HTC, Android in Serious Trouble

IRSmurf said:
This. After reading up on those patents, I'm getting a little fired up at the patent office, as well.
Click to expand...

[Tripod]MajorPayne;1037524540 said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...

That's the issue though. A patent as general as that should not be able to be applied to today's devices when they all fucking do it. Technology is expanding too fast for general patents like these to be granted. In 1996 I guess it was OK but that's why we need a patent system reform now so that stupid shit like this stop's now and is prevented from happening again in the future.

I was working for the courts when the MS vs. i4i rolled through. Again a very stupid patent that was very general. The judges sided with i4i because the judges are older and know the system as the way it is. The judges aren't the most technically inclined people so they don't understand the fact that the old school way of patents just doesn't work right anymore with today's technology.
 
JokerCPoC said:
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.
Click to expand...

It never went away, they are still trying to get Samsung to settle at the very least.
 
schizrade said:
This is why I cannot stand Apple, besides shitty OSX.
Click to expand...

OS X is a great OS.

The problem is the overpriced hardware that you're required to buy to legally run it, and the "trendy" man that runs the company that fans worship like a demigod ~ those are the reasons to hate Apple.

I love my Aria and I hope that there's sanity somewhere and this BS gets thrown out of court.
 
my favorite part was the bit about patenting a way to store programs and data. if apple really has a patent on this, shouldn't every company owe them money? I was aghast at how simple some of those patents were. I understand protecting IP, but computer interfaces shouldn't be patentable unless it's some fundamentally new way.
 
"
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.
"

Just about every program ever made (not by an idiot) checks input data, gives the user a view of it, and offers to perform some function on it. I fail to see how any of that is new?
 
This shit happens in no matter what industry you look at, take the firearms industry for example. A company by the name of Atlantic Research Marketing Systems (A.R.M.S.®) Inc. went after a number of competitors over patent infringement, and the owner of the company Dick Swan is a total douche if I might add. Anyway, ARMS even sued over the number '7'. Yes, a single number. :rolleyes:
 
GoodBoy said:
Not concerned.

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

They've survived at least two challenges - the patent office granted the patent over whatever prior art it could find and HTC's likely validity challenge before the ITC appears to have failed. It's quite a bit more likely that it won't be thrown out.

You may all believe that the patents are vague(35 U.S.C. § 112), anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102), and/or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103), but skilled attorneys haven't been able to persuade an administrative law judge that those things are true.
 
Shouldnt Apple be suing Google anyways, since they wrote the OS? Im pretty sure a windows phone does the same thing, yet you dont see Apple suing Microsoft. Probably because they know thats a bad idea. Where is RIM's lawsuit aswell?
 
srbarcena said:
Shouldnt Apple be suing Google anyways, since they wrote the OS? Im pretty sure a windows phone does the same thing, yet you dont see Apple suing Microsoft. Probably because they know thats a bad idea. Where is RIM's lawsuit aswell?
Click to expand...
This is what I was wondering. If these patents hold true, shouldn't any smartphone be violating these patents and not just the Android devices? What about Rim and Microsoft devices?
 
Lawyers will meet from both parties, agreements will be made for an exchange of monies for the "right" to use said technology and we will continue to see more phones made in China. Next.
 
Actually the way this is written their is prior art but I'm guessing no one will think of it in time. This patent covers the way a CPU works. So any CPU existing before this was filed is prior art. Apple patented the basic premise of how a computer or compiler works in 1996 long after said devices were in use.
Patterns, memory stores on registers or variables as I like to call them are a basic principle to how any microcomputer works since the first x86 computer.
What they did to cloud the issue was suggest that their method was different than what existed prior, which is were the bullshit lays.
 
HOCP4ME said:
How about we reduce the length of a patent to around, say, two years?
Click to expand...

I'd rather go back to the old [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States"]Term of patent in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] length of 17 years or if that's not possible due to treaties, then at most by law, 20 years and not one second longer.
 
PurduEE said:
You may all believe that the patents are vague(35 U.S.C. § 112), anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102), and/or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103), but skilled attorneys haven't been able to persuade an administrative law judge that those things are true.
Click to expand...
Running with the pack in an anti-apple thread that requires reading of legal minutiae...say it isn't so!
 
JokerCPoC said:
I'd rather go back to the old Term of patent in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia length of 17 years or if that's not possible due to treaties, then at most by law, 20 years and not one second longer.
Click to expand...

It is currently twenty years, is it not? And seventeen years isn't much shorter.

Both of those terms are way too long for modern technology.

If you don't want to change the term length then at least revamp the criteria for software patents. Code really blurs the line between patent and copyright, and I think it needs to be more copyright and less patent. When you do something in code you don't "figure out" how to do it; you are just the first person to decide to do it.
 
