefore said if you make your idea public we will protect that idea legally for you.
Like I’ve said above, I’m not a lawyer so I might be wrong so somebody please do correct me if thats the case but that was my understanding anyways.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The patent system confers the right on the assignee to a time limited monopoly. Policing of that monopoly is left to the assignee and the civil courts, but the assignee can choose how to do so.
If I infringe a patent of yours you can grant me a royalty free license, or ignore me, or sue me, as you desire. There’s no legal obligation either way.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:38 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Monopoly is the wrong word but anyways.
I think what you are saying the courts only investigate claims brought to the court. Which is true, we don’t have patent police. Although I think the ability for companies to leave a patent drag on so they can sue for greatest possible profit is utterly wrong.
However the court does have a legal obligation to enforce the law once a claim is brought to the court. So yes they have a legal obligation to enforce but they do not have a legal obligation to investigate.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Patents are time-limited for exactly that reason.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:13 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
“They shout and shout but if they want change why not get into politics?”
Do you understand the concept of the House of Reps? Maybe one out of every OWS around America could become a member of Congress because of how our political system is set up. It’s comments like that that show why America is falling behind other countries. Have a problem? Don’t speak up, run for office and only then are you allowed to speak up. Do you understand that that’s what OUR government representatives are for? To listen to our complaints and make new laws accordingly since all of us can’t be in Washington at the same time.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Yes and if they aren’t doing their job they will not get re-elected and somebody else should fill their shoes. Do you realise how much more validity the occupy movement arguements would have if they set up an occupy party and started fighting for votes?
We live in a republic, its the way the system works. We don’t live in a system where you shout at the all powerful dude and hope he listens. Run for office, the occupy movement has so many members it would actually be quite a powerful political tool if they united behind a banner.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“Laws are laws”
The world you are living in is a far better place due to many people not believing that.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:40 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
…..oh you must be referring to drug trafficking, murder and robbery?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:41 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Did you seriously just compare software patents to murder?!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:55 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Laws are laws, they should be enforced whether it is petty teft or outright cold blooded murder.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well, laws are laws. Guess Jim Crowe laws were OK, right? And segregation? Yep. Laws are laws. Don’t fight them.
See how wrong that viewpoint is?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
htc making phones stealing apples patents != black people being treated shitty, keep stuff in perspective
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“htc making phones stealing apples patents”
Tell me how they stole it? Did they copy and paste code from Apple? You sound like you know.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
see the court decision for details
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Lol there are barely any details. Even websites like BGR and Engadget are confirming that there are very little details outside of the patents that were violated.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That is exactly wat it is. Of course on a smaller scale but the events are still related. Apple being given patents on algorithms is just as wrong as certain people not being allowed to sit at the front of a bus. If the system is unjust then those breaking it are not.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
htc != rosa parks, thats insulting to black people
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HTC and Rosa Parks are both examples of broken and unjust systems that need(ed) to be changed.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Uhm no they are not. Rosa Parks was an example of humans rights abuses based on the color of a persons skin.
HTC is a corporation that got hit with patent infringement for use of patented technology. These are not remotely the same thing. If you think a corporation is entitled to protection akin to humans rights violations you have a seriously skewed perspective.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:52 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Except in American law a corporation is a legal person, and as such has all the rights and privileges associated with being one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:34 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
No HTC is definitely not. The small app developers are Rosa Parks and Lodsys is the bus driver. HTC is Ray Charles . Software patent laws are segregation laws, quite literally in the software world now.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I enjoyed that analogy.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:15 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m black…I am not offended or insulted…because his point is sound.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:56 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well you should be offended. How do do you compare the two.? It is insulting to those who stood for civil rights that people take for granted everyday by comparing them to a stupid Apple and HTC patent fight.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
because he’s not comparing the treatment, he’s comparing the mindset of “well it’s the law.”
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:41 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Absolutely disagree. He brought up a group of people being denied the ability to use the bathroom or learn how to speak English as if Jim Crow laws are an equivalent comparison to patent laws. Do we not have different punishments for different crimes? Stealing a piece of bread is against the law but most dont go to jail for it in the US. Laws that were created to specifically keep a human being from enjoying certain freedoms can no way be the equivalent to laws of today that keep intellectual property from being stolen. My point kind sir is you can’t use Jim Crow as an example to justify the law is the law argument. Just try convincing the folk that lived through it and I will gladly concede.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:49 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
But “the law is the law” argument is the only thing he was comparing…yes he was using it to garner up more emotion for his point but it still isn’t demeaning anyone for anything.
Posted on Dec 23, 2011 | 10:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t see how it is wrong? Laws can be changed. If a law is wrong it can be removed. There are laws that we have right now that I’m sure people will be shocked to hear that we enforced in the future.
This does not mean that laws should not be enforced until a new one comes in though. It’s how the system works. Nobody can simply say emmm yeah I don’t like that law so I’m not gonna follow it. We live in a democracy and those laws can be changed by political power but not by them not being enforced. That never achieves anything.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Someone above is also claiming that the US economy is in the sh1tter due to bad patent laws. I never knew Tech was so important.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, I was talking about loopholes in laws being exploited. Not patent laws specifically.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The us economic problems are much greater than “exploiting loopholes.” Most of the problems found were in fact legal under the law at the time. This was due in part to repeal of older laws to prevent such things from happening.
You could argue that the current laws are hurting the technology industry but you can’t say it is because of loopholes. It’s because the laws are in fact working as intended. They just don’t handle the current software industry very well.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:54 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s unjust to enforce this because of the way that software patents work and don’t work. They don’t have a universally accepted definition yet which is a huge problem which should be fixed before more of these bans go through.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:40 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There’s far too much precedent to be able to make that claim at this point.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Pretty much exactly what Mike said. “software patents should be reformed”
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:40 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I agree
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I agree, until the laws have to be followed but use this as a way to craft improvements. No way a tech patent should last more than 5 or 10 years. Especially at the rate tech is innovating. 5 Years is more than enough if you look at how far we’ve come in the mobile space from 5 years ago.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Five years may be too long even…2 years max.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:57 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
2 years is useless unfortunately, because it takes more than that to win a patent infringement suit in most cases.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not just that most stuff takes two years to really come to market nowadays. At least anything worth patenting. Five to ten years is more sound.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What is the current term in the US?
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:16 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
20 years from filing.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The fact that your comment is “recommended” makes me incredibly sad about the state of comments in this site. Great content, incredibly naive readers apparently.
First of all, there were a few posts on Reddit talking about prior art about some of the mentioned patents. Secondly, some of those patents are so vague that even a web browser could be in violation of them.
Thirdly, laws are laws, I’m sorry, but I cannot wish nothing but the worst to you. People like you are the reason why things are so fucked up, you are the reason why Telecom is so out of touch with the rest of the civilized world, you are the reason why corporations control your congress, you are the reason why bullshit l like SOPA is even being discussed right now.
You defend shit like this just beacause you want to defend a logo and a brand, I’m sorry, but you are an idiot.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:27 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
I remember reading, but couldn’t find this post on reddit? Link?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/n4o93/i_have_found_preexisiting_features_in_1980s/
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Patent enforcement is perfectly fine but patent reform is definitely needed (not related to the post, just generally speaking, it’s needed). But what the previous guy said was true. Everyone usually copies and infringes on someone else. The other company does that too, so they both agree to look the other way, otherwise the suits and counter suits would be bad for the bottom line and publicity. I haven’t read the ruling completely, so I cannot comment on that, but most of Apples suits have been Design patent related apart from the few method patent related ones that I’ve seen. Admittedly, i haven’t followed every suite and every ruling..
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:29 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
“Laws are Laws”
If you were born a woman in Iran you might have a different opinion.
The fact is that laws are an imperfect way to deal with bad faith and good faith of individuals/corporates against commonly accepted driving principles (don’t kill, don’t steal, etc…) in complex social environment.
There are bad laws. There are laws that are exploited in a way which creates the opposite result of which they were created for. The US patent laws fall into these 2 categories.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:26 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
YES! AT LAST! only software patents should be reformed, not non-digital patents.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:46 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That is, at last, someone clarifies how the patent system is broken: only in software.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:58 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If you can prove that the current system hinders innovation then yes, they should reform it. I’m not an expert so maybe you can enlighten me.
However, as it stands the law is the law and you can’t use the defence ‘the system is wrong’ if all the players are happy to play under the current rules.
That goes for all companies. On the face of it, Google could take issue with the Notification Bar and if they want to they can pursue it legally.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:46 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The current innovation pace is too fast for old time patents. I am personally no against software patents in principle, just software patents have to have the same disclosure requirements as hardware patents and not last 20 years.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:18 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Look at the SCO campaign against Linux. It was a complete FUD strike backed with funding from Microsoft. Essentially a tactic to slow down the growth of any form of Linux and give uncertainty and doubt about lawsuits if you were caught using anything variety of Linux, or selling software or a distro and support. You can look through GrokLaw to see how long it lasted , SCO lost on pretty much every front, but by the time this occurred the battle field had shifted shifted significantly.
There are hindrances to innovation in the form or FUD lawsuits.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:36 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s cute that you and everyone else here thinks they’re informed enough to have an opinion on a topic as complicated as software patents.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:01 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Then, please, enlighten us.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
And with that we can pretty much close the comments section.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well maybe you and AppleStud have no clue about software patents, but some of us actually have first hand experience on both sides of the software patent fence.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:19 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I think (hope) BenDTU was being sarcastic
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The vast majority of people here don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re talking about, either way.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:17 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually I’d say that the average standard of discourse here is pretty decent.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s internet for ya! :-D
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:32 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well you certainly showed all of us up there buddy…..
Go home Gruber (I’m having way too much fun with this phrase haha)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:04 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
What does that even mean? Get over themselves?! They are legally bound to maximize profit. That’s the point of a corporation. If they make decisions that don’t max profit, they lose their jobs.
Not News.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple: ORIGINAL TECHNOLOGY DO NOT STEAL
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, Samsung was truly photocopying Apple, but HTC wasn’t and doesn’t deserve this. This is one of those stupid patents that makes you wonder how innovation can occur.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Ask Microsoft. They seem to have found a way to innovate without manufacturing KIRF devices.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Shhh …. Patents are only stupid if my team are losing etc.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:58 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The iPhone was the first real touchscreen phone. They innovated there. Android copied them.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/IBM_SImon_in_charging_station.png
Unless you mean something else by “real touchscreen” :D
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:00 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Obviously it wasn’t the first touchscreen phone, but it was the first capacitive touchscreen that brought touch to mainstream relevance and modern usability and performance.
This is the usual case of Apple didn’t invent the category, they just improved it so much with their entrance that it helped push the industry forward faster.
Of course Google and Microsoft surely had touch devices in their labs before the iPhone, but it was after the iPhone that they threw their full weight behind touch.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I hope you don’t drive a vehicle that has 4 wheels and uses some kind of engine. Likely that the manufacturer stole that idea from the first guy who thought of it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:09 PM EST reply Recommend (39) Flag actions
Except that everything in the auto industry is patented all to heck just like the tech industry.
Everything is full of patents. We just don’t usually pay any attention to it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Here’s the problem with your understanding:
If we patented physical things like we do software, your analogy doesn’t hold.
It would be like me patenting the IDEA of a 4-wheeled vehicle. Doesn’t matter if it’s an offroader, SUV, station wagon, etc. Just a 4-wheeled vehicle.
Better yet, it’s not like patenting individual engine parts. It’s like patenting the idea of using internal combustion of a flammable liquid/gas to move a piston via expansion of gasses. Not the piston, not the housing, but the actual process itself.
It would be like patenting the fact that vinegar + baking soda = foamy reaction.
It would be like patenting the IDEA that internal structures can be separated by doors. Not the pins of the doors, not the manufacturing of doors, but the idea of doors.
That’s why it’s broken.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
I’m not arguing that it should be reviewed and changed, It is of course very difficult when dealing with such a fast paced ecosystem but the fact of the matter is that it is LAW. And LAWS need to be enforced or the whole system goes to pot.
Yes the problem is that patents are too broad, but there is also a problem of them not being properly enforced and therefore (as many people have pointed out) many people break them and take the risk. Thats wrong.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“And LAWS need to be enforced or the whole system goes to pot.”
No. At some point a case comes along that is so ridiculous and so idiotic that laws are CHANGED to reflect abuses of the system. That’s how the legal system works.
Properly enforced? If all patents were properly enforced, the economy and innovation would come to a grinding halt.
I’m amazed that you recognize how ridiculous these patent laws are but are more willing to keep everything the same and just dole out the punishment.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:40 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
So we should just abandon everything and let EVERYBODY copy until we figure out something new? Thats not how the legal system is meant to work because that would be stupid.
I garuntee you if the whole system came to a grinding halt somebody would figure out a new patent system remarkably sharpish,
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“So we should just abandon everything and let EVERYBODY copy until we figure out something new?”
Copy? See, that’s where you’re wrong. You’re starting out with the verdict. You start out by saying that HTC or whoever is guilty without actually coming to that conclusion. That’s the first problem with your argument.
Secondly, copy? I seriously doubt that Google or HTC went into Apple’s source code and copy/pasted code. They most likely had the same idea as Apple and decided to implement it in their own way. It would be like me making an entrance to my home and deciding that the best way to secure it would be by using a door, any door, and then for someone else to come up to me and say “HEY YOU’RE COPYING, DON’T BUILD THAT DOOR AND DON’T BUILD THAT HOUSE”.
It’s ridiculous and wrong.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Yes but in the eyes of the law you are copying somebody elses idea and thats what matters at the end of the day. I agree with you it should be more specific but we arent there yet.
If we stopped enforcing this in the morning there would be 60 different iphone KIRFS on the american market by sundown, you know this, come on.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Yes but in the eyes of the law you are copying somebody elses idea and thats what matters at the end of the day.”
It is abuses to this law that allow these patents to exist in the first place. For instance, the US patent laws have clauses that specifically state NO ALGORITHMS. Now people have found loopholes around that by saying “method and apparatus”. It’s abuses to the patent system that got us in this mess in the first place.
“If we stopped enforcing this in the morning there would be 60 different iphone KIRFS on the american market by sundown, you know this, come on.”
How does this have anything to do with KIRFs?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
thats the point of all this…to prevent revenue stealing kirfs
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How is HTC an Apple KIRF as an entire company???
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
its not, its only partly kirfing, but where do you draw the line
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Its not KIRFing. Samsung was KIRFing, this isn’t. This is infringing on a patent that was granted when they had no idea what the market was gonna pan out to be and therefore in hindsight was WAY too broad. But how were they meant to know, there reference at the time were Nokia 3310s.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
fair enough
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
their*
HAH! got there before the Nazis :P.
Dear Santa, This year I would like the Verge to have Editable Comments.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
i second that
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thirded. At least there’s something we can all agree on :-)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:58 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
haha, I think we actually agree on more than you think Mike =P
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:00 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m quickly realizing this lol. If only Congress could work so well as the comment section of The Verge. haha
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Get a room you two ;)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:00 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
No the problem with the patent is that it was not reviewed properly. What they present in the actual patent was in no way an invention in 1994.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
PS: With exceptions of companies that licensed that patent, all Integrated Development Environments infringe on that patent.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:31 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Did you use many in 94? I did, they didn’t exactly implement that patent – though I’ll agree they did something similar. Actually about the only example of prior art I could come up with that perhaps did was emacs running a combination of modes.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m pretty sure that syntax highlighting and jump to declaration was in the list of features that emacs could do way before 1995.
And good point that emacs did it much earlier. They filed the application in 1996, while Delphi was out in 1995 and don’t forget about Visual Age.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:43 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It could only do jump to declaration if you produced a tags file, which didn’t happen automatically, but only as part of a build process.
It’s probably enough to make it not equivalent. But Emacs is certainly fertile ground for possible prior art.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, generating tag files nicely with action repository in the patent. There is plainly no inventive step in the patent. None.
