HTC, Android in Serious Trouble

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
On Friday, a ruling was handed down by US International Trade Commission that declared HTC infringed upon two patents held by Apple, Inc. The ruling is still subject to review by a six member panel for the final decision. HTC plans to appeal the decision.

This also has severe implications for all Android products on the market, irrespective of the maker, as Mueller also pointed out: It’s hard to see how any Android device could not infringe them, or how companies could work around them.
Click to expand...
 
This is what's wrong with the patent system. Vague descriptions for highly technical systems. It's like if someone patented "performing an action on a substance for power," it just doesn't work.
 
Rockferd said:
This is what's wrong with the patent system. Vague descriptions for highly technical systems. It's like if someone patented "performing an action on a substance for power," it just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

good idea i may patent that.

the vague patents are also aided by these dime a dozen judges who don't know anything about electronics and are easily manipulated by large law firms into believing anything.
 
rdz5008 said:
good idea i may patent that.

the vague patents are also aided by these dime a dozen judges who don't know anything about electronics and are easily manipulated by large law firms into believing anything.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't, I have evidence it was mine!

Yea, that is added to the issues tremendously.
 
I think I should patent breathing... then EVERYONE has to pay!:D

Patents for the tech world is tough... how specific do you need to be, what should be patentable? Should GUI ideas really be patented, or at least for a shorter period?

This is NOT the end of android or HTC, but will raise the prices of those devices. That is all apple wants really imho.

These companies at worst will pay apple to use the patents, just like they already pay nokia and MS for each phone due to patents.

My little jab at apple... they brought 10 patents to the table... only 2 were considered applicable. hmmm shotgunning lawsuits, everyone does it but jeeze what a waste of time/$
 
"The ruling is still subject to review by a six member panel for the final decision. HTC plans to appeal the decision"

hopefully this six member panel is educated the tech to make a proper ruling.
 
Sounds like the Look and Feel lawsuit from Apple is back, Just cause it looks similar doesn't mean much, but then I doubt the underlying programming is the same, the suit should be decided in HTC/androids favor, I'd say here's our source code for the area in question and then say to Apple and to the Judge so where's Yours? Then say if You decline this is nothing more than a repeat of Your old Look and Feel lawsuits that Apple lost, Or at least I hope It will. Call their bluff.
 
One more reason to hate apple.

His long ago was it that Apple was pissing and moaning about Microsoft having a monopoly and nobody else could compete? Now they're suing into oblivion anybody that is trying to compete with them with flimsy claims if "their phones are rectangular like ours. Patent infringement!!"
 
So they patented highlighting and creating hyperlinks from phone numbers, email addresses and web addresses? Wouldn't any personal computer out there be in infringement then? They patented an output device??? Wouldn' any device with a built-in display (laptop, netbook, PDA, etc) all infringe on that? This is just ridiculous. How did they ever GET these patents to begin with? They seem so generic that pretty much every computing device out there today would infringe some part or other of those patents. Total bullcrap.
 
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 on a “system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.”


Seriously????

Apple has the patent for performing an action (edit, change, copy, etc.) on a structure (data value, variable, icon, image, etc) in computer generated data (not user-data like a notepad or an email.)

WOW. Hey Apple let's sue HUMANS!!! Our brains are like computers and they perform actions on computer generated data. Uh-Oh I just recalled a memory from my brain but I changed the ugly girl to a hot one that drunken night. I guess I owe Apple royalties!

This needs to change.
 
Rockferd said:
This is what's wrong with the patent system. Vague descriptions for highly technical systems. It's like if someone patented "performing an action on a substance for power," it just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

+1, plus the fact some patents were filed 5/10+ years ago, things changed quite a bit since then.
 
AAAAAAAAANND This is part of the reason I hate Apple as Corporation; among other reasons. They aren't protecting their own intellect, they are trying to rip people off.
 
I have to agree with all of you, i have always hated apple for the petty business practices. This is just the lowest of the low, and i have to say that i really like reading this site because 90% of you guys are far more educated about these type of things than alot of the other websites. I would rather be the dumbest dude reading this site than the smartest guy reading the other sites seriously. On that note i think this whole patent thing is COMPLETELY out of control, i mean really when did we start claiming patents on basic programming? I can't wait for the day that it comes back around full circle and bites Apple in the ass.
 
