Read more.Quote:
A judge has determined that HTC smartphones infringe two Apple patents – could get messy.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
A judge has determined that HTC smartphones infringe two Apple patents – could get messy.
"Of course intellectual property needs to be protected, but Android is clearly quite different to iOS and WP7, and it's a shame that it looks set to be a less viable mobile platform thanks to the legal efforts of Apple and Microsoft and Apple."
Arguably not a typo - like you say, Apple is somewhat less keen to license, so twice as guilty?
;-)
This is starting to get out of hand.... one of the key reasons i hate america! I wonder how many patents Apple has infringed, i bet its a crap loads cause apple hardly innovate and that is proven once again here.... its a patent from 1996, and now they are pulling it out of the grave because they are all out of ideas on how to stop competition.
The fact is that as patents have to be so broad in their description it makes it extremely hard to not infringe even though the actual method is totally different but if you give a brief description on how you get to it it then sounds similar to a previous patent.
I know MS is sometimes disliked but that is the reason i like them, yes they have a crap load of patents but atleast they LET people pay to use them, Apple seem to want to be the only phone manufacturer so i hope it makes a massive u turn and all of HTC patents win against apple.
oops, thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tpyo
I can't help thinking these issues would be better protected by copyright in the code that implements these ideas, rather than patenting the idea. *
The patent system currently seems to be used these days to protect the functionality of an idea (often extremely vague ideas at that), rather than the implementation. For example, in terms of the multi-touch stuff, I think it is reasonable for Apple or anyone else to protect the exact implementation of using >1 point of contact. I can imagine they may have spent time researching ergonomics, what's easiest for the average Joe to remember, that sort of thing. However, even then, there are obvious finger pointing combinations that anyone trying to implement such a system would inevitably think about using (e.g. two fingers pointing together, two fingers pointing separated, etc...) More generally, I just can't see why the patent system be used to prevent anyone else from implementing any kind of multi-touch input system??
And the example here is again what I think is basic functionality - recognising e.g. telephone numbers, email addresses etc... Surely that is obvious functionality if you think about it for at least a few minutes. I presume they haven't ripped off the code Apple used to implement the idea (I'm also guessing when the patent was granted, Apple didn't have any code).
*I've not actually read the patents involved or really read up on individual cases, so I may have entirely mis-understood what is being argued about...
These patents are usually only obvious after the fact. It has taken someone time, money and effort to develop them beforehand, so it's only right that that effort is protected.Quote:
And the example here is again what I think is basic functionality - recognising e.g. telephone numbers, email addresses etc... Surely that is obvious functionality if you think about it for at least a few minutes. I presume they haven't ripped off the code Apple used to implement the idea (I'm also guessing when the patent was granted, Apple didn't have any code).
Agreed, it seems to me that its not about that though, i dont know for sure but im pretty confident HTC/android didnt directly rip off whatever this patent is, they probably developed their own version of it, just so happens that it (not surprisingly) has some similarities with the version that apple have made.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
I dont think these law suites actually have much in the way of IP protection, its more strong arm tactics from wealthy companies trying to cut the feet off smaller developing companies so they can maintain dominance of the market. I will put money on the notion that apple have entire departments dedicated to the process of finding possible loop holes in patents that they can use to screw the competition. Quite frankly, its pure evil!
perhaps they will sue every fruit seller too for using the name apple and force us to rename the fruit...
I have no difficulty with protecting the effort, I just don't think that the patent system is the way to do it. I understood the policy reason for the patent system was to protect innovation, the argument being that if you didn't, no-one would devote the time and effort developing an idea. With these examples, I simply don't accept that is the case - the (global) competition is fierce enough that others are more than happy to spend time developing the same code.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
In the example here, if someone else develops entirely separate some code which achieves the same effect, they have also spent time and effort developing something (and presumably spent a similar amount of time). In my view, the original developer will have taken benefit from being first - presumably anything which took a lot of time and effort to implement will have taken a competitor time and effort too, during which time the original company will have reaped the benefits of being first to market. Again, I see ripping off the implementation as different and if someone actually took the code and re-used that, clearly that's entirely different.
If we stick to the principle that ideas per se can be protected (separate from their implementation), then I would argue for a much shorter period of protection a couple of years at most, particularly with the pace of modern technology. To say that first to market can then exclude the competition for an entire generation (Human, not technological) seems wrong.
I accept that drawing a line between idea and implementation could be difficult. Maybe the difficulty is the ease with which you can get US patents, and the apparent vagueness which is allowed. Fundamentally though, I agree with Biscuit and see the current system as a means of stiffling innovation and competition. It seems to have reached the stage where you can only play in the mobile game if you have a patent library that you can use to buy off this litigation by cross-licensing, even if you wrote an entire OS from scratch.
(or final option then - enforced cross licensing :mrgreen:)
Apple has infringed two S3 patents ITC has also ruled:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple...s-209496.shtml
HTC owns S3:
http://www.htc.com/www/press.aspx?id=172438&lang=1033
I can see some cross-licensing going on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The US patent system needs taken out the back and shot. What was once a layer of protection for small/hobbyist inventors has been corrupted by cronyism to the point that it's useless for the intended protectees and only serves as a stick for incumbents to beat down the small players with.
I would be curious to know the difference in budget allowance between the technology departments and the legal departments. Plot the figures out over the last ~20 years and i bet the lines would be interesting, but not at all surprising.
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
The patent system needs to be simplified across the board. The US patent system presently is heavily bias to registering the patent, they simply have no incentive to check the patents properly. Which is why you get these head on collisions with major corporations. Congress had a vote on whether to overhaul it and passed so let us see how they will implement it. These changes won't come into effect until after 2015.
Some more details about the patents:
http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+H...ticle22184.htm
It looks Google has said they are going to support HTC now:
http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xht...d=103004B5B8XP