That is how a proper PTO review committee thorws out a 1Click patent – an professional of ordinary skill could come up with the same solution.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
PS: The way emacs implements it, is very similar to how Android implements Linkify – the infringing element.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well it’s debatable. I actually think that folding mode is a better match because there the scanning is a continuous process – which seems to be how the patent describes it.
At any rate as a developer who was active in the early 90s it doesn’t seem that this patent should have passed the obvious test.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/n4o93/i_have_found_preexisiting_features_in_1980s/
Prior art.
Invalidated.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:06 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Whether that constitutes prior art isn’t a simple question, and would depend heavily on whatever claim construction had already taken place. If for example the patent is held to only cover cases where there are multiple possible actions, then sidekick wouldn’t be prior art.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ok, I just read the sidekick manual, and as prior art goes, it’s pretty lousy. Certainly worse than the emacs examples that Jalexoid and I arrived at.
The problem is that dialer doesn’t do what the invention describes, it doesn’t parse the page and then link actions with the structures, which you can then use to initiate actions. Instead you must initiate the action – dialer, and it then goes through each phone number on screen sequentially offering you only a single option – dial or move on.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:18 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You can’t do anything in the mobile sector without infringing on some patent. Some are calculated and deliberate. Some are completely accidental. There is no company working/building/licensing in it that isn’t knowingly lifting,copying, stealing patented ideas. It is impossible to exist as a company in mobile anything without doing so. This is what makes it so insane watching the little tantrums they throw, knowing they themselves are guilty en-masse. It isn’t logical it is farcical. When it comes this close to satire it needs to be overhauled.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:44 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
They aren’t. The point was if we stopped enforcing the law there would be KIRFs from china on the market in a second. The patent law is designed to promote innovation and discourage KIRFs. Now it isn’t doing that very well at the moment but thats the idea.
Wasn’t calling HTC a KIRF
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s just that generally Trademark and Copyright are KIRF laws. Not patents.
Sorry for misunderstanding.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ok, I am gonna say it again because I’m not sure you are listening to me.
I AGREE that the system needs to be reformed. I want them to keep enforcing, and enforce more strongly, the current system until a viable replacement is found.
The objective of the patent law is to stop KIRFs. Thats supposed to be its objective. Stop people copying but give people a base to improve upon.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No – the objective is supposed to be to reward innovation and thus encourage it, to the betterment of consumers and the wider economy.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, same thing different wording. It encourages innovation by giving people access to loads of ideas and hopefully thus inspiring them to do something new.
It rewards innovation by protecting these creations from copying.
We mean the same thing I think.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The important point is that protection from copying is the means, not the end.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Depends on your standpoint. The law is meant to achieve innovation by preventing copying and releasing ideas to innovators so they can build a base.
But from a legal standpoint the law is just copying is illegal. Infringing on patents is illegal. From a legal standpoint thats all there is to this law.
But yes, it is meant to achieve innovation and thats the reason the law was written.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The problem is with how one defines “copying”. Source code specifically?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ah, well, I’m gonna leave that one up to the lawyers to figure out. I don’t fill I can adequately answer that without a law degree.
But yes, that is the question, and I feel that is something that needs to have as little ambiguity as possible.
The other side of this ridiculous scenario is just how much money these companies are paying on legal fees instead of putting that money into research. It would be nice to have a relatively clear cut law that would discourage random chancing our arm court cases.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well in terms of patents it’s infringing, and defined in terms of the claims. Source code not required.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Got it. So I can patent the idea of a physical divider that can be opened and closed to seal off or allow access to a portion of an internal or external structure? A.K.A. a door?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You could if they didn’t already exist.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And that doesn’t sound a tiny bit odd to you?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No – it’s an integral part of patent law, the requirement of novelty.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The original objective of patent law was to encourage sharing of invention details. It’s history stems from the guild knowledge that would be locked away within a guild and only the guild members could access that knowledge.
Software patents, as they are, fail the original purpose of a patent miserably.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually Mike, it’s not that simple see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2106_02.htm
In practical terms, claims define nonstatutory processes if they:
- consist solely of mathematical operations without some claimed practical application (i.e., executing a “mathematical algorithm”)
The problem in law isn’t patenting an algorithm, it’s patenting an entirely abstract algorithm with no utility.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Interesting. Thanks Cloud.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A – No there wouldn’t. Software patents are not any other kind of patents. So iPhone KIRFS would still be liable to trade dress and trademark lawsuits.
B – If all stopped enforcing software patents not much would change. Some companies, like Microsoft and IBM, would lose some minor revenue streams but that would be the end of it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“Yes but in the eyes of the law you are copying somebody elses idea…”
No. I think that this is the core point of your misunderstanding. Patents and the patent system are not meant to protect “ideas.” Ideas are cheap and everyone has them. Patents are about protecting IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas. Big difference. That’s what Mike is trying to get at, I think.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:35 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You actually can patent chemical reactions, so your foamy reaction example isn’t really very damning. See for instance
http://www.google.com/patents/US1506316?printsec=claims#v=onepage&q&f=false
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I imagine the four-wheeled horseless carriage probably was patented by Mr Daimler back in 1890whatever. Fortunately patents are granted with a short term to ensure that a monopoly does not result. Or is that not the case in US law?
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:20 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, as ort888 says below that analogy doesn’t work.
“It is estimated that over 100,000 ”http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/Car_History.htm" target="new">patents created the modern automobile" -
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well… that did not work…
Mods, delete if you wish, edit if you can.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“new”
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Merci.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re so clueless. Apple’s Mac OS was copied from Xerox. So was their laser printing technology. Should all Macs be banned from the USA?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (20) Flag actions
You could say that. But Xerox didn’t have an OS on the market. Xerox showed it to Apple in exchange for pre-IPO shares in Apple. They had an understanding that Apple would do a GUI product.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Doesn’t matter they still copied. Great convo between Jobs and Gates when Jobs tried to burn Gates in a meeting. Gate’s basically said it’s like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and when I broke in to steal his stuff I found out you had already stolen it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:37 PM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
How did they copy if Xerox gave it to them in exchange for shares in Apple? It was a business deal. That’s a spin from Gates side, and it’s not wrong either.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:41 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
You can call it what you want but board members on Apples side who were there attest to this convo and agree with Gates. Plus we are talking COPIED right? So again everyone borrows or copies from everyone. Part of the Industry.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You can call it what you want too. I’m not refuting facts, with statements from Gates. Apple didn’t copy paste what Xerox had, neither did they screw them over.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Dude they copied, willingly copied and they got something in return for it. That’s still copying dude. Not saying they ripped Xerox off cause only Jobs, Gates, and Co know that. Just saying it’s COPYING and we need to call it what it is. I recall HTC saying months back they were willing to sit down with Apple and work something out. So did it not happen because of price was was Apple not willing because it was Android?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Damn typos
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think we should go our own ways lol the thread is getting long and I’m not going to change my mind and neither are you.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He’s not arguing with you he’s trying to tell you that even if you have permission to copy you still copied.
My friend allowing me to copy his answers to the test…or even to read his abstract for a paper to help me with a paper is still copying.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:08 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You are just playing words.
Regardless Xerox got compensated so Apple was not sued. This thread is getting so silly.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:42 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
No Javalin, Apple got its foot through the door with those shares. There was never a SPECIFIC agreement or licensing contract. Xerox later sued Apple and lost. Stop making things up. This is not AppleInsider or Macrumors.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:27 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually, if they paid for it, it’s called licensing.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:25 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Mac OS copied Xerox only in the initial concept of using a pointer device to interact with a GUI.
Beyond that, Apple invented dozens upon dozens of desktop metaphors and took the GUI into a much more mature direction.
Ideas are easy, execution is HARD. Apple excelled at the latter when they created the Mac.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:51 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There is a difference between a trade and just taking something.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:40 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You could say that. But Xerox sure isn’t saying that. You know, since they had an agreement to let Apple come into PARC and look at their stuff.
PS. Apple has gone on record that they didn’t get a single line of code from PARC. The agreement wasn’t to BUY technology, but to get to ask questions and look at their R&D Labs. Don’t worry, Xerox made a shitload of money on the deal (namely, but investing millions of dollars into AAPL, and selling a year later. Cha-ching.).
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Xerox actually SUED Apple later when they realized the stupidity of letting Apple into their R&D “park”. Their agreement consisted in Apple examining their research in exchange for shares. Never did Xerox enter with Apple in a specific licensing contract that would see Apple use Xerox R&D. That never happened. Quit bending the facts to suit Apple’s image.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How convenient. Now you need something on the market. According to your definition, screw the little guy, if I corporation can just take out something and put it in the market, who cares about the little guy?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
To play the devil’s advocate, one of the things plaguing the patent system is “submarine” patents: people who patent shit they never intend to create or use and then they surface to sue the asses off of companies that actually MAKE products.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
True Submarine patents were actually kept in a state of perpetual filing, so that the issuance didn’t even happen until after an industry had grown up around it. They’re not really viable in the US anymore due to changes in the patent filing process.
This strategy requires a patent system where patent applications are not published. In the United States, patent applications filed before November 2000 were not published and remained secret until they were granted.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Copied with permission.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:15 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
That’s true. But Apple’s copied in many other areas since then, without permission. Their notification bar in the iOS is a recent example. Even being able to swype individual notifications away isn’t their idea.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Sure, that may be a fair claim and Google are free to sue or demand royalties.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
They’re free to do that, except the part where they give Android (also known as Mobile Linux) away for free. So… there’s no lisence money associated (also known as revenue) with Android. What the hell can they sue for? Lost ad revenue?!
Don’t forget, guys: it’s “Open”!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually Google can sue for patents that are embodied by Android, if the person that they are suing has asserted patents against Android. The Apache license stipulates that once you assert a patent against the body of work, you lose any patent rights you were granted along with it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Pinch to zoom? Inertial scrolling?
Android did not invent the notification bar FYI.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
And he didn´t claim that, read again..
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Thanks. :-)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Then how is it copying?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
LMFAO
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:06 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Is this really happening?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It isn’t Google’s either so stop that trolling. Notifications layout was copied from WinMob, only the activation was new.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
And I didn’t say that. You’re missing the point.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The point where Apple licenses patents from Microsoft?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:42 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Kedmond may have to actually finish Law School before settling this little thread :S… It doesn’t seem to be going well.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So the innovation was to copy a good idea?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I didn’t say they innovated it, I was pointing out that when Apple took Xerox’s ideas it was not stealing. A stupid move perhaps on Xerox’s part, but it happened.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Didn’t HTC state they were willing to sit down with Apple to come to an agreement on licensing when all this started months back. So was Apple asking for too much or did they not want to license them because it’s Android?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t know. I can’t see how Apple can refuse to put a price on it so this will come back to bite them surely?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“I was pointing out that when Apple took Xerox’s ideas it was not stealing.”
Yes, because people cite the Xerox case as one of Apple NOT stealing. Thanks for making that as unclear as humanly possible.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
??
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
everyday i seem to see the need for this link: everything is a remix.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I heart Kirby.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
lol I have that bookmarked…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Steve’s favorite quote was “great artists steal” wasn’t it?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (20) Flag actions
Yeah, and by that he meant steal ideas. Not steal the whole execution.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I don’t think they stole the source-code, so the idea is what was stolen, not the execution.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
exactly. There are only so many ways that an operating system can work; only so many ways to make a phone. Does anyone remember corded phones that hung on the wall back in the 70s? They all looked the same. There comes a time when innovation is stagnated due to this limit on variations and sue-happy patent lawyers.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Patents both stop and promote innovation. If a company gets too comfortable with it then it’s stopping innovation. But when they can’t be credited with their work and their work is just outlandishly copied then that’s also stopping innovation.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
However, Windows Phone 7 is completely different (not saying that it is a good UI). They tried to differentiate. Android really didn’t.
Posted on Dec 24, 2011 | 11:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No one stole Apple’s execution. The patent is on the idea. The patent in itself only has clues and hints how to actually execute the idea.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HAhahahahaa. I’m really sure you know what the hell you mean with “execution”. Suuuure you know exactly how Android and iOS operate internally to the point where it’s obvious how there is a patent violation.
Give me a break.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you claiming that Google had access to Apple’s source code? Because that certainly isn’t something that Apple has ever suggested. Seems a bit far fetched eh?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He meant steal the soul, as opposed to just copying design, etc.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:08 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t know if it’s “justice” but it’s pretty crazy.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah they could always make devices with a cluttered appearance or a display that isn’t smooth. So many innovative options!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Funny they weren’t thinking of that before Apple produced something.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Again, look at the history of the Mac OS. The desktop metaphor was invented by Xerox and Steve Jobs stole it. Also, he stole typeface technology from Xerox. Now Apple is a leader in both.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:12 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
And by “stole it” you mean “allowed Xerox to buy pre-IPO Apple shares for it”. Right? Go do some research, you clown.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
They didn’t steal it, but Apple didn’t buy it either. It was a shit deal for Xerox, just like MS deal with Apple regarding Windows was a shit deal for Apple.
And pleeease, don’t even try to get me started on MS/Apple/Xerox history.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:34 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
It is a shit deal looking back today. At the time Xerox executives laughed it off. The people in control of Xerox obviously thought they were getting something that was atleast equivilent. No one does a shit deal in business, you just don’t do it.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple offered shares in order to access the PARC, and Xerox thought of Apple as a possible investor. There was never a specific licensing deal that saw Apple use Xerox’ R&D for the specific purpose to make their own products. Xerox after realizing the stupidity of their actions actually SUED Apple later and lost. You’re the clown here and you should do some research fanboy.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:33 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sounds to me like you’re both right….and both douchebags for getting heated on the internet about the nuances and minutiae.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Only I am right :) Jokes aside I agree on the douchebag part. I shouldn’t have caved in to that attitude even if he is a known troll. But the fact still stands. Since Apple’s stellar mainstream success on the mobile front that part of the past has gotten from “stolen R&D” to “licensed R&D” which is not the same. Xerox was payed for access to the labs and not for licensing rights. But the court saw Xerox’ stupidity in accepting those share as enough compensation for Apple’s ripping off their ideas.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Compare Xerox systems against Apples. Sure they “stole” the idea, but they improved it by several times.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So I could argue that HTC improved on Apple’s by several times. That’s a weak argument.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
But they didn’t. And Apple did. What’s your point?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Logic 101.
You are defending Apple for patent trolling.
You are then saying “improving things” is somehow a free jail card for patent violation.
You are told that HTC could’ve improved things.
You claim they didn’t, out of thin air.
You then ask what’s the point.
Gee, something doesn’t add up
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:36 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Patent Trolling refers specifically to NPEs (Non Practicing Entities), Apple is definitely a Practicing Entity, and so it cannot be a troll.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:43 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If Apple can improve Xerox’s systems as much as they have, let it happen. The company who makes the most progress is not criminal for improving operating systems. In fact, it is wrong to not share your improvements with the world. I don’s favor apple over HTC, and I would be happy to see HTC make improvements over Apple. There is a difference between stealing and improvement. One is ok. The main difference is taking ideas in a way that limits the other company’s success. Apple was given permission to use Xerox’s ideas, and I don’s see guilt in their excessive advancement. And as you could argue that, it is ok for a company to improve another’s ideas. Inventors and programmers are here to make things better; that’s all there is to it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, Apple was not given permission to use Xerox’ ideas. Apple was given permission to see Xerox’ R&D from a possible investor’s perspective. Xerox never specifically licensed its R&D to Apple which is why Xerox sued them later when they saw the stupidity of their action.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
don’t bother. once a fan boy, always a fanboy
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Look up Douglas Engelbart. He invented everything we use in computers today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfIgzSoTMOs
In 1968 when everyone else was using punchcards, he made a mouse.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually if you do your research Android was in dev before the iPhone launched… so yes… yes they were.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
I don’t think you know about Android history as much as you think you do. Android was suppose to be a competitor to the Blackberry. The changed to the full touchscreen platform after Apple came out with the iPhone in 2007.