Apple shits self realizing Android's actually a threat, dives into 16-17 year old patents for comfort, can demand money or ban every single phone in the world excluding a couple of dumbphone models who only handle phonecalls and in a particular manner..
 
Please tell me I'm not the only one sitting at their desk, quietly having a fit of rage after reading those patents. I cannot believe what I just read. Really, that is some pretty general shit they are describing in those patents. How can anyone innovate with patents like these floating around, along with a clueless court system upholding this bullshit. Let's see if that 6 member panel in Washington has any common sense. I'll try not to punch any kittens in the meantime.
 
tesfaye said:
Please tell me I'm not the only one sitting at their desk, quietly having a fit of rage after reading those patents.
Click to expand...

No, you're not the only one. Although I'd be careful. You're probably violating that very patent with your rage.
 
This is a prime example of how our patent system is broken. You shouldn't be able to patent a vague idea, method or design. Instead, a patent should only apply to specifics or features of a prototype or working product.
 
tesfaye said:
Please tell me I'm not the only one sitting at their desk, quietly having a fit of rage after reading those patents. I cannot believe what I just read. Really, that is some pretty general shit they are describing in those patents. How can anyone innovate with patents like these floating around, along with a clueless court system upholding this bullshit. Let's see if that 6 member panel in Washington has any common sense. I'll try not to punch any kittens in the meantime.
Click to expand...

I'm not really raged by the crap they do any more as they have been doign this kind of underhanded nonsense forever (famous earlier example suing microsoft for something that xerox invented :rolleyes:) more annoyed. They are probably the company with the largest ratio of patents to "inventions" ever. Hopefully even for the paid out morons at the patent office this can only go on for so long, I mean statistically a person of morals is going to come along eventually who can't be paid off by corporations with corrupt morals and hopefully this with be the catalyst that helps bring forward the end of this kind of immoral and progress stopping use.
 
OregonLAN said:
This is a prime example of how our patent system is broken. You shouldn't be able to patent a vague idea, method or design. Instead, a patent should only apply to specifics or features of a prototype or working product.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. This isn't "I.P" that they are patenting, this is setting up for patent trolling.
 
So, if Apple successfully sues all the manufactures of android devices out of business wouldn't that essentially hand Apple a monopoly of those types of smart phones?
 
The Gonz said:
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 on a “system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.”


Seriously????

Apple has the patent for performing an action (edit, change, copy, etc.) on a structure (data value, variable, icon, image, etc) in computer generated data (not user-data like a notepad or an email.)

WOW. Hey Apple let's sue HUMANS!!! Our brains are like computers and they perform actions on computer generated data. Uh-Oh I just recalled a memory from my brain but I changed the ugly girl to a hot one that drunken night. I guess I owe Apple royalties!

This needs to change.
Click to expand...

The claims of the patent are the description of the invention, not the title. Here's the first independent claim.

1.A computer-based system for detecting structures in data and performing actions on detected structures, comprising:

an input device for receiving data;
an output device for presenting the data;
a memory storing information including program routines including
an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures;
a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and
an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected structure; and
a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines.
Click to expand...

The problem with public perception is that almost any good/successful patent is obvious in hindsight.
 
"system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data"

So if you design a system or method for acting on a data-structure you loose.
For those of you who've ever used data-structures in your C, you're OK, as long as you didn't perform an action on that data-structure.
If you did go overhaul your code please.
 
A quick look at this and the first thing that comes to mind is prior art. This patent is pretty f'd up. Let's see, it seems to describe how a piece of text gets turned into a link and how it will open up a related program based on the link type.... This type of tech has been around forever.
 
Wenthral said:
So, if Apple successfully sues all the manufactures of android devices out of business wouldn't that essentially hand Apple a monopoly of those types of smart phones?
Click to expand...

The ITC can't grant money damages, but they can grant an exclusion order. Essentially, they can tell customs to seize these devices and not allow them into the U.S. The reason this body has this power is to protect domestic industry from foreign entities who violate their IP.

