Apple Sues HTC Again Over Patents

recoiledsnake writes "Apple is suing HTC again over patent infringement. Apple is adding two new patents to the 20 included in the earlier case while adding additional details to two patents included previously. Although Android is not mentioned in any of the court documents, many of the patent infringement complaints refer to the software rather than the hardware that HTC manufactures, leading to speculation that Google is the real target, especially considering that Android sales are surpassing the iPhone's. With HTC countersuing Apple, Microsoft siding with HTC over Android, and Apple trying to stop import of Nokia phones, it seems like Apple has set off a patent Armageddon in the mobile space."

Comments

in re Bilski

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we can hope that when the Supreme Court hands down its in re Bilski decision, it renders software patents invalid...

Re:in re Bilski

[jonbryce]

Bilski is a computerised business method / mathematical algorithm patent. Invalidating that is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it will help HTC.

Re:in re Bilski

[Fallen Kell]

It depends on how the court rules. If indeed it does uphold the fact that math can't be patented and concludes that ultimately, all software is math, then all software patents go poof. This might not help for any hardware based patents (and I am sure there are a few in this case), but a lot of the ammo disappears.

Re:in re Bilski

[TheGeniusIsOut]

If math cannot be patented, then digital logic, which is binary mathematics, cannot be patented, which makes hardware unpatentable as well. Of course, anyone so inclined, and with sufficient knowledge, can describe anything in mathematical terms, which by that logic would thus invalidate all patents. Certainly, since the one of the foundations of quantum theory is the many worlds hypothesis, which is mathematical in nature, states that all possibilities occur somewhere in the multiverse, all things are also prior art.

Re:in re Bilski

[MarxMarvellous]

Certainly, since the one of the foundations of quantum theory is the many worlds hypothesis...

The many worlds hypothesis is NOT one of the foundations of quantum mechanics. It's an interpretation of quantum mechanics - one of many. And that bit in your argument where you jump from the *concept* of digital logic being unpatentable to a specific *hardware* implemenation being unpatentable is really shakey too. How did this get modded +4 insightful?

Re:in re Bilski

[erroneus]

Atoms are unpatentable. Everything is made of atoms. Therefore nothing is patentable.

Yeah, not sure how that works. My favorite hated patent was the rotating tray in a microwave oven. That patent made microwave ovens unaffordable until that patent ran out and it was such an obvious invention. But how is this math or digital logic? It's not. It's just a mechanical implementation of getting the radiation spread out more evenly. Just because something CAN be described in mathematical terms doesn't mean that it, in and of itself, is a mathematical thing.

If one were so inclined, I am fairly sure that someone could come up with a way to express everything in music (which some would argue is still math) but does that make everyone musical? I know that many words and meanings can be expressed in English, but does it mean everything is English? Maybe I have attempted this too many times. But you see where the failure of logic is don't you?

And the difference here is that software IS math. It's not that it can be expressed in mathematical terms. It's that it IS math. It's instructions and flows. It would be like patenting walking. It's just how things are done within the hardware mechanism.

Re:in re Bilski

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Agreed. Where do we draw the line on patents? And who exactly, is smart enough to draw that line? Will there be anyone smart enough to watch him?

Re:in re Bilski

[Theaetetus]

And that bit in your argument where you jump from the *concept* of digital logic being unpatentable to a specific *hardware* implemenation being unpatentable is really shakey too.

Not that shaky... A transmission is fundamentally a set of mathematical ratios for converting speed and torque. And yet machines are certainly patentable.
Or how about this - if all math is unpatentable, and all software is math, and all processes can be described in software, then all processes are unpatentable... but that directly contravenes the statute which explicitly says that processes are patentable.

Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.

Re:in re Bilski

[Theaetetus]

Bilski is a computerised business method / mathematical algorithm patent. Invalidating that is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it will help HTC.

Not even computerized. Bilski's claims are strictly to hedge fund risk management, and say nothing about a computer. That's part of why the CAFC invalidated them under their "tied to a specific machine" test.

Re:in re Bilski

[mOdQuArK!]

My proposal (assuming you want patents at all for your society):

Put a fairly small hard-limit # on the total # of patents that can be valid at any time (maybe 10000 total? Or 10000 total per industry category? Not sure how many patents are being granted per year right now.)

When patents expire, or are invalidated (through existing prior art or obviousness procedures), sell their "slots" at an auction.

To enter the auction, you have to submit a patent application. The bidders will bid on the various patent applications, highest bidder(s) will get the patent application they were bidding on assigned to one of the open slots. The money that was paid to win the auction can go to the person who filed the patent application.

The advantages:

1) having a relatively small # of patents that can be valid at any time will make it a lot easier to find out if you are violating a patent, plus you don't have to worry so much about stumbling over patents about small stupid things that you would have to go to court to get them declared obvious,

2) by valuing each potential patent through an auction, you force the bidders to do the due diligence on each patent application (since they don't want to purchase a patent which will be easier overturned). (i.e., no patent examiners required for this step).

Still need patent examiners (and courts) to rule on obviousness/prior art challenges though.

3) the people who are submitting the patent applications don't have to be the people who have to try and exploit the patented idea, and the people bidding on the patent applications will be pre-selected to have the resources to properly exploit a patented idea.

Win for the patent applicant, since they might receive an awesome jackpot if they submit a particularly valuable idea, even if they're not a businessperson in a position to exploit it, and win for society because the successful bidder is much more likely to be able to turn that patent into a product or service that can be then sold to the society.

Main disadvantage