This is MWC in early 2008: http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20080324/android_prototype_550x385_540x377.jpg
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
And you don’t know much Android history either. Android was developing touchscreen support early on, before even the iPhone was unveiled.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Though given it was over a year later to bring it to market, presumably they didn’t start on touchscreen before Apple? Or are Apple just much better at executing?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
I don’t know when Apple started developing the iPhone but Android was building support for touchscreens before the iPhone went public.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Sure, but we don’t really know what that means do we? Did they have a pure touch device planned or where they looking at touch as a subsidiary input. The first Android devices didn’t have a virtual keyboard iirc.
We won’t really find out for another 30 years when somebody writes a biography of Andy Rubin.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Google wasn’t planning on making devices. They wanted Android to run on a variety of devices including full touch devices.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Apple started thinking about the idea for multi-touch in 2002 after SJ met a Microsoft employee who said that Microsoft were going to revolutionise the tablet with a stylus, and SJ wanted to prove them wrong. A couple of years later they had a working prototype, but SJ realised that it was more important to introduce the phone first. The iPhone dev started around 2004, Android 2005 and touchscreen support around 2006.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Android 2003
And it was always hardware agnostic…hence the Java.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They started building iOS (starting with the iPad) in 2004-2005
Posted on Dec 24, 2011 | 11:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Work on Android started before the release of the iPhone, and at the time Android was designed to be a competitor to the Blackberry. The original Android prototype wasn’t a touch screen device. Android’s rendering trade-offs make sense for a keyboard and trackball device. When the iPhone came out, the Android team rushed to release a competitor product, but unfortunately it was too late to rewrite the UI framework.”
https://plus.google.com/100838276097451809262/posts/VDkV9XaJRGS
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Sorry but that’s an intern, who has subsequently admitted that his analysis was completely wrong.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:28 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
If you read the post, he indeed admitted most of his technical analysis was wrong. And people from the Android team corrected him. But he didn’t say the historical notes are wrong and so no person from Google corrected him on that note. So it stands true.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Intern gives several arguments. Two of them are wrong. Since nothing was said about the third one, it must be true.
Is this seriously your train of thought?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:38 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yes, basic deduction, why only comment on those two arguments and ignore the other one.
But we need a second acknowledgement. Enter Eric Scmidt; "I don’t want your money" Jobs told Schmidt as the two men met in a cafe in Palo Alto early last year. "If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want."
Why would the former Google CEO offer him money? Because he knew he was wrong and Android is a grand theft.
Maybe we need a third acknowledgement of Google’s strategy. Here comes a piece of Google’s illegal use of Java IP.
“What we’ve actually been asked to do (by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome. We’ve been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need.”
“If Sun doesn’t want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language – or – 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way”
Blatant thievery.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:55 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
>But we need a second acknowledgement. Enter Eric Scmidt; “I don’t want your money” Jobs told Schmidt as the two men met in a cafe in Palo Alto early last year. “If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.”
First of all, everybody knows how emotional Jobs was about almost anything. Hey, are you forgetting how he botched the Apple III and was kicked out of Apple for being pretty much unable to get along with anybody?
Secondly, unless you can produce proof, real proof, that Schimidth did anything, everytime you mention this I will dismiss you as one huge big fanboy who is unfit to discuss this topic because of your obvious bias.
Sun CEO wanted Google to use Java. Come Oracle, and of course they wanted to get a piece of the cake.
Finally, booo hooo, my favorite company’s CEO doesn’t get along with another’s company’s CEO. Booo hooooo, I will ignore the fact that I’ve used Google search for years because they make a phone I don’t even use. Boooo hooo, they are our rivals!!!!!!
Also, I don’t even know why I answered your post as it had absolutely nothing to do with that the intern said.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Please stop attacking me on a personal level, it is childish and a non-argument.
Eric Schmidt came out and said Android began development earlier than the iPhone and a bunch of other stuff. Why didn’t he come out and dismiss the second fact that Steve Jobs said? I mean it’s not logical why do come out and dismiss only one thing? Because it was true.
Oracle wanting or not is irrelevant, the fact stands that Google knowingly stole Oracle IP.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:13 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Google has a time machine?
Also where is this proof that Google stole anything from Oracle? Are you making up your mind before the case is even over? Shocking.
Oracle did not own Java at the time Google bought Android…or at the time Android was created…or any time up until 2010…
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:59 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Google tried to stop the use of these emails in court, unsuccessfully. So Google tried to hide this from evidence, with a good reason, because they know they were stealing IP.
2010 or 2011, it doesn’t matter, they are still stealing Oracle’s IP. Or are you saying Oracle don’t have the rights to defend their IP, because Google stole them before they acquired Sun?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Before we begin this useless debate what do you think oracle has accused Google of infringing upon?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:48 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Personally I think their copyright violations against Java are going to be a bigger deal than the patents.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is a complex issue…and I do agree…IF the source codes are copied then they are wrong…no debating it…
with the software patents…no code required…only “methods and apparatu…etc.”
2 different solutions to one problem and the second one is somehow violating the first.
Not good.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking the ridiculousness of defending and/or attacking so rabidly a company and a person you don’t even know.
>I mean it’s not logical why do come out and dismiss only one thing?
Sorry, saying the word “logical” doesn’t mean absolutely anything in any kind for argument. The fact here is that there is no proof at all of you allegations, and there is only one group of people out there who call Schmidt a thief: Fanboys.
>Oracle wanting or not is irrelevant, the fact stands that Google knowingly stole Oracle IP.
Well, here we have something else that we won’t know for sure until we see the actual outcome. That’s much better than believing the first thing you read on blogs. Bloggers are not journalists so take anything they say with a grain of salt.
Back on topic, it’s not irrelevant, Sun wouldn’t have sued Google, but Oracle did.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m sure Apple, Google, and Microsoft all had touchscreen devices in their labs.
Google didn’t put their full weight behind touchscreen until after the iPhone. The iPhone propelled touchscreen interfaces to the forefront of smartphones.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And this is a video showing both prototypes 4 months earlier.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Actually if you do your research Android (codename Blackberry Killer) was in dev before the iPhone launched… so yes… yes they were”
Yeah, then they scrapped that and started to ‘borrow’ ideas from iOS.
You can keep going back in time as far as you like, but pretty soon you’re going to find out that Android was not developed by Google: it was an acquisition. What was the impetus for that acquisition I wonder?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sure as fuck wasn’t Apple considering no one knew of the iPhone in 2005 besides Apple higher ups and perhaps board members….and before you say Schmidt he didn’t join the board until 2006.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nothing is developed in a bubble, you are ALWAYS influenced by your environment.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Are you serious? Are you… you can’t actually think that. That would be sad.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple’s smooth designs were influenced by others. They’re not working in some bubble. Get real.
http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Things influence design, you cannot spontaneously create a design.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I totally agree. I’m just countering the idea that Apple came up with all of their great designs on their own.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple didn’t invent the smartphone, the touchscreen, the operating system, or the graphical user interface. In fact, Apple likes to buy out companies for their ideas (see Siri). You are the epitome of a closed minded “fanboy”, and I don’t toss that term around lightly. I own an iPad, etc, etc, and I agree that Apple does great things, but seriously? I don’t believe a strong competitor should be banned because they (along with many, many others) make phones with touchscreens and icons that you can press. It doesn’t do anyone any good.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
Really? You’re going to talk about buying out companies? Bad example dude.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Why? His point is that they don’t always innovate on their own.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Siri is something hard to develop by Apple by themselves, it has so much data that it accumulates of the years that it would take Apple much longer and maybe worse for them to do it themselves. What I meant is the way Google buys companies, Android, YouTube ect. They have a total of 106 acquisitions according to Google.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Damn I mean according to Wikipedia*
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well said.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Must agree with jptech’s last point. I believe that if Apple is not challenged by competitors, it will lead to complacency and Apple customers will suffer as a result by having poorer products. Healthy competition pushes innovation.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I do. Innovate. Don’t copy. Don’t steal.
so um…Xerox can close Apple’s doors right about now. Right? Steve even said they copied Xerox.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
They had permission to do that. Did everybody suddenly become stupid and forget about that part? Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO Apple shares in exchange for being allowed to develop their own OS based on what they saw at PARC.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:12 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Some people really need to read on what happened exactly. Too many people reciting bullshit recited by other misinformed people. It’s all there on the internet, in SJ bio, people are just cherry picking now.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I wish the Verge staff would chime in on some of these comments to set the record straight. They’d be doing everyone a favour.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Hahaha, do you scream for your mom to come help when you’re losing an argument?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, but it’s amazing how ill informed some commenters are here. It’s like they believe anything they read that fits in with their prejudices and continue to spout BS. Considering the writers are all here (waves at the writers) it wouldn’t be hard for them to say “actually, x did/did not happen”
Anyway who’s losing an argument.? You were the one talking about ‘stealing from Xerox’ while accusing people of being clueless.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
You think comments are “arguments” and that they can be won or lost? This explains a lot about the immature nature of your posts here.
If you have nothing relevant to add to the conversation, please consider taking your “I totally agrees”, “well saids”, and “scream for your moms” someplace else.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
Nilay often does to correct the misconceptions of those shouting loudly about IP law with no knowledge of the subject.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:31 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
There are many other things Apple has copied from other than Xerox, I’m not sure why people are focusing in on just this aspect.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
>in SJ bio
Ok buddy, if you are going to take sources I suggest you read anything other than Steve Job’s biography, there are many books out there on it, and things aren’t as black and white as fanboys from both sides usually make it out to be.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What books would you recommend?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You have not read that book have you? Please. Don’t make your judgement before you read it. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The book is a factual story and in no way paints things black and white.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I haven’t read the book either, but if I wanted a fair and balanced view on the history of the Apple Corporation I don’t think that a Steve Jobs biography is the best place to start looking.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Again, you did not even begin to read what I wrote. Do a little research on the circumstances on which it was created. You also are making your mind up before reading the book. The book paints Jobs in every way you can imagine. He probably hasn’t even read it. It’s not a fanboy or Apple propaganda. Just read it, then talk about it.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
All stories, factual or not, are told from a certain perspective. Walter Issacson was employed by Steve Jobs to write his biography, and Steve had approval on the finished work. As such even if the book can sometimes paint a less than rosy picture it is still the image Steve Jobs wanted to present of himself. The book may be great I don’t know, and I don’t intend to find out, I’d much rather spend my time learning about Dennis Ritchie a true innovator in the technological world, So please, I’m not trying to argue with you, but you have to be able to accept that maybe Steve Jobs bio might just be telling his side of the story.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He wasn’t employed. Jobs didn’t pay him. He was selected, and Jobs gave him an unprecedented level of access. What he chose to do with the access was up to him.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:12 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Again, if you read the book you would not be saying that. And of course it is going to be his side of the story. But it is certainly not biased or hiding the truth in any way.
You can deem the success of technology in many ways, by it’s genius, or by how many people you reach with it. All opinions.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
its*
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Damn it. PLEASE read carefully before you make a claim.
Apple did not have permission to copy Xerox. Honestly, what kind of company would do that? Apple sold the software license to Xerox and in return gave 100,000 of their pre-IPO shares.
Apple never received any permission to copy the product. Period.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I think you need to go have a read Sir. There were elements inside Xerox that were against it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.”
“Jobs, meanwhile, raced back to Apple, and demanded that the team working on the company’s next generation of personal computers change course. He wanted menus on the screen. He wanted windows. He wanted a mouse. The result was the Macintosh, perhaps the most famous product in the history of Silicon Valley.”
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
" an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product."
How you overlook this is beyond me. Xerox is not stupid. And neither were the people that designed it. They knew exactly what Apple was coming for.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Okay. Let’s follow your logic.
I will sit next to you on an exam. You should know that anyone beside you has a potential to copy your exam. So I copy your exam. According to your logic, since you had such understanding, you knew what I was coming for, and therefore you can’t report me.
I love your logic.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And now you apparently forgot the part about Xerox being allowed to buy pre-IPO stock. Seriously, what is your malfunction? Is it a short term memory thing or a reading disorder? Xerox AGREED to let Apple build their own OS based on the PARC research.
What, exactly, do you not understand about that?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:06 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
That isn’t my logic. See, I showed you my paper and you paid me a proportion of your future salary. I can’t call you out on it because I benefited from your success. I let you copy me. I gave it to you.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
not the ones who had final say…and thats all that matters
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
they payed after the fact….read up
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s still copying genius
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Allowed to see the R&D work from a future investor’s perspective and not a specific license deal. Stop spreading bull.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
All of these martians copy each other…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So Apple shouldn’t be allowed to sell the Mac OS? Because they copied their GUI from Xerox.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
… Xerox allowed them to do that in exchange for being able to buy pre-IPO shares of Apple. It was legal.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Dude BGR just called they need you back over there fast.. Someone said an iPhone 4s isnt on their christmas list
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thanks for your intelligent and well reasoned response. Now go back to Engadget where they like people like you.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:07 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Read your sentence out loud.
It’s almost the year 2012.
WTF, dude?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Says the guy who will believe that the notification bar, the speach to text, plus much more I cant think of off the top of my head was all created by his fruit company.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
No, they took ideas and refined it for the better. The problem that at least Samsung is sued for is that they just took the ideas/designs and did almost nothing to improve them. Had they improve something Apple would probably left them alone
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That makes no sense.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
you REALLY think so? Apple a tech company with a God complex would REALLY let someone copy their idea, do it better and profit? Get real they would sue the shit out of them.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Im glad Apple copied Samsung’s notification locksreen because I’m on an AOSP locksreen so I would have never got to use it on my Galazy S..
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So you want Apple out of business? Their definition of “innovation” involves stealing and copying.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Stealing? What did they steal, exactly? Name everything they stole.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
this site isn’t big enough….
we already know you think you have the answer for the very well known Xerox issue and think you’ve just baited me into that trap… so… so…
how bout, just one:
Using a notification bar directly stolen from Android..
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
1. It wasn’t copied from Android
2. Android is not patented
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
That’s exactly the problem though. You can’t patent only software or else Google would have done it already. Apple is having an open season because of this. The device makers stand no chance and in reality the only people this is hurting is the consumers.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
You can patent pure software, that’s what a software patent is – oddly enough.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
what an effin idiot above you lol
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google couldn’t have patented it because there is plenty of prior art.
There is little or nothing in Android that hasn’t been done before
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Exactly the same could be said about iPhone.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Slide to unlock, inertial scrolling, bounce at the end of the list are a few things.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:07 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apart from the whole concept of a minimalist smartphone with multitouch capacitive screen interacted with only by finger. A whole range of ways of interacting with it that were aso new. The iPhone was a quantum leap in consumer phones, Android is a Windows mobile /Symbian clone given a rapid makeover to tray and do the same thing
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:04 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You do realise that concepts are not patentable? But then again, finger operated UI was not something new (Capacitive or otherwise)
I agree that they did a great job at bringing the tech to the market – thus revolutionising the market. However, when you say that Android has not done anything that “hasn’t been done before” I can tell you that everything has been done before on smaller scales. Apple brought the tweaks that made the whole thing usable.
I though it was a Blackberry clone… Will you people make up your mind?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The “Xerox issue”? The issue where Xerox was offered the chance to buy Apple’s pre-IPO stock and they accepted? In exchange for letting Apple develop their own OS? Xerox was COMPENSATED for that. Xerox AGREED to that. In what fictional universe is that considered “stealing”? Please explain it to me in excruciating detail.
Notification bar? Wow. Apple hired the guy who developed notifications for WebOS from Palm a couple years back, his name is Rich Dellinger. Look it up. The new notifications in iOS came directly from him. Not from Android.
You’re 0 for 2, you want to try again?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So someone from Apple NEVER EVER saw Android notifications and thought “hey thats not bad!”?
Stop defending Apple for things everyone in every industry does.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
In what way could it possibly matter who thought what? I just told you who did the new notifications in iOS, and the guy came from WebOS. Saying Apple stole Android’s notifications is beyond stupid. Stop arguing against factual information.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So that guy from WebOS never looked at Android?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No, he probably looked at Windows Mobile just like Andrubin and his merry band did.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:06 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Do you feel better knowing Apple copied Android? Get off your high horse.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He was probably too busy creating WebOS’s notification system. Oh, did you miss that part?