Federal Courts can grant both legal (money) and equitable (injunction) remedies.

Assuming this stands, HTC would either need a license from Apple or would need to remove the patented feature in order to import their devices.
 
Bohica69 said:
A quick look at this and the first thing that comes to mind is prior art. This patent is pretty f'd up. Let's see, it seems to describe how a piece of text gets turned into a link and how it will open up a related program based on the link type.... This type of tech has been around forever.
Click to expand...

One assumes that HTC looked for prior art (or rather their lawyers did) and whatever they found was not that compelling.
 
Maybe you guys should google the patent number and read the actual description from the US Patent office. Here's a short summary of the ACTUAL meat of the patent, and no, it's not just "perform an operation on data," which would be a ridiculous patent and would never pass the 'non-obvious' criterion:

2. Description of the Background Art

Much data that appears in a computer user's day-to-day activities contains recognizable structures that have semantic significance such as phone numbers, e-mail addresses, post-office addresses, zip codes and dates.
...

Therefore, a system is needed that identifies structures, associates candidate actions to the structures, enables selection of an action and automatically performs the selected action on the structure.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention overcomes the limitations and deficiencies of previous systems with a system that identifies structures in computer data, associates candidate actions with each detected structure, enables the selection of an action, and automatically performs the selected action on the identified structure. It will be appreciated that the system may operate on recognizable patterns for text, pictures, tables, graphs, voice, etc. So long as a pattern is recognizable, the system will operate on it. The present invention has significant advantages over previous systems, in that the present system may incorporate an open-ended number and type of recognizable patterns, an open-ended number and type of pattern analysis units, and further that the system may enable an open-ended number and type (i.e. scripts, macros, code fragments, etc.) of candidate actions to associate with, and thus perform, on each identified structure.
Click to expand...

This patent relates to automatically pulling patterns out of context (phone #s and links out of text messages, dates and times out of emails, etc) and performing an automatic action (call the number, save the # as a contact, open the hyperlink in a browser, save the date and time as a calendar event) when the pattern is detected. So, when you click on the phone # your friend has sent you in a text and the phone automatically calls it, that is covered under this patent by Apple.

I'll admit the original patent, dated 1996, couldn't have forseen mobile systems like a smartphone capable of doing all these functions within a device designed to be a mobile phone, BUT the concept is still the same: parse incoming data, identify patterns (10 digit phone numbers, mm/dd/yy dates, <month> <day> patterns, etc), enable the user to automatically integrate the significant pattern into another application for later use.

The goal of all patents is to be as general as possible while still satisfying the innovative demands to be a new patent. Then, the patent covers as much as possible. This patent is a PERFECT example of a concept that could and should be patented (especially in '96, given the state of computers at the time) and is also as general as possible so it can be applied to a concept used in millions of handheld devices in 2011. Good job, Apple patent lawyers.

Just because a concept is obvious now doesn't make it a frivolous lawsuit. If you want to argue that the state of technology is such that innovation happens so fast that traditional patent law more stifles innovation and competition than supports it, you may have a point. You can't argue that this is a ridiculous patent if you actually read it.
 
How long to patents like this stay in effect, is it anything like how it works in the pharmaceutical industry?

I'm working on a way to patent the process by which companies enforce their patents.
 
bucket said:
How long to patents like this stay in effect, is it anything like how it works in the pharmaceutical industry?

I'm working on a way to patent the process by which companies enforce their patents.
Click to expand...

Applications filed on or after 6/8/1995 - 20 years from filing date.
Applications filed before 6/8/1995 - 17 years from issue.
 
Not concerned.

Those two patents are so rediculously vague, that they will likely get thrown out alltogether.

In the meantime, lots of FUD regarding competitors products, which is likely the best Apple can hope for.
 
I've been a crApple hater for a while for this very purpose.

Shame on these politicians who are on Apple's payroll. :rolleyes:
 
The Gonz said:
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 on a “system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.”


Seriously????
Click to expand...

You guys are barking up the wrong tree here. You're completely misreading that patent title.

It's not patenting any system or method for performing any action on any structure in any data. It's patenting a system for performing an action. The patent claims contain the specifics of which system for which action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top