In the end, I bet the price of Androids will go up b/c Apple will demand some sort of BS royalty. Freakin' A. :mad:
 
Or they will demand retro-active damages that HTC or anyone else may not be willing to pay. This will take a long time to figure out.

Apple is using litigation to stifle competition. They've been doing it for years. They are facing stiff competition from Google phones and need a way to get these patents enforced prior to expiration.

Didn't they try to patent the term "App Store" recently?

Maybe next will be "won't", "can't" and "no you did'ant"

I'm neither pro or anti-Apple, but taking a string, parsing, then using a server, etc..... to perform an action is something that has been done for years, and it will only be a matter of time before someone "googles" it, which will be funny.
 
Patent laws are outdated and hinder progress. It sucks that companies that make quality and innovative products have to worry about getting sued left, right, and center.
 
Apple should be going after any word processing or document generation software from the past decade or so as well. Type in an email address or hyperlink in any MS Word software and watch it automatically convert it to a link and let you perform an action on it. Don't care how you cut it, the patent is so vague that its existence (if everyone was playing by the rules) would have stifled innovation for the past decade or more. Obviously they're not going to go after Microsoft out of the gate because they want to establish some prior decisions before going after the big players. Going after MS out of the gate would have forced them up against some higher priced legal teams that may have smacked them down hard.
 
And, to add ... to me anyway, it would seem obvious that the manual typing out of a hyperlink converting into automatically processing a link would be the obvious result of the normal advance of computing technology and software development, not a "new idea". That's all Apple, Google, MS, RIM are doing with the automatic conversion ... creating an automatic link instead of a manual link. The concept has been around since the 60's. Making it happen automatically instead of manually is not a "new idea".
 
srbarcena said:
Shouldnt Apple be suing Google anyways, since they wrote the OS? Im pretty sure a windows phone does the same thing, yet you dont see Apple suing Microsoft. Probably because they know thats a bad idea. Where is RIM's lawsuit aswell?
Click to expand...
this is a good point... seriously, I'm pretty sure Microsoft had this shit going in the DOS days... input a command, recognize it, then get a response...

the fuck
 
mope54 said:
falls a bit flat once one reads the patent, however
Click to expand...

Seems people aren't doing just that, though, so they read the intentionally vague language in the patent introduction and assume that Apple has patented all of computer programming in its entirety.
 
This reminds me of the story when BT tried to sue anyone who used hyperlinks b/c they claimed they had the patent on it. So basically, they were suing the Internet. :rolleyes:
 
I guess this means eventually I will HAVE TO own an apple product if i want some sort of smart device...(or the Evil up and coming Windows Smart Phone)
 
beowulf7 said:
This reminds me of the story when BT tried to sue anyone who used hyperlinks b/c they claimed they had the patent on it. So basically, they were suing the Internet. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I vaguely remember that, can't remember what happened in the end, but I remember a big twist to the whole case.

Can only hope Apple's current Patent trip backfires in some manner, this is getting ridiculous, everyone pretty much knows they are trying to block the competition by any means necessary, and their current and imminent offerings (iPhone 5) are falling short of the mark.

Now if they made the OS as flexible and unrestrained as the Android OS, they might see some added interest.
 
Glad to see a few people actually reading the patent...

Vermillion said:
I was working for the courts when the MS vs. i4i rolled through. Again a very stupid patent that was very general. The judges sided with i4i because the judges are older and know the system as the way it is. The judges aren't the most technically inclined people so they don't understand the fact that the old school way of patents just doesn't work right anymore with today's technology.
Click to expand...

I am curious what exactly you were doing for "the courts"... because if you have any sort of legal education, then I would expect you to understand that JUDGES do not get to decide to reform patent law. If you disagree with the current state of patent law and wish for reform, then great, go write Congress. But you have said nothing to support the idea that the patent DOESN'T apply HTC, only that you think it SHOULDN'T.
 
HAHA!

I hate Android/HTC.

See sig.

Three phones later(HTC Incredible, Moto Droid 1, Moto Droid 2), still have yet to have a pleasant experience with Android.
 
And as much hate as we exhibit for Apple...

They made $7.3 billion in profits last quarter alone. :eek: Holy f-ing shit, they just released their earnings and they are absolutely staggering.
 
10e said:
Or they will demand retro-active damages that HTC or anyone else may not be willing to pay. This will take a long time to figure out.

Apple is using litigation to stifle competition. They've been doing it for years. They are facing stiff competition from Google phones and need a way to get these patents enforced prior to expiration.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that Microsoft is much more successful at this game. They have been getting license fees out of HTC and several other Android Phone makers without a fight. Reports are that MS is making more money from Android Licensing than from selling WinPhone7.

There was likely a negotiation phase before lawsuit, but MS was successful at negotiating where Apple wasn't.

I don't see how this is any more threat to Android than MS licensing. If the Apple patents hold up, paying a license fee similar to MS would be all that is needed.

I wonder if RIM will be next?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top