It makes ZERO sense to make the assumption that Dellinger is copying notifications from Android. None. Use your brain, think about it.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
except for the fact that they are almost exactly like the notifications for Android and not like the ones from WebOS?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’ll say it again: In what possible way does it make sense to assume Dellinger was copying from Android when he came from Palm? Apple hired him specifically because they liked what he did with WebOS.
Android has nothing to do with it on either side of the equation. If you’re going to say iOS 5’s notifications look like Android’s notifications, then it’s just as easy for me to make the same point and say swiping in Android looks exactly like swiping on the iPhone. Buttons in Android look exactly like buttons in iOS.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 12:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
so the notification panel in iOS wasn’t inspired by Android because Dellinger came from Palm?
so I guess folder creation in ICS doesn’t resemble folder creation in iOS because Matias Duarte came from Palm as well?
I don’t care if good ideas are borrowed and adapted…but to deny a visible reality is…odd.
Posted on Dec 23, 2011 | 10:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I love how your attempted rebuttal:
1. Went off on a rant that I said you’d go off on, but had nothing to do with my point.
2. Claimed Apple doesn’t steal, because, according to you, they did not steal the notification bar from Android… they stole it from Web OS.
LOL
You sir, are an idiot.
You should probably step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Stealing from a corpse isnt stealing =P
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So I debunked both your attempts at listing things Apple stole, and now you’re trying to change the subject. Typical. What I said had EVERYTHING to do with your point. Maybe you didn’t read it.
You ignored the part about Xerox actually giving Apple permission because that makes you look like an idiot for saying Apple “stole” anything from them.
I’m assuming you missed the part about Rich Dellinger? He developed it for Apple. So… where does the “stealing” part come in again? Can you be specific? I’m assuming you are aware that Apple is actually paying Rich a salary, right?
You’re obviously not good with reading comprehension so let me break it down a bit for you.
APPLE NOTIFICATION NO COME FROM ANDROID. COME FROM RICH DELLINGER. RICH COME FROM PALM. NO ANDROID. HURR DURR.
Is that better, now that I’ve translated it into your native language? Let me know if you still have questions.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Again can you guarantee Rich never looked at or used Android notifications? No? Thought not.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Nobody can guarantee that, just like you can’t guarantee that iOS 5’s notification system has anything to do with Android. Because it doesn’t. Because of the facts I’ve already laid out that you can’t argue with. You’re going to have to do better than that, junior.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re a moron. WebOS was released after Android.. Also, you’ve clearly never used WebOS (no surprise). If you did you would know that the WebOS notification system is not as similar to Android’s as iOS’s. The iOS notification system is a replica of Androids. The fact they hired someone from palm years after Android was released doesn’t change that. Go back to engadget.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m a moron for pointing out things that are true? Interesting. In what possible way could my use of WebOS have any relevance? I’m not Rich Dellinger. Maybe I need to dumb this down for you some more.
1. Rich Dellinger created notifications for WebOS. FACT.
2. Apple hired Rich Dellinger to crete notifications for iOS. FACT.
3. Android has absolutely nothing to do with any of it. FACT.
Now if you have a problem with those facts, that’s really not my problem. It’s yours. Any assumptions you make outside of those facts are just that – assumptions. Stop making arguments based on assumptions.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They stole Danger’s whole marketing plan for the sidekick
-carrier exclusivity
-consumer based OS design
-high profile marketing campaigns
-cloud services
-yearly refresh cycle
-device specific app store
-tight software and hardware integration
-complete control over branding, bundled apps, etc etc
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
My comment got murdered but you get the jist everything that made the iPhone successful was already done.. icons based ui – Palm, minalist phone – LG, Media device – Apple, everything else was the Sidekick.. give them credit they did a damn good job and the iPod’s success was a MAJOR part of the iPhone’s but they hardly developed the consumer smartphone all alone
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You do realize this is a pretty standard practice in computing and has been since WAY before Apple patented it. I’m not sure I’d consider it “justice.” I really hope you’re software engineer, otherwise i’m not sure how you’re even remotely qualified to be making the statements you’ve made.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If we both build a house, some parts of our houses are going to end up being built the same way even if we never wandered to look at each others work. In the same way, Google didn’t copy here. They built something how they thought it should be built and Apple happened to have a patent on it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple does nothing original. They are great at innovation, but terrible at invention. Give credit where credit is do. Apple is GREAT at reinvention, innovation, and marketing. One they they are not good at is creating something completely original. They did not create the smartphone, they reinvented it. They may have created the PC, but they definitely reinvented it. They didnt create the iPod, but the reinvented it. They created the mouse, and were terrible at reinventing it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
*One thing they are
*They didnt create the mp3 player
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple didn’t invent the mouse.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:58 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
They didn’t invent the mouse at all.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Stealing is Apple’s forte – they take something and make it revolutionary. On the other hand copying is outrageous, and that’s what android makers have done. Don’t know about justice though…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Right. Apple has NEVER stolen any ideas from another company.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I hope someone slaps Apple and Microsoft with claims to the right of all things touch device related and mice. See how that sits as justice,
Also, from the words of the innovator himself:
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Where’d my link go? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrKWArr3XY&feature=related
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Did you even read the patent? It’s a patent on the “Settings Menu”. It detects the state of structures, and gives you actions based on the state. I.e. recognize that something is off, and allow them to enable it.
How do you re-innovate that?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Copy or stole is pretty strong words with the latter being criminal. Especially if we are talking about a system level patent. You do know you can actually innovate and come up with the same idea as someone else. Apple just got to the USPTO first. You have to be a little more careful about the words copy and stolen.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You must use a chisel and stone tablet then.. I wonder how my iPhone magically got a notification shade and TouchWiz like lockscreen elements.. I can’t stand Apple’s business practices, I think their products are good for what they are, but I swear I am in love with their marketing.. If I could feed you that same line of bs I’d be digging into your pockets every pay period..
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple coppied many things
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because Apple has not stolen ANYTHING in their career huh (Ask Xerox)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, YOU ask Xerox. They will tell you that they allowed Apple to develop their own OS after being given the opportunity to buy pre-IPO stocks from Apple. Xerox was COMPENSATED for that. They AGREED to that.
So what “stealing” are you talking about?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:12 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
“Good artists copy. Great artists steal.” – Steve Jobs
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There’s not one feature or design that wasn’t already in smarphones prior to the iPhone’s release. You’re fanboyism is clouding reality. Put the kool-aid down.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:37 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
if we want to be pedantic the original iPhone shouldn’t really be called a smart phone lol
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sure it was – just because it didn’t have Apps didn’t make it unsmart.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
it was also steve job’s mantra; “good artists copy, great artists steal”
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
it’s a fricken cell phone. Jesus, honestly Apple needs to stop, I considered them a reasonable company, this is just silly.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
iOS 5 is all about copying Android’s features…ones that have been implemented since 1.6. Apple isn’t innovating, they are copying and throwing a hissy fit because someone else is innovating without them.
Apple: Someone has a new feature, let’s copy it and then sue the company for copying us. Most of Apple’s innovations were either bought, or copied, the only thing Apple does good at is marketing and making “old” cool.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Other than the way notifications are revealed, which features? The same could be said about Android 4, no? Basically a worthless debate all around.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, you mentioned the notifications, which includes the way it pops up on the lockscreen, and the notification drop down. Wi-Fi syncing. Wasn’t the first, wallpapers was implemented in Android long before Apple allowed it. (Jailbreakers enabled it, Apple listened), Copy+Paste was in Android forever (and might I add Android does it a lot smoother) Voice Recognition…sure Siri goes a step further with app and system control, but Android has had voice recognition since 2.1.
Don’t worry, I don’t knock on Apple for copying, that’s all part of a healthy competitive environment.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Android does copy and paste a lot smoother?
You’re going to have to try harder than that.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:40 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
You just described Apple. Good work!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
www.google.com
You see what I just did there? I didn’t hyperlink that, I just typed it in. Browsers have been doing this for many years. I suppose you think they need to be sued as well? Or maybe, just maybe, this a frivelous patent for a “feature” that has no clear originator and therefore should not have been granted a patent for it. The system is broken!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:08 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If stealing is tacky and low class, then that should be on Steve Job’s headstone. Everything he is famous for came from others he borrowed or ADMITTEDLY stole from and redeveloped to create his devices.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
yeah that’s why Steve said “Bad artists copy and Great artists steal”…
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
these are simple functionalities. with your simple minded thinking then innovation will come to a dead halt. Everyone will hold their little patent that no one can use and nothing will be released. Apple has many patent cases against them also.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Exactly, Apple wouldn’t be where they are without stealing.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I say do both. Innovate AND copy. That is the best practice, ultimately. Copy the successful ideas and, where possible, come up with new ideas of your own. Do BOTH.
There are valid and good reasons to copy and to patent. Both ultimately move the human race forward.
Where would we be if people didn’t copy? What would our species even look like if our biological makeup didn’t “copy” or “steal” successful traits from other species?
The flip side, of course, is that patents even encourage the “other” side of copying and that is diversification. If you can’t copy, do something else. For example, without patents we would most likely have only 1 type of flat panel display technology… but since patents exist it creates pressure to come up with new ways to display stuff on a panel, thus today providing us, the consumer, with a wide variety of panel implementations from LCD, LCD/LED, Plasma, *OLED, etc.
So there is technically more value in both copying and innovating than doing just one or the other. The quickest path to technologically “levelling up” ourselves over the decades is to share knowledge and search for new knowledge which is, essentially, what this is all about.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Innovation can be building on or improving something too, you know? If this article was the other way around, I’m sure you wouldn’t be saying this argument.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple knowingly stole from Nokia it wasn’t even some obscure patent its was blatantly obvious yet Apple refused to pay up… Nokia didn’t act like a little girl and seek the banning of the Iphone.. they handled it civilly and didn’t seek to hinder the industry.
Apple subsequently has to pay restitution and has to give Nokia a cut for every Iphone sold but no one really lost out you see; Apple was still able to sell their devices in that time the people weren’t hindered and Nokia got compensated in the end.
As for “Don’t Copy” the world is based on “Copying” ever since ancient times.. that’s how most innovation arises you see something you improve upon it; finding new uses or better ways to use something by being inspired by something to create something better etc
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 12:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Unless your Apple, they always seem to get a pass for some reason
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 7:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
LOL…Justice?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:08 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
anti- competition is rarely good news
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:08 PM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
So “competition” is “copying” in your mind?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:15 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ios-5-copied-android-2011-6
So it’s okay for Apple to do it? Go troll on Engadget please.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Yes, iOS copied Android even though iOS existed on the market before Android did. Are you suggesting Apple is using some sort of time travel?
So actually, Google copied Apple when they made Android in the first place. That’s why it looks so much like iOS.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No, not at all.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:24 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yes, completely
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What a well thought out rebuttal.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:48 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Really? Keep on trolling dude, I’m laughing more and more at what you are saying.
Android was made in 2003 but Android was bought by Google in 2005 while Apple unveiled iOS at 2007. No body knew about iOS but people already knew what Android was since one of it’s creators was Andy Rubin. .
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The first Android version was designed to compete against Blackberry. They changed it to compete with iOS after the first iPhone came out. BTW, Eric Schmidt, then the Google CEO,, was in the Apple’s board of directors when the iPhone came out. So, he most likely had a major decision in changing the Android OS.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple was working on the iPhone for four years prior to its release in Jan of 2007, and they had been working on iOS even longer than that since it was originally developed for a tablet.
Android looked nothing like iOS until 2008 when Google officially released it, at which point it was an obvious ripoff of iOS. Prior to that, Android was a complete pile of shit. Go ahead, google it. See for yourself how bad it was.
If you honestly believe Android didn’t completely copy iOS, you’re obviously living in bizarro world.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:44 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
iOS influenced Android and Android has influenced iOS.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Android doesn’t even act like iOS. Appearance wise, it has some resemblance, however, under the hood it is nothing like iOS. Face it, all OSes are a copy of another OS. Windows, MacOS, and Linux with GUI all use icons, all use a mouse pointer OH MY GOD THEY MUST ALL OPERATE IDENTICALLY!!!!! All current smartphones use icons, have a home screen, and run applications….it’s logical to think that these similarities are copying…until you realize that the design is very similar to what you have been used to since GUIs first started appearing on computers, except instead of a mouse, you use your finger to tell the computer what you want it to do.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Heh, under the hood they’re actually pretty similar, both having UNIX-like cores and all. At least they’re probably more similar underneath than either are to Windows Phone.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
While Linux and Unix are very similar, they have branched off to the point in operation…similar yes…identical, no. It would be like calling a pear an apple because they can be spliced onto the same tree. Linux is pretty much a second cousin, from Unix at this point.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Er, yes it does act like iOS. It has a row of buttons on the bottom, just like iOS, it has icons just like iOS (some of them are even exact ripoffs of iOS icons), it uses swiping just like iOS, every basic function Android can do is a ripoff of iOS. Again, go do some research on what Android was like before 2008. It was COMPLETELY different, looked NOTHING like iOS and didn’t work like iOS. It was a huge, steaming pile of shit.
Then the iPhone came out, and a year and a half later, ta da! The new Android comes out looking almost pixel for pixel like iOS, using the same basic functionality to get things done. Because Apple had shown them how to do it correctly.
Don’t even bother arguing with me about this until you understand what Android was prior to the iPhone. Once you see it, you will understand how stupid your argument is.
Android did not have those things. ANDROID. What is it about this concept that you don’t understand yet? Android didn’t have those things until a year and a half after the iPhone came out. Despite the fact that it had existed as far back as 2003.
Do the research before replying again.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
IF you hadn’t noticed all mobile phones have a row of icons, Blackberry, Apple, Android. But it goes deeper, even the old feature phones had a row of functions that were accessed by hitting the corresponding buttons.
Android, yes may have been “inspired” by iOS, but it is not a copy. Apple might as well sue Microsoft for copying their interface, since MacOS 1.0 used icons and a mouse, and Windows came along and did exactly the same thing…and then Linux came along and users developed a GUI that did most of that too.
Android 1.4 and earlier looked more like Palm…and you didn’t hear Palm complaining.
Innovation rides on the back of success. Innovation is taking an idea (often copied from somewhere) and improves upon it. If it’s not worth copying, it wasn’t a success.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
‘Apple might as well sue Microsoft for copying their interface, since MacOS 1.0 used icons and a mouse, and Windows came along and did exactly the same thing’
Ah. Let me guess; you’re younger than 20, right?
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:44 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
‘Apple might as well sue Microsoft for copying their interface, since MacOS 1.0 used icons and a mouse, and Windows came along and did exactly the same thing’
Ah. Let me guess; you’re younger than 20, right?
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:44 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes those are a large number of visual similarities, but nothing to do with how the system works, congratulations once again on missing the point and exploding into spittle mouth lunacy.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t think my Galaxy Nexus looks like your iPhone at all.
This is just Apple saying that they think HTC devices are better. If it was really an issue of patents, then they would ask for royalties. Apple knows people want to buy HTC more than iPhones, so they’re getting rid of the competition.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:32 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
amen
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
that is one of the most convoluted circular trollish comments i’ve seen in this entire thread.
Step 1) lemme get this straight Company A has an operating system, some things original, some things possibly copied
Step 2) company B copies a feature from company A
Step 3) since early on, company A copied some things from company A…the copying in step 2 never occurred/doesn’t really mean anything.
Get outta here w/ that school yard logic
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You know, honestly, I’m a big fan of Android, and I’m perfectly fine with them taking stuff from Android. It makes it so if I pick up a phone, I can use it. The newest features show off who makes the good ideas, then they BOTH implement the new ideas, and come up with more ideas. It keeps up competition by constantly having to add new things to keep an edge, rather than just shutting down competition.
That’s how it worked for Desktop operating systems, why can’t we do that with phones? Tell me that is NOT how it went for desktops.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:42 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
*(them being apple taking stuff from android to make my post a bit clearer)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh, but don’t forget about Apple taking these features, then whining how Android is copying their ideas.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow, that was a dumb article.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Since when does a patent violation mean you copied? Go try to build an electronics device on your own and bring it to Market. Even if you build it completely from scratch with your own ideas I guarantee you’ll violate multiple patents.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Lol you sound more serious than Gruber.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
YOU KNOW WHAT JUSTICE MEANS? LOL…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
YAY no reason to innovate now and we can just take whatever Apple wants to throw down our throats. Apple gets richer and we get less choices.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sometimes less choices is great! Specially, if Apple gets rid of HTC. HTC makes the worst freaking phones!!!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They have made some of the best feeling hardware, they haven’t changed much recently, but then neither has Apple lol,
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A quote once used by your leader. Good artists copy. Great artists steal
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
OH MAN!! Just wait until Moto gets done with Apple…now that is going to be JUSTICE!!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So many stars!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
1994 called and asks for it’s technology back. That patent is just plain ridiculous.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
that’s what i was saying to myself (and my wife who really doesn’t give a shit about any of this; from across the room)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Justice will be when Samsung and all the other real tech companies wipe Apple off the planet and out of memory. That will be justice.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think you got lost on the way to http://engadget.com
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s not justice, it is what is referred to as patent spamming. The patent in question should be nullified if the patent holder doesn’t defend their patent at the first sign if infringement, rather than waiting to strike when they deem it to strike a critical blow against a company. As this “feature” was pretty much embedded long ago and had become “standard” it is more of a desperation move, than a defensive move.
iOS is starting to feel antiquated, Apple’s only option is to attack true innovators rather than innovate themselves.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s up to the patent holder how they enforce it (if, indeed, they decide to at all).
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:47 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, this is good news. Apple lost the ability to ever re-assert 3 patents ever again against any company and the 1 which was upheld can easily be bypassed with a simple UI change.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There is no such THING as justice in these patient cases. There is only greed. Apple has stolen MANY a patient from other companies, and when threatened to be sued, they simply bought out the companies. THis is what is wrong with patients, they are too broadly worded, and the “governing authorities” in these cases have so many lobbyists shoved up their asses and so much money in their pockets that they couldn’t care less about “fair business practices” or “fair patients” If there is one thing I’ve learned in life so far it’s this: money MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND. It’s people like us that pay the price; since big companies like apple, can complain about broadly worded patients and get a court date. The rules should be simple; if they use your code in your way in order to get to a specific outcome then GO AHEAD and sue. But if companies can innovate a new and better way to get to the same outcome by using different code than you, it’s not fair that you can monopolize something broad like “hyper linking” Cause technically if apple wants to complain about linking from one thing to another, that’s as old as the internet itself. This isn’t about creating your own “innovations” it’s about being creative and making other people’s Idea’s better. This is what apple and EVERY OTHER company is founded on: “how can we make this existing thing better” or “how can we make something new function in a much better way than anything else”
Everyone takes idea’s from others, there’s no way we could evolve if we didnt.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You naive dorks think this is justice? It just means that Apple plays the patent game well and that they have lots of money. Don’t confuse laws with Justice (capital ‘J’). You are witnessing the same “justice” where bankers can get away with stealing billions of your dollars. This is the “justice” that is written by the folks who have the money to control the law makers.
You can go back to your droky activities now (like dreaming about your next new smartphone). This short lesson of real life is over.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:26 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This is one of the most well-said statements I have read!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Unbelievable! They should compete, but Apple wants a monopoly! This is like Ford getting a patent on anything with 4 wheels and an engine! Ridiculous: Apple is afraid that they will loose a few customers!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Did you actually read this patent? It’s pretty specific and covers only a single feature of the OS. 4 wheels and an engine it is not.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, this patent is unusually specific, probably the reason it actually got upheld, whilst the applications are left deliberately vague the methodology is well specified, requiring specific software components and an identifiable system flow to be in violation. Whilst I fully believe that Google and HTC came up with their implementation either in ignorance of this patent, or in the belief that they weren’t in violation, I’m fairly certain they can adapt their procedures to achieve the same result just using a different method.
That’s not to say their aren’t a lot of ridiculous over-generalised conceptual patents out there but this one actually seems legit.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
mmm ok so pay for the patents and get an agreement going because I like HTC devices. I have only owned 2 (a p4000 and a Desire) but both were nice and I appreciate what they are doing design wise. I may not love the newest renditions of Sense but still, I would take HTC over Samsung hardware any day
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:07 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
What was the case about?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I know a certain group of people who wont be pleased to see this.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
People who like a competitive smartphone market?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:08 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
Them and also people who happen to love HTC
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:09 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Hardware yes, Sense … no
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
You know what this means, right?
There’s incentive for HTC to actually improve their code now!
Get to work, HTC!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
People who like a competitive smartphone market would encourage HTC to stop copying Apple and do something original instead.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So what did HTC copy? A display with a bezel around it?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
INFRINGEMENT!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, it’s even rectangular. OH MY GOSH
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
You tell me. Why are their products banned from sale in the US? Let me guess, you have no idea but you’re sure you know better than those stupid judges. Right?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
No I wanted to hear your opinion since you know what they did infringe.
If it would be Samsung instead of HTC I’d think it reasonable, as the design clearly looks TOO similar. But HTC? For what? Tell me, you clearly seem to know it and I’m quite lost.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
What I think is irrelevant. ITC judges decided they DID infringe, and that’s what counts. You gonna keep trying to argue against that?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:24 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You do your name great justice
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:24 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
So in other words, no, you have no idea why HTC’s products are banned in the US, but you’re SURE it’s not for a good reason. Well, you keep thinking that you’re smarter than the ITC judges. It’s good for your self image.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
As soon as you stop being holier than thou.
And, in the meantime, want to tell us how they copied? Did they copy the source code directly?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m being holier than thou? I didn’t make this judgement, the ITC judges did. Apparently some people are taking issue with me pointing that out. how is that my fault? You don’t like it, talk to the judges about it.
You want to know how they copied? Ask the judges about it.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
LOL! I think HTC’s lawyers will argue against that. I wonder if you’ll side with the appeals court when they rule in favor of HTC.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s kind of a non-answer, isn’t it?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Half the judging body on the ITC is shoved soo far up apple’s **S I’m surprised that they don’t have crap shooting out of their mouths everytime they talk about apple. The patient was approved by someone who obviously didnt care about broadly worded patients which is horrible. We need specific patients with specific code and specific and logical reasons behind the patient, without that businesses can do what they are doing now: sue everybody under the sun for the most ridiculous things imaginable.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This patent isn’t actually very broad by the standards of such things, it’s a bad patent but it’s because it’s obvious and plausibly prior arted out by the kinds of things people were already doing in the early 90s.
Your scatological attack on the ITC seems to say more about you than about them.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Beautiful rebuttal.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 4:49 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Now I’m confused. Post is updated with information about the infringed patent. How did HTC as a HW manufacturer infringe a SW patent? You tell me
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sense?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:24 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Apple took them to the ITC because the vagaries of patent law mean that you cannot patent software – it’s only when it is described as running on hardware that it’s patentable.
Since Google doesn’t itself produce any hardware (yet), Apple cannot sue them or take action against them for writing the Android source code.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
No. You have been able to patent software for years. It’s just easier to enforce against actual devices.
Oracle is suing Google on pure software patents.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You can patent software – but only as something that runs on hardware. It’s a legal loophole that allows patents on software, which was otherwise unpatentable as an “algorithm.” Check out the diagrams in this “software” patent – they include CPU, RAM, and other hardware components.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No. That was certainly what was thought to be the case at one point, but in fact there are pure software claims. The requirement is that there be a claimed practical application – but there’s no requirement on a particular physical embodiement being specified in the claim.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2106_02.htm
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I think, however, that when Apple filed this patent, it was still thought that you needed hardware – remember that this patent was filed over a decade ago.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
if what you think is irrelevant, then why are you telling us what you think.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How have HTC copied Apple in anyway?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
How have their products been banned from sale in the US? You tell me.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
i’m pretty sure he was asking what the infringement issue is, not being a prick looking for a douche response.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I was referring to the fact its an Android issue not a HTC hardware or software issue. Jack is just being an idiot let him be =)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m being an idiot by asking you how their products have been banned? Really? Seeing as how you didn’t answer the question, I’m not sure how that makes me the idiot here.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:15 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well their products haven’t be banned yet, HTC are in the transition period IF the ruling stands and it applies to 2.2 and lower devices for which a solution has been created. So no HTC devices will in all likelihood not be banned from sale in the US.
And again HTC did not infringe, GOOGLE infringed it was just HTC which sold an offending device and therefore got sued.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Saying “well, uh, their products haven’t been banned YET” is not the same thing as explaining how it got to the point where ITC judges decided they needed to be banned. Just saying, it’s not really an excuse.
And it’s still HTC’s fault for selling a device with software that infringes Apple’s patents. It’s their responsibility to vet that out first so this sort of thing doesn’t happen.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And they have created a fix and so far it doesn’t apply to 2.3 and up.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s a pretty dumb comment sir.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So, the only way to compete with Apple is to copy them?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
We should really find out more before we start developing opinions on this ruling.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:09 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Shit just got real.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:09 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Now that Steve isn’t here to protect us from cheap and mediocre, we have to depend on the courts.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Why are Samsung winning all their cases then lol?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
They’re not.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
The stuff is still on sale no?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They haven’t won any cases, they’ve won some appeals against injunctions however. I don’t think anyone can deny Samsung is ripping Apple off in many areas.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:06 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Oh they are and they need to get rid of the cartoony icons and stuff AND make stuff as sexy as the gNex fo sure.
Apple had a semi legit gripe with Samsung, going after HTC is just picking on the easiest target.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:09 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Stop being such an elitist. Everything that isn’t Apple is bad. And stop making it sound like Steve is your guardian angel too.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Bad” does not begin to describe this…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Maybe HTC should just start putting stock ICS on their devices… one can only hope.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Would certainly stop my complaints about my locked bootloader ;)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Which will also infringe going by the comments
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, but stock Android is a design nightmare.
ICS is immensely better, but it’s still kind of crappy.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nilay, update on which devices? And the ITC reasoning?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Developing…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is big. I don’t know if I should be happy (I feel Apple was wronged by Google) or worried.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This isn’t the beginning of the end, this is still just the end of the beginning. HTC was always the weakest gazelle.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What does this mean for other mobile device designers who are getting sued by Apple? HTC does have the weakest portfolio of patents, but Apple could use this ruling for its other cases. Things will be getting interesting for sure.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Too soon to say, but if Apple is asserting the same patents against other OEMs, then that just got much worse for them, because the ITC is unlikely to reverse its assumptions on validity without something significant changing.
It really depends how easy the patents involved are to engineer around.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
At the end of the day, it’s every man/company for him/themselves. The software patent isn’t getting clear or fair anytime soon. So it’s survival of the fittest. Apple won today, maybe HTC wins tomorrow.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HTC won’t win tomorrow, their IP portfolio is practically non-existant. A different OEM perhaps but not them.
If this truly is the linkify patent that just got upheld by the ITC, then it’s very bad for Android indeed. It’s in every device and the behaviour is fundamental to what consumers expect.
I was rather hoping the linkify patent would be found invalid, because I think it’s lousy.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:32 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
worried. Especially considering BT’s filing for patent infringement against Google. This is gonna get ugly.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I wouldn’t take BT too seriously. They’re the comic relief in this drama.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Lol, are you being serious? BT being one of the largest telecommunication companies in the world with a monster patent portfolio is comic relief?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes – clearly you have forgotten the hidden page patent debacle.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It would seem you don’t know jack about what you’re talking about. Why don’t you, um, Google it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Gonna be the Hero & Mogul or something
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It looks like this is a ruling against all of the Android powered phones, so HTC will not be able to import any of those.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Between this and the potential injunction against HTC by IPCom in Germany, things are looking extremely rough for the plucky Taiwanese firm.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not really. They should be congratulated for striking down 3 more Apple patents they can never use again.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’ve said that in a bunch of places – but it’s not actually true.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Of course it is. The ITC has ruled that 3 of those patents were irrelevant and the one remaining patent is littered with prior art.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No – they’ve ruled them not infringed. That’s not the same thing at all.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
I own many Apple products but boy do I despise Apple sometimes.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Oh its an Android patent, guess Apple didnt want to have a fight with Google so they sued an OEM, stay classy Apple!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
It would probably be impossible for Apple to bring an ITC case against Google, as Google isn’t shipping any physical products into the USA. Also some of Apple’s patents may be device patents rather than pure software.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
This patent is just a software patent, but you’re correct as to why Apple cannot sue Google over Android’s violation of their patents.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They can, they just can’t at the ITC, and the ITC has strategic benefits.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
like nilay said in one of the podcasts from thisismynext…the reason why apple and microsoft sue the OEMs instead of the manufacturers is when it comes to patent cases like this, you go where the money is being made. Google isn’t making money off infringing these patents (at least not directly) so you go after they people that are.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:57 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Obama: veto it!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
This is a big deal because this specific patent implicates Android. Apple is going after a small fish as precedence. However, at the same time, the patent seems pretty basic. How a system reads bits of information and then translates them into an action, e.g. a phone number in an email or address in a web page. Hopefully, there’s a work around.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s interesting how Apple initially stole ideas to get their business roaring, now they are banning that type of behaviour from happening in the present. Apple is dangerous force to deal with, I feel sorry for HTC.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
If you can’t compete in the market, bury them in the courtroom. Has happened before with other companies, this isn’t Apple reinventing the wheel. I don’t see how you can work around this patent. It’s pretty basic: recognize a structure (like a phone number, email) and perform an action (like call number or open email). We should feel sorry for HTC because they’re just making devices using the software with the system’s violation.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You insinuate that, because Apple is suing HTC, that they are unable to compete in the market. I suggest you look at the YTD decline in HTC stock value vs. AAPL for the same period. It would seem as though Apple has been able to compete pretty well vs. HTC before this ITC ruling.
You can call Apple many things, but non-competitive isn’t one of them.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You assume that Apple is only targeting HTC. Apple is seeing up a precedence against Android as a whole. Last time I checked, Android was pretty handedly handing Apple its butt in market share. Yeah Apple is profitable but only with 27% of the market. Less players in the market means Apple can make more profit. They can’t compete in sheer number, so reduce the players reduce the numbers concomitantly.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:38 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
They aren’t competitive. The just have a entire army of people drinking their Cupertino mind controlling Koolaid. Innovation for Apple is a thing of the past. RIP Steve, even though everything you used to create your company’s top products, you admittedly stole or “borrowed” . The little guys just didn’t have the resources to beat up your lawyers.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Seriously. Why don’t these companies just focus on their own products instead of looking for every opportunity to sue each other.. sigh
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
C’mon. I think that’s so blase to say. If you were the CEO of Apple, you’d be doing the same thing. It’s like, if you owned a car and someone fabricated a replica key to that car and drove off with it, you’d be calling the police and filing charges. HTC (as well as basically anyone running Android) is stealing an essential system’s operation patented by Apple. I think it’s so casual of us to dismiss this action when 10 people out of 10 people, in the same position, would do the same exact thing.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Essential? Wow. With voice commands, are hyperlinks even that necessary anymore? And comparing this to stealing a car? Really? More like Ford suing Chevy for using a lever to tilt the steering wheel up and down. Get a grip, FANBOY!!!!!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This comment thread has gotten very stupid, very quickly. Come on people.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It was stupid was the offset really, what I like about the Verge comments is that you can watch the crazy update in realtime.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I hate how when a lot of comments get posted, it slows like fucking hell and starts to really lag. Do you know a way to fix that? What I like about Engadget’s/Disqus’ system is there are pages for a certain number of comments so it doesn’t have to put 500 comments on a single page; The Verge just puts all the comments on a single page and it starts to lag like a bitch once it hits about 500 comments.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Read the update guys, system level patent.
“the Commission found that HTC devices infringe two claims of patent #5,946,647, which is a system level patent on data analysis — implicating Android itself and not HTC’s specific implementation.”
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Next target for Apple’s lawyers: Google and the Android operating system in total
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google: We will take our Gmail, Maps and Search back kthnxbai
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, a lack of Maps would hurt Apple immensely. They’re working on their own implementation, but until then, they really need it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No they won’t, they’d lose revenue on Search, which is still by far and away their main revenue source.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yeah but Android is the biggest boy on the block now, yeah Google would loose a big from it, but they would screw Apple beyond all belief.
Imagin an iPhone using Bing? Using … no maps? Using no Gmail?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t think that’s hardly a concern for Apple, especially since they’re developing their own mapping system. Google would never stir the pot enough to cause Apple to stop using Google Search, considering iOS users search/use the internet more than non-iOS users. No Gmail? Before the native app, they were using Google Apps or going to use the mobile version in the browser. You can’t deny Gmail access at the browser level! None of this matters to Apple.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:32 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
2/3rds of mobile search by Google’s own admission is being generated from iOS.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Please post some evidence of this admission…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m an Android lover and even I know that the majority of search is performed by iOS users. Android users use a lot more data, but that data is not internet searching.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Congressional testimony by a google employee good enough?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
learn something new everyday.. very interesting.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google-23rds-of-our-mobile-search-comes-from-apples-ios/
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s a complicated relationship. Google are estimated to be paying $100 per year to Apple to have Google Search on the iPhone.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-02-11/tech/30062167_1_apple-iphone-search-engine
I personally would not like to lose Google Maps though.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
$100 million
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
$100 = $100 million.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So the patent on regular expressions held up.
You guys in the US are in for a rough couple of years.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Does anyone understand what the “system-level” patent actually covers? All of the descriptions I’ve read are so vague that they would seem to cover every single smartphone ever built…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Welcome to the wonderful world of Apple patents (and patents in general)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yeah, most software patents seem to be like that.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This patent basically is how the system recognizes structures and assigns a process. For example, when you read an email and someone puts their phone number in that email. The system recognizes that structure as a phone number. You can click on that phone number and the device will call that number (or perform some action). It’s what we consider to be pretty basic and intuitive recognition, but Apple patented it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s the other patent. I get that one.
The “system-level” patent is the one on “object-oriented real-time processing of multiple streams of data” or something like that…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Unless I’m reading it wrong, I think that’s the patent they linked above.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re right. I was thinking of the ’263 patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=nCYJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=6343263&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y77vTpOCAcXX0QGd6fHcCQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA
It’s not clear to me from the article whether the ITC found that HTC infringed this patent or not.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That one is a monster.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Does that not make it more likely to get overturned or force Apple into a settlement?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Looks like that one was found invalid or not infringed. It’s just the linkify patent that is left – it will be interesting to see how HTC try to get around that.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, that looks like a pretty minor feature…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s middling. You would really notice it if it went away, but it could be removed with android becoming inoperable.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
People are blowing this way out of proportion. Even assuming it sticks, HTC just has to redesign the offending bits in any new phones they release between now and May and they won’t be banned.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I find it deliciously amusing that the link on the patent goes to a google archive of the patent.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Alanis Morisette has the Patent on that.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hahaha wow this thread is WAY out of control. They didn’t ban your patents people, chill.
My view: if HTC infringed they should be banned till judgement and possibly sued. Yes everyone does it (including apple BIG time) but isn’t that an even greater reason for them to start cracking heads?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I see a big fat VETO in Obama’s future.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
From Obama? The president that single-handedly forced the gov’t’s hand to approve the use of his iPhone and got a complimentary iPad? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What a shame that the veto only applies to laws and not judicial and quasi-judicial decisions.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The problem with a company that does some visionary things is that they believe everything they do is visionary not simply common sense.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The problem with the perception of those technologies today is that we believe them to be common sense and common place. When that patent was conceived in 1996, it was visionary. It was someone looking ahead and thinking, this might be a good idea. Today, we cannot part with these basic functions because we’ve seen them so integrated. But someone came up with the idea and came up with a long, long time ago. That was Apple.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So it should be forced into a fair use licence like all the wireless patents are.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think those are reserved for essential technologies. I don’t know if this would fall into that.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
1996… this is the year after Windows 95, to put that into perspective. A couple of years after Bill Gates has his epiphany to bet the company on the internet being the next big thing. And you’re saying turning a piece of text into a link was “visionary”.
From the article: “scans computer text for data, like a phone number, and turns that number into a link that the user can then select to perform an act”.
I would suspect someone came up with the idea to scan a piece of text for data, such as an email or web address, and then turn it into a clickable link sometime before then, even if it was just a perl script on a forum somewhere. I am not going to spend time finding it though (although whether HTC bothered to search for prior art is another question).
I think the use of phone number in the example is misleading, as I doubt that is what Apple had in mind when they filed it? Not sure if it is specifically in the patent documents? Which makes me wonder what they used the idea for way back 15 years ago?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Found it.
http://www.miramontes.com/writing/add-cacm/
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Does anyone know how Apple can get away with getting HTC devices banned, when the patent in question is a part of Android itself?
Apple should be suing Google for creating it but they know they’d lose so they are simply going after the OEMs that don’t have the money to defend themselves.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, they’re going after the OEMs because they actually sell something.
Yeah, those poor OEMs like Samsung and HTC have “no money to defend themselves” .. what planet do you live on again?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I was referring in comparison to Google and I was talking more about HTC (which really isn’t that big) than Samsung, I actually think Samsung deserves to be sued because they blatantly copied iOS with TouchWiz.
I just don’t agree to an OEM being sued for something that they didn’t put into the phone, that should be up to Google to defend, but Apple doesn’t go after them.
I honestly think all the patent systems of the world need to be overhauled and merged into a worldwide system.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HTC is the biggest vendor of Android devices in the US, so a sensible first target for Apple in many ways.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google doesn’t sell Android, they give it away. Obviously Apple needs to sue the companies that are selling Android, such as HTC.
It amazes me that so many tech nerds suddenly think they are qualified to comment on intricate nuances of patent law! It’s really hysterical. And why do so many people get so emotionally invested in it? If you own shares in one of the companies (I do) then you’re invested – otherwise you’re just an ill-informed bystander who should stick to commenting on things you understand.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:55 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I wish I could Recommend this comment more than once.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Everyone’s an expert on the internet!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You can assert a patent against anybody at any point in the value chain.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Simple answer is because HTC is selling Android, and Google isn’t.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is just wrong.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But it’s cool for Samsung to sue Apple up one continent and down the other, right?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Nope, I don’t like Samsung sueing Apple anymore than I like Apple sueing Samsung, especially over software patients.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This strikes me as the same functionality provided by contextual file menus. Right click a file, OS determines which contextual actions apply to that extension, places them in the menu. That has been around at least since Win 3.1 (and I’m sure prior OSes did it as well, though my memory is fuzzy).
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, it’s not the same as that, it’s specifically requires the action to be triggered by detection of a pattern in text. I do believe that there is prior art, but the examples I could think of are obscure and somewhat contrived.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/n4o93/i_have_found_preexisiting_features_in_1980s/
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not sure that fully covers the patent – and the reason that it possibly doesn’t is it only allows for a single possible action, where the wording of the patent states actions. I agree that it’s similar, but presumably HTC presented at least one piece of prior art of that kind, and the ITC didn’t buy it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Recognizing a pattern of text and providing contextual actions? Like every HTML parser? Spell checkers? Help files (Windows)?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wait. The problem is with Android. Not Sense . Not HTC hardware or packaging. HTC technically dont “sell” Android. They sell Sense and their hardware. So how can they be sued?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
because Apple sued them, not Google. HTC chooses to use Android, so they are selling it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hey, have you guys heard that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox and the pull down menus from Android?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
i know, I just thought I would point about the absurdity of the issue lol
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’ve been SUUUUUURVED!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This wont hold until April. I guaranty it!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I like how the phones that have been cited here are almost ancient: HTC Android devices running Android 1.6 to 2.2, including the Sprint Evo 4G, Verizon Droid Incredible, AT&T Aria, and T-Mobile G2. Will this really make a difference for HTC if these are the phones that are banned?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They were current when the case was first raised. Apple wil not apply to have it extended to all Android devices
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Hey Apple… don’t hate just innovate…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s the problem. They DID innovate, but the competition decided to IMITATE. And that’s a no-no.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Google copied, its just HTC who are the fall guys.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah… not really… did u see the patents? They are pretty ridiculous…
In my opinion, Apple is suing over every little thing that it can just to trouble the competition… because they know the patents in question are not strong enough to make these devices go away.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Have YOU seen the patents? They are pretty commonplace things that we use on a daily basis interacting with our smartphones. I wouldn’t chalk that up to being ridiculous. I think it’s a brilliant idea that Apple unfortunately patented first. To me it doesn’t matter. There’s a work around. I don’t care for HTC as I got a Nexus. I always thought that HTC would eventually get hit. But again, doesn’t matter. They figured out a work around so Apple will have to go back and figure out a new plan of attack because ICS is going to have Apple for lunch.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:44 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I have seen the patents… and I didn’t mean ridiculous in on by themselves, the functionality is not ridiculous… it’s just that the patent doesn’t refer to the functionality just a particular way to make that functionality happen… which is why HTC can come up with a workaround quickly… That’s why I think Apple suing is kind of ridiculous…
Much Love!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They did innovate, which is why they were awarded a patent. Duh.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Erm, that would be a better argument if the USPTO hadn’t turned into a rubber-stamp shop over the last few decades.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:44 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You tell’em! haha
Much Love!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Per update: And none of this matters because an alternative solution has been engineered. Why wasn’t it engineered in the first place? Who knows? Maybe they didn’t think it would be caught? Maybe they didn’t know of the potential violation? Either way, HTC products (as well as other OEMs in the Open Handset Alliance) will make the necessary changes and continue. The ruling provided a period of transition so it should now be a non-issue.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is where HTC drops Android like a hotcake and uses WebOS with Sense. For better or worse.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
yeah totally, a dead OS vs a dominant OS with a few legal issues
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
" […]we are well prepared for this decision, and our designers have created alternate solutions for the ‘647 patent."
>_>
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Never heard of the HTC Titan?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They can’t put sense on that.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Guys, it does not matter whether you think Apple’s patent is valid or not. HTC says they have already programmed their way around it, which means that when they copied Apple, they were being lazy.
Who knows, HTCs new method might be better than Apple’s method.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not entirely true.. HTC did not make Android, Google therefore HTC didn’t had the obligation to dive into the code and figure out any patent infringement…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well now HTC has learned a lesson, don’t sell software unless you know what is in it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The thing with Open-source is that companies use it without knowing necessarily all that is in it or simply just don’t care and if there’s a violation claim, then they just deal with it… :-P
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wonder why this ban doesn’t affect gingerbread devices.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Probably because the problem is fixed in newer versions of Android no?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this function on a “pre-Iphone” Device, where I was able to receive an SMS which contained a Phone number and the phone number would basically be transformed into a hyperlink to the “dialer”. I believe it was the K800i from Sony Ericsson or the Samsung SGH E720. The only difference is: Those weren’t touchscreen devices…I don’t have those phones anymore, can someone check?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Dude u are totally right… I had many non touchscreen devices with such functionality…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’d love to find out which of my old phones did this, unfortunately I’ve sold them all over the years. However, maybe someone still has those phones lying around and is willing to have a look…I mean, touchscreen or not, this might be a cause of prior art…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, the main patent is from 1999, so keep that in mind before you go wild with what you may or may not have seen.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Filing date is 1996 in fact, so that’s when the priority is claimed from.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:17 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
thanks for these informations Cloudgazer&Qfax, that makes my comment useless of course ;)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why can’t Apple and Google make up and say, “fuck it, we’d rather just compete on features than suing”
This behaviour is like toddlers having tantrums and it’s not a mature way to act.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:46 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is competing on features, they are suing because HTC is copying their features rather than developing their own.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Guess you havn’t read ANYTHING in the actual post then lol, good job!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not ‘features’ so much as functionality, as to the copying. It’s really tough to tell with this type of patent. Apple’s patent is old, dates back to 1999/1996(filed) and I don’t think it is a simple game of who copied who no matter how you slice it. It is possible that Google/HTC implemented this functionality completely unaware that it was even patented…etc. Doesn’t change the ruling or anything, but it is worth keeping in mind before going too crazy with the “war” aspect of this.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
HTC cop the legal hit for using “copied” code from Google but it was Google engineers who wrote the code ignorant or not of its patented status.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well HTC is a big boy, it knows how the rules work, and it knew that Google weren’t indemnifying it for any IP infringements of Android.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes and HTC know the game Apple play with its lawyers. However I was just making it clear HTC did not create the infringing code.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, apple is a crybaby using BS patents (did you even read the patent in question?) to try and stay alive in a smartphone market that’s becoming more and more dominated by Android.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Either way it’s childish
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 11:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This feature sounds like nothing more than a hyperlink forany text other than a url. There are firefox addons that that provide thatsimilar functionality, in fact Skype has a addon which converts phone numbers into dial-abl elinks . Apple could go after Skype on that alone since their parent company Microsoft has deep pockets.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
With this patent being enforceable Apple could go after everyone and almost everything on the web.
A lot of forum software uses the same thing.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why on Earth should Apple see Google—a company that makes web apps—as an equal?? I mean, let’s all be nice, but… Eric Schmidt is still Mole of the Century, right?? He was on the Apple Board!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Android was in development well before Schmidt joined the board and still, although iOS definitely influened Android (as other prior OS’s influenced iOS), both are still fundamentally different Operating Systems.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Web apps? Picasa, Google earth, Chrome, etc.. Google is a formidable adversary, apple has every reason to be wary.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I feel kinda sorry for HTC on this. Sucked in by Google’s lies and now hammered in court by Apple and in sales by Samsung.
Should have stuck with M$
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
yeah cos Windows Phone 7 is KILLING it atm =/
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I get that u like Android but would u please stop negating the points that some ppl are trying to make with snarky comments???
Boghog has a perfectly valid point that HTC can at any point get tired of Android (I’m not saying they will, but they might) and fall back on Windows Phone which is getting more and more traction by the minute…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That comment is totally valid. IF HTC dropped Android tomorrow and JUST made WP7 devices their profits would probably drop by more than 50%. They can not afford to drop Android.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
T=If they dropped Android tomorrow probably their profits would drop but they are a strong company and if they decide to drop Android (and again, I don’t think they will at the time being) they could totally afford to drop Android…. they’re a huge company with a lot of years on their back…
Say what u will but the WP claims are not backed by any real statistics because MS hasn’t released real numbers… U could read more into that but Windows Phone has gotten a lot of traction specially internationally with the new Nokia devices.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There was a graph released in the last few days coupled with a story about iOS growth slowing a little and the WP7 share was tiny. I can’t find it atm but it was on here or Engadget.
Say what you want WP7 is not growing as fast as anyone in MS wants it to and it is not competing in the real world against Android and iOS in terms of sales.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I know what you’re talking about but these charts are usually quarter-based so Windows Phone sales should be improved in the next quarter… I have it on good source that the Nokia Windows Phones are selling really really well in Europe, they’re even sold out in some places…
I see your point that Android is much bigger right now but that doesn’t mean it is the only choice against iOS, this market moves quickly and things could change… think where we were a couple of years ago…
This is all really off-topic btw, but my prediction is that in the years coming, HTC will have as many Windows Phone devices as Android devices.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It was the NPD data for Q3 most likely
http://phandroid.com/2011/12/13/npd-on-us-smartphone-numbers-for-2011-android-in-the-lead-ios-trailing-and-everyone-else-a-non-factor-stuff-weve-heard-before/
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I would bet that’s what he’s talking about… but this is Q3… where Nokia Windows Phones were not available yet…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
yeah thanks for linking it. I know the market changes fast but if you bet big and bet wrong (See Nokia, MS, Palm, HP) you have to make big expensive changes to survive.
HTC will keep their hand in with WP7 but even if it does get big i dont know how eager HTC will be to become a 2nd tier partner to Nokia in that environment.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The same could be said for HTC as 2nd partner to Motorola no?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
To a degree, however we don’t know how the Moto+Google relationship is going to pan out. Where as MS and Nokia have stated the preferred partner status very clearly.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Indeed. If sales in UK are anything to go by, Nokia could just be the one to get the traction. Proving to be very popular.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Anything concrete on that? All I’ve seen so far are nebulous statements about highest ever pre-orders – which given the fact that hardly anybody pre-orders Nokias doesn’t say much,
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This isn’t concrete info (what is nowadays?) but it’s something:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/822aec78-27ed-11e1-a4c4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1h1klzhuZ
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/822aec78-27ed-11e1-a4c4-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1h1o4QwzF
The UK launch of Nokia’s Lumia, its first smartphone based on a Windows operating system since its tie-up with Microsoft, has disappointed operators ahead of its US launch. It failed to break into the top 10 handsets sold in the UK in its first weeks on sale in November and December. It has sold only narrowly more than Nokia’s more basic "Touch and Type" phone in the period, even after a UK advertising campaign rumoured to cost more than £20m.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
i.e. falling short
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
sorry, can’t edit.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Again Nokia gaining traction for itself and MS is great, however it doesn’t really make WP7 attractive to other OEMs.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ha! So now u admit there’s traction… Got ya dude! Haha!
I think that as the ecosystem gets stronger OEMs will be even more interested… they’re just waiting to let Nokia do most of the heavy lifting in a way…
Much Love!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They may not be able to afford it right this moment, but believe me it’s something they are interested in doing. A trusted source who’s an exec for one of the Android OEMs told me point blank that OEMs HATE Android. They use it cause it’s “cheap” but they’re looking for another savior. If windows Phone gains traction believe me that in 3-4 years expect to see more Samsungs, HTCs, and Sony phones running WP.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If they just made stock android devices they would love it a whole lot more. Most of the problems OEMs suffer from comes from their mods to Android.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well… That’s the point I was trying to make all this time.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Based on a story that was run a day or so ago, windows phone 7 has yet to pass WinMo in market share, thats not traction in anyway.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
LOL Wait until they start using those Moto patents.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple related news? Check.
Patent related news? Check.
Huge wave of angry comments? Check.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:49 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
i don’t get it when someone violates Apple patents it gets banned from selling in that country.
if apple violates it doesn’t get banned it tries to settle it by paying royalties
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
FRAND patents that most of the apple’s “enemies” are using are a little different story than this one
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HTC did copy Apple, but they also make trash these days. Rezound vs. Galaxy Nexus is not competitive at all! HTC needs to stick to WP7 and license WebOS!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Samsung has some hot devices out there but HTC has like a million of them so in sales, I don’t think HTC is hurting at all…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Forecasting a 20% fall in shipments in a holiday quarter is hurting pretty bad whereas Samsung shipped a record number last quarter and all the forecaster reckon Apple are going to beat their forecast by the biggest number in corporate history.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
even though i’m on Apple’s side in this battle of 1 vs 100 … this feels like HTC is already down and they have to kick them :|
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HTC is down. They have made trash the past 6 months in my opinion. Motorola and Samsung are just owning HTC
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Bullshit. I love Apple, but all these patent wars are crap in my opinion…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:55 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
What a load of bullshit. Come on, Apple. Grow up.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Meh, this is the best system we’ve got. You woudn’t like it if Apple just rolled over on this. And since Samsung can get away with so much ‘theft’, basically Apple’s only recourse is to slow them down in bullshit litigation.
Btw, if you’re a successful lawyer working on this case… I mean, you gotta know, in the back of your mind, that this stuff is all BS. Apple is just trying to slow down Samsung, as the iPad gains massive traction, and in just a few months a new iPad will be out that should blow the GTab away.
Also, for all the language ‘win/loss’ doesn’t tell the full story. Apple has like a 95% marketshare in the Tablet space. In the only contest that matters… there is no contest.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Try 61.5% and falling
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23228211
please don’t use your perceptions of a market as fact.
Also I love how in the one market they still lead Apple supporters are still happy to use market-share as an indicator of success, yet as soon as you look at smartphones it’s all “market-share is meaningless”.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s shipments, we know that there have been several significant cases in the tablet market of channel stuffing – so shipment numbers are iffy at best.
Also that’s categorizing the Nook Color as a tablet, which it isn’t really, unless you root it.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Ha! All HTC has to do is update everything to Ice Cream Sandwich! THIS COULD BE THE BEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN TO ANDROID!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sorry 2.3 only, NOAW EAT MA GINGERBREADS!!!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, I saw it’s 2.2 and below…….but I can be hopeful :P
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
apple steals everything! why are they the ones winning?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really? What did they steal, exactly?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Your soul.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
At least he has one, unlike you:)
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Money money money money… MONEY!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
One day, someone will come up with something truly original, but because of patents, it will never be seen
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I would be willing to bet it has already happened like a million times… TXH patent system!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
it’ll be interesting to see what happens now, if apple starts suing every android manufacturer.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They’re already suing every Android manufacturer.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There are a few that have escaped.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not being snarky, but do you think the ones that have ‘escaped’ are the ones that aren’t very ‘profitable’? You don’t sue someone who has no money.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They sued Moto, and they’re not profitable.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Microsoft took care of those.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“We think competition is healthy but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.” – Hypocrites.
I must remember though they “created” a rectangle with round edges and also the digital photo frame.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:34 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
So much for “Good artists copy and great artists steal” huh? It’s a real shame Apple is the new Microsoft. Oh well.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s funny that such a popular quote is so misunderstood by… almost everyone. The Verge could do a 2000 word piece on what that quote actually means and why good companies are good at stealing and average companies do it half-assed.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Has anybody been able to divine what the patent actually is for? I tried reading the text but it’s hopelessly obscure.
Can anybody with more knowledge try to explain what it covers?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This may be dangerous, but I’m going to do it anyway. ;) Here is claim 1 from the patent:
In a broad view, think of it in terms of having an email with a phone number in the body of the email, where the OS turns that number into a link so you can then select the number to dial the number. It could work for names, dates, or other words in a text field as well.
NOW, with that said, the way this feature is claimed in the patent is very important, because if there is a way to implement this feature in a manner that is different than what the claims require (specific hardware and software steps), then a design-around may be possible. It’s too early to say right now. But, there you go.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:37 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
We added a short summary of the relevant claim coverage in the article.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thanks for that.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You bet!
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something about magic.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
this is just like when samsung were ’’banned’’ from the netherlands to sell their galaxy devices and had to remove them in october,all samsung had to do was change the infringed patent and everyone apple fan was so happy cause apple won when in reality samsung did not stop selling a single device…i bet its going to be the same with htc as they have till april to stop selling the ban but guess what they can carry on selling till then and by april they will have resolved the issue and guess what, no htc devices would have actually been stopped lol apple fans
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re kind of stating the obvious, and I doubt any Apple fans really care. Apple fans aren’t interested enough in HTC to care if they sell a billion phones or go out of business tomorrow. It’s not relevant to an Apple fan. I know Android fans are obsessed with Apple’s every move, but Apple fans simply don’t care about Android.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I would agree with you except that when you look at every android article and even the Android verge forum, you see nothing but Apple trolls spewing hypocritical BS.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
it is what it is
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
damn its getting hot in here
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Fortunately it’s software, and software can be changed. I’m sure HTC and Google had the fix waiting for this. It will be even easier for them to update to work around this than it was for Samsung to update the Galaxy Tab design to be able to sell it in Germany. Apple may have won a small battle here, but they won’t win the war against Android.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple’s been on the losing end of most of these. Good to see them get one, at least. :S
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 7:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As the saying goes..
Apple…Friend to innovation…enemy of progress.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Since when is that a saying? It doesn’t even make sense.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“The patent issued in 1999 and, in general terms, covers a device that scans computer text for data, like a phone number, and turns that number into a link that the user can then select to perform an act, like calling the number”, Sorry for my ignorance but did Apple actually really came out this in 1999 or it was actually an idea patented?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 8:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The patent was filed for in 1996, I’m not sure if NeXT actually practiced the invention back then, though they may have done in some fashion.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Regardless of what happens or doesn’t happen with this. I’m just going to say. This is crazy…
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:08 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
There is no longer a tech website that has decent discussion anymore. Its all nonsense initiated by wool-over-the-eyes fanboys.
This finding should be appealed based on prior art:
http://www.quora.com/What-prior-art-is-there-that-could-invalidate-Apples-647-Patent
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
While all those examples cover similar processes to that in ’647, none of them is a slam dunk piece of prior art if you actually follow the claim carefully.
I don’t believe that ‘647 should be valid, but I wouldn’t want to bet on any of those examples being sufficient to invalidate it.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 9:58 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
To me ‘647 looks like simple logic, something a software engineer would use to describe in an orderly fashion how to go around linking functionality to data. I can’t understand how such a patent can exist and why would only Apple be entitled to mine the data to populate other stores within a phone?
I wish you would explain why the examples from the link don’t follow the logic described in claim 1 of the patent. Of course one would need to describe how those examples were implemented but I can’t see how a piece of software can do otherwise than have part of the code detecting usable elements, another part drawing a UI element for user interaction and another part actually performing what the user has selected to do – while something else binds those functions together, whether it stems from the framework or program itself. Mind you I’m no software engineer. How would someone not do something like that? What type of difference will HTC need to implement in a workaround. I would really like an example i.e. I would understand if someone would say “to circumvent this you have to do this in one not so elegant routine – you can’t have specialized routines or a program for each” or something like that. But that would be so dumb. Is this what this is about? Doing this at all or doing this in an intelligent way?
As these patent wars will be upon us for months and years to come, I’d wish theVerge would make a summary article on this with all ongoing patent fights that relate to Apple, Google, Samsung etc. A table that would list these, the patents at stake, and against whom this is being litigated – as the decisions come in, this table would be updated with a summary of the decision and color coding. Furthermore, I know this is a tech site, but one in depth article about patents/copyright/trademarks at large to go with the table I talked about would help; the basic concepts could be summarized therein. The whole thing would be closed to comments. A reference piece to guide the readers I guess.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:09 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Take the first example – MUD clients.
MUD clients did do lots of things with incoming unstructured data, but they didn’t do what this patent does. They highlighted text, they blocked text, they triggered actions on text, And while that covers many of the same details as the patent, it doesn’t cover the claims involved – for a piece of prior art to invalidate a claim it has to completely implement that claim.
If there was a mud client that detected a piece of data in the stream, highlighted it and then created a context menu off of it, rather than a fully automated trigger action – that would do it – but my recollection is that they didn’t do that – especially not offering different context menus for different types of incoming data. Not surprising as most MUD clients were terminal applications, especially back in the early 90s.
One work around HTC could make that would seem to avoid the patent would be for detected structures to only do one thing – ie. if you click the phone number it calls it – if you click the email address it mails it – that behaviour would probably be prior arted by the mail2html example.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Thank you, that gave me an idea. So to answer my own question it’s “not doing it at all”. I thought it was more “not doing it in the same way at the low level”. It seems to me that if such patents are enforced, then other phones can only be less functional, and then if someone patents what you explained i.e. for structures to do only one thing – if prior art could not be established – then the others down the line are left with not doing anything at all with the data. That such a result can ensue if no licensing is done comforts me in the idea that this is patent troll in the end. The idea can only be to impede competition by leveraging licensing from all functions a phone incorporates, hence removing any profit margin. The way you analyzed this leaves open the question in my mind about the low level stuff i.e. the server, UI, execution and the process that binds it all – why is it spelled like that if it doesn’t seem to play a role in the analysis? Finally, on the less technical side of things, this is why I believe Apple has to be fought at all costs – they’ve become a damaging player in the industry, yet through litigation they will erode their patent portfolio, as someone pointed out the fact that some other 9 patents/claims were deemed not infringed in this HTC case. Maybe we lack perspective and things will even out in the long term. We shall see.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The ultimate aim here is to limit the functionality of competing devices so that they don’t overlap so closely with Apple’s. However if HTC invents some great piece of functionality themselves, they can withhold it from Apple, and force Apple to trade licenses. In principle that’s exactly how this is supposed to work, everybody is motivated to produce more innovations, and consumers benefit.
As for being a damaging player in the industry, honestly that’s totally wrong. Without Apple there wouldn’t even be a tablet industry and it’s extremely unlikely that Android or WPho would be nearly so good. Just look at how much better Android 4.0 has had to be in order to be able to compete in terms of performance. Apple is driving the industry, and everybody is benefiting.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I am not sure but did Apple somehow patent regular expressions?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:00 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So… WebKit, the underlying technology used in Apple Safari and the Android web browser, is contributed to by Apple and Google. It’s an open source base and they’re almost the same browser. But due to such a patent, only Apple is allowed to have a feature to automatically make some data like an address or a phone number into a clickable hyperlink allowing you to map it or call the number. That’s pretty devious. I say HTC’s lawyers need another go ‘round. It’s pretty essential for data in your address book in vCard format to be hyperlinked to be able to use it and act on it rather than just looking at it. I mean it’s modern software, you can’t have hyperlink patents. Are they going to go after InteliTXT or the other green underline text ad link companies?
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“So… WebKit, the underlying technology used in Apple Safari and the Android web browser, is contributed to by Apple and Google”
Ha. When did Google jump on that bandwagon? With the first version of Chrome, amirite? Ha
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It would seem you’re unfamiliar with the history of WebKit. Let me refresh your memory.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It seems you.. basically agree with me… the ‘now has been further developed’ part implies a passage of time, since Apple’s original work. Good job. So… Google Chrome. Like I said.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
KHTML was already a competent browsing engine before Apple ever got involved which is probably why they used it. Let’s not forget where the original work originated from.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
KHMTL was OK, but it was nowhere near what it has become. Apple did a lot to make it into what it is today – the industry standard rendering engine.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This patent isn’t about data entered into specific fields such as in an address book, it’s about a contextual, intelligent system for automatically identifying snippets of text in emails, etc. and then turning those snippets into actionable links. This has nothing to do with browsers or address books.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The patent doesn’t cover data that is already structured, such as a vcard or an HTML file. It only covers detection of structures in unstructured data, such as an email address or phone number in a block of text.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Good work, Apple, you deserve it
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow. This is interesting.
I think that this case isn’t just another patent war, but it rather shows an inherent flaw in the current patent system. The draconian nature of patents means that any patent can be pulled up a long time later to trip a company up.
In 1996, a system for fast searching seemed like a very original idea, and thus it was granted a patent. Now, such a system is very commonplace, so the patent looks very wrong now.
In fact, it’s the same thing for pretty much every patent that makes people cry foul. They were all filed a long time ago when the technology in question was new and original. Eventually, the market catches up and uses the same thing, and a couple of years later the original patent looks ridiculous.
I think that there needs to be a way of patent “sunset”, where after a set amount of time, patents are checked to see if they are still relevant. Otherwise unjust actions like this will just keep happening.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 10:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This isn’t about “searching.” The iPhone feature in question automatically identifies snippets of text in emails etc. and turns them into actionable links. For example, if a friend sends me an email saying “do you want to have lunch tomorrow at noon?” the iPhone makes “tomorrow at noon” an actionable link that will automatically create a calendar entry for tomorrow at noon. It’s a simple yet brilliant and powerful idea that was truly groundbreaking when it first came out on the iPhone. I don’t care if Apple first applied for this patent in 1996 or 1896 – it is unique, current and revolutionary and they deserve to be able to defend it from being stolen.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Okay. Thanks for clearing it up. I guess my complete lack of law knowledge really failed me.
That said, I still think the draconian nature of patents is wrong and can be abused too easily. Although it hasn’t happened in this case, it will happen in the future.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But does it pass the obviousness test to someone who is a software engineer in the cell phone or an otherwise related industry? The answer to that is pretty clear since it’s obvious to most laymen that you would want to parse data in a text field. We’ve already been doing it for years with HTML links in emails, hello! The fact that you suddenly chose to parse new data instead of HTML links only isn’t novel or original.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That is not what the obviousness test is about though. It is more with how you do it. Quoted “person having ordinary skill in the art” would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism. "
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The patent doesn’t actually specify any mechanism – the ‘647 patent is really describing what the problem is, rather than the solution. There’s no actual implementation information there.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is actually the loser in all of this. They lost their ability to ever re-assert 3 of their patents against any manufacturer and the sole remaining patent can easily be bypassed with an alternative UI implementation.
HTC should be congratulated for eliminating 3 more useless Apple patents from their arsenal.
Posted on Dec 19, 2011 | 11:07 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s not correct. The ITC doesn’t appear to have declared the other patents invalid, and indeed even if it did, does not represent a final authority in such matters. Apple could choose to assert those patents in future and might still prevail with them. It’s unlikely, but it’s certainly not impossible.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t get what the big deal is. HTC and/or Google just need to remove this minor UI feature, which they say they will do, and then keep right on selling. Doesn’t seem like it will have much if any impact at all.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:38 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Patent law is patently unfair, pun intended. You can be awarded a patent on anything that you “think of first”, regardless of if it’s an idea that should be patentable. The feature to read text on a web-page, and understand it’s context (phone numbers, email addresses and other things an interconnected device can work with) is not an idea that should be patentable. It’s sort of like the guy making the first shoe having a patent on all footwear. Apple did it first, but it’s simply a software feature, not a big deal by any stretch. Copy the entire UI or phone design and a lawsuit makes sense, but these lawsuits from Apple(who isn’t losing any money because of it) is petty and bitchy. The company doesn’t impress me in their handling of the smartphone war. Maybe Google should sue Apple for Siri. Google worked the cloud leveraged voice recognition into Android first, so why not sue Apple for implementing Siri.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why do so many of you think this patent is about text on web pages? It’s not. The feature this patent refers to is truly unique and Apple deserves the right to defend it from being stolen. You should do a little research.
And if Google has a patent on the technology used in Siri they should absolutely sue Apple.
People need to grow up. Just because you guys want every cool new feature to appear on every phone, regardless of who owns the technology… that just isn’t how the world works. Companies spend a fortune developing these technologies and they have every right to use the law to protect their technologies from being stolen.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:10 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You repeated that at least a thousand times. I guess you don’t realize that Apple isn’t using the patents to “protect their technologies”, but only to get rid of the competition.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You are correct, companies should protect their investments in these new technologies. But why sue HTC? Stock android has this feature, plenty of other OS’ have this feature; and by now this feature is so trivial that it’s dumb that Apple can sue everybody over being able to touch a number and call it.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 12:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Man…HTC must have had a real crap legal team. I mean, it’s apparently so trivial to discount that a random bunch of internet blog readers could tackle it. Obviously the leadership at HTC should just scout around looking for random schleps on the ’net…
Right..?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple has a patent for this? This is such a BS system.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“It’s a significant victory for Apple” you gotta be kidding me? Apple sued over 10 patents – and lost 9 and a half of those cases. HTC does not sell any Android 2.2 products ouside of the US (where carriers slower to test) anyway. There is no Ban – just a little incentive to upgrade any devices still shipping on Android 2.2 to be updated until April 19th – its an epic loss for Apple!

You could say, all Apple did gain is helping to get rid of some Android fragmentation – thanks buddys!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:15 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Not exactly. At least 4 of those patents, maybe 6 got dropped from the ITC investigation at Apple’s request in order to speed it up. See for instance the Foss-patents battlemap slideshow
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/updated-battlemapslideshow-apple-v-htc.html
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
ok, the lost some and chickend out on others :)
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s a tactical ploy, fewer patents means a faster resolution of the case. Getting an injunction early is potentially very useful leverage. HTC did exactly the same thing – did they also chicken out?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
probably – but stil does that make this "a significant victory for Apple"?
The HTC stock jumped 7% today btw
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Still too early to say. It will depend on whether the work-around for the patent produces a notable loss of functionality – and whether the work-around is itself found to infringe.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
piece of cake
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 7:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t understand if Apple have patented the idea (crazy) or the technical implementation. Arent we just talking about hyperlinks?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not a hyperlink, as it doesn’t use hypertext to link to a new webpage. But it links numbers on a webpage into your phone’s OS to use the phone app and call that number. Though the Google Chrome browser does the same thing so…who knows what this will effect.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
BTW at “The Verge”: what a poor choice of picture – together with this inprecise headline one might think current HTC phones (like this Rezound) are actually really banned – which of course they are not
Good thing the stock market has a bit more depth and jumped 7% on HTC stocks today on the news :-P
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Forgive me if I’m saying something horribly incorrect.. but doesn’t just about any (smart)phone OS do that?
I can surf and receive documents on my e72 and to me all (apparent) relevant data is easily detected and located; what sets apple’s tech aside?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nothing, almost all smartphones do this, and implement this patent. I imagine that probably this was one of the patents that Nokia ended up getting a license to as part of the settlement.
Remember this patent dates from 1996 – not many smartphones around back then – not even sure if Nokia’s first smart-brick was on the market at that point – if it was it didn’t implement the patent.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:30 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Ah, thanks.
Just wondering then, do Windows Mobile phones do the same?
Or is Apple’s patent only infringed in Android’s case because of the specific mechanism in which relevant data is analysed and presented on screen?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not used one but I presume they do. This patent would certainly have been covered by the cross license that Apple & MS entered into in the late 90s.
The patent isn’t limited to a specific mechanism exactly, but it is limited to the exact specification of the claim. It will be really interesting to see what HTC/Google’s solution to this is, and whether the courts agree that it doesn’t infringe.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:44 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Ah righto then, thanks a lot!
All good to know, good to know.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
FYI, before the iPhone there was no such thing as a ‘smartphone’…Hence all the lawsuits

Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Was that sarcasm? Because there was definitely such a thing as a ‘smartphone’ before the iPhone.
They were just all crap.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What smartphones where you looking at? Everything out classed the iPhone at launch XD
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Which is why they all survived in some form or another, correct?
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
BWAHAHAHA! Works like magic…. Easy David Coperfield… I needed that laughter today!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There was smartphones before iPhone. There’s also touchscreen smartphones before iPhone, just that it uses stylus.
You need to check what ‘smartphone’ actually mean.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
OK folks, I am a lawyer and spend a lot of my time defending against patent trolls, so let’s try to bring a little sense to this discussion. The headlines on this are meant to be splashy and get people to click and read the story to increase advertising revenue, but they don’t have a lot to do with reality. If HTC or Apple were small companies the horrendous costs of patent litigation could break them, but that’s not the case here. There’s no real wrong or right in this particular instance, it’s just a couple of big corporations trying to get a market advantage. HTC will simply rewrite a bit of their code/UI and get past this issue. Apple, Google, HTC, Microsoft will continue to keep suing each other from their treasure chests of old patents (Google will soon have some really good ones from their Motorola purchase) until it makes business sense to cross license their patents and that will be that. Now that Jobs is dead a lot of the infantile emotionalism will be taken out of the equation. The only problem with this system (which is unfortunately the US patent system since software patents, business method patents, etc. were allowed) is that the cost of all this litigation will be paid by consumers. In the long run the market will decide what phones people want to buy…all of this is just grandstanding to make it a little more expensive for one company or the other to win. Keep in mind that these battles are being faught worldwide – not just in the states. I assume that in 10 years or so the real value of these systems will depend on their adoption in China, India, Brazil and other emerging economies and the fairly small and stagnent US and european markets will become less and less important.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:35 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
“We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas” a direct quote from Steve Jobs ill just let that linger in the air for a bit.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:15 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I hate the fact that the same company that has so many innovative ideas can go and attack other people who just want to drive innovation just like them to gain some victory and gain marketshare. I mean we live in 2011, if I want a goddamn HTC Android phone I can get it off anywhere else other than US. These moves about patents and shit are just driving the economy badly. If only they were more focused on making a new phone that had some kind of difference than the old one. Idiots.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
HTC has big legal problems in Germany too – though for different reasons, Apple aren’t their problem there.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You also realize that HTC is paying off MS to use Android right? Android infringes on patents, this is a fact. You can’t just go take other peoples work and give it away for free without permission and expect them to be ok with that.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The carriers are not going to stand for this. Apple killing a 3rd of smartphone sales? This may be the only time I pray that the carriers sock it to Apple.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I still don’t understand what exactly HTC was doing wrong. Can someone tell me an example in real life that is violating this copyright?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Probably ‘Sense’?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just a note:
BT patent attacks android as a whole ~200 comments.
patent attacks a android OEM and add the word “Apple” ~800 comments.
people need better hobbies then getting raging fanboners when the “a” word is used.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:31 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
In this instance it’s fair though. BT is just declaring the start of hostilities and they have a long history of unsuccessful trolling. This story is the result of a significant battle, and is the first injunction that Apple has gotten against Android in the US. It’s a much bigger deal.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
BT and Google.. meh.. few people have even heard of BT. A handful of people have actually heard of Apple.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s it I’m not going to buy anymore Apple products anymore. I’ve had it with them. They are just a bunch of whiny lawyers now. They make Microsoft look like the fun cool guys whole Apple look like childish business men.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:33 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Presumably you also avoid devices containing Broadcom parts, since they sued Qualcomm and won an injunction?
Presumably you also avoid samsung since they’ve been guilty of criminal conspiracies against the consumer in markets such as memory?
Presumably you avoid Nokia who sued Apple?
Presumably you avoid Microsoft who sued everybody?
What an ethical little snowflake you must be!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:26 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
The horror. Someone warn Tim Cook!
Because Microsoft prefers getting paid for their IP as opposed to wanting no one else to use their IP? OK.
So, since you’re no longer buying Apple products, who will you switch to? Is it a company that has never taken another company to court over its IP? If so, what are their names?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow. Really Apple? The long list of things Steve Jobs borrowed, copied and blatantly stole to create the iPod, 1st Gen iPhone and everything else Apple and his crew thinks THEY are being infringed upon? Guess somone needs to nail them for their most recent theft. The Notification Bar. Come on. I will buy overseas HTC products from now on if this goes thru. How rotten can an Apple get before it gets tossed in the trash?
Come on ZETA!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You can’t steal from open source. That’s sorta the purpose of open source. And if a company out there has patents on something and Apple has used their IP, then they can damn well sue Apple. There’s no bias for or against Apple in the legal system. These companies Apple have supposedly stolen from can take care of themselves.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You can, but they didn’t.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s open source. It’s meant to be shared and modified by others, whether the actual code or the design itself.
So no you can’t. Apple can’t steal Android’s notifications anymore than Amazon can steal Android itself.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I dislike Apple for what it has become, but i freaking hate USPTO. But it think its about time Apple get some anti-trust lawsuits on their neck for abusing the rules, to be anti competitive.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And the legal basis for this anti-trust lawsuits are…? Besides magical fanboy fairy dust of course.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 1:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The whole patent system is BROKEN. All cars have engines that have almost the exact same parts, just like phones/OS. Something needs to be fixed. One ruling and HTC needs to stop selling all their products next year, just a bad system. All Apple does nowadays is sue someone else. What a whiney company.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:02 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Free technology from Google:, that’s okay, right? I mean, it’s not like anyone owns this stuff, technology is just free, like air! :-p
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is so fucking ridiculous. My Nokia N95 linked contacts and phone numbers in emails and sms like URLs while Apple was still dreaming of making a phone. Apple is just a stupid patent troll and needs to quit stifling innovation. What are they so afraid of?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:58 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You realize the patent predates the N95 right? Goes back to 1995. The N95 wa sreleased in 2007.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
LOUD NOISES!!!!!
Nothing gets the blood flowing like a fight between apple and android fanboys.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I am reminded of the Robot Chicken Michael Bay parody with a movie about explosions that devolved into someone yelling SPLOSIONS while things blew up.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You know this thread is almost predictable in so many ways.
1. XXX Sues YYY over Patent ABC.
Guaranteed comments include:
PATENTS SUCK AAHHH
PATENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN
PATENT TROLLS MUST DIE
Now add Apple? And we get
APPLE SUCKS
APPLE IS BAD NOW
APPLE MUST DIE
Really people can we avoid the obvious inane comments and discuss the case. Not every patent case is about patent trolling. Nor is every patent bad.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is this kind of behaviour displayed by Apple, that keeps me far away from any iDevice..
Apple is not protecting their property, I believe this kind of technology was already used by Skype in a browser, should Skype sue Apple?
Anyway, pathetic move Apple …
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Again, read the case. The patent in question predates Skype. It goes back 1995. 1995 which is almost 10 years before Skype came into being. This is not some new patent granted when the iPhone came out.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Might be, but you are not telling me that Apple actually used this system before the iPhone, and Skype actually did. Maybe they just had the same idea, seperately from eachother?
On the subject of Android, I believe Android is an OS that has no right to exist. It is a product that consists of (patented!) code of other companies, kept together by the tape that Google adds to it.
I think it is interesting Apple hasn’t sued Microsoft yet, maybe Windows Phone is actually innovative?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They did but not in phones – the feature was known as ‘data detectors’
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
More likely there was no suit because of the cross license agreement that came out of the lawsuit between MS and Apple over Windows. Also as Cloudgazer mentioned this has been used by Apple in other places.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s more likely that Windows Phone just doesn’t have the market presence to motivate Apple into suing them, remember back when Android started out and most of these “violations” first occurred Apple didn’t bother with legislation, they were happy to sit back, laughing smugly and waiting for it to fail. It’s only as Android OEMs have started taking major sections of the smartphone market that Apple has moved against them.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 5:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Patent law suits are the death of creativity. They hinder those that must stand on the shoulders of others in order to innovate. (Don’t be Aperture and Re-invent the wheel with vacuum tubes;Wheels work very well.) Also, Apple owns some very restrictive and broad patents in the mobile space: this is an example. It basically means Apple OWNS (and yes that’s what patents are, ownership of ideas in execution) inter-app linking. Stupid. I mean, honestly, this is ridiculous. The fact that Apple can own simple things like a “black, thin, glass covered” tablet, or swipe to unlock, or inter-app links, is wrong.
NOT TO MENTION the fact that these patents go on way to long. Patents/software copyright should be significantly shorter than it is.
ALL IN ALL, Patents=Corporate DRM. Useless, punishes consumers, and is a greedy money grab that is a zero sum game.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This patent is nothing to do with inter-app linking. Please keep a tighter rein on your horses.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“They hinder those that must stand on the shoulders of others in order to innovate. "
Haha. Yeah, pretty much.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple……sometimes……just sometimes, I want to pimp-slap you so bad.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I am genuinely curious why you are mad at Apple for defending a patent they have had since the late ’90s? A patent they used in other places for their software. This is a valid patent, also an old one. I am probably going to regret asking this question.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
These are for Apple Data Detectors from way back in the day – before Google even existed.
http://macbiblioblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/apple-data-detectors-are-so-useful.html
These are the manuals for them. Note that the UI is pre – OS X:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=50130&coll=ap
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Stuff that Apple copied recently:
-Notification Center (Android)
-Swipe to the sides to preview taken picture in camera app in iOS5 (WP7)
-iPhone 4 design (LG Prada)
So, if anyone says Apple don’t copy, they did. Why didn’t they get sue? I don’t know, competition or maybe others don’t have a lot of fund reserves to channel to their legal team.
So, a company is banned because of the contact link thing, that was created way before Apple has anything to do with phones? Great patent troll. And stupid patent system for issuing patent for non-existing product or prototype.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The iPhone-4 / LG Prada thing is really interesting and the law geek in me wishes that LG had sued, because it would have opened up a fascinating question.
The key design detail that Apple copied was a metal band running around a slab. In the case of the Prada that band is decorative and so could only be protected by a design patent. In the case of the iPhone it’s functional as it is the antenna, and design patents cannot cover functional elements.
It’s a really interesting question of law that has probably never been covered before, because how often does a decorative element in one device reappear as a functional element in a later one?
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 7:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is/ are just haters!!!
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“The iPhone-4 / LG Prada thing is really interesting and the law geek in me wishes that LG had sued”
The Comedian in me wishes they had, too.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 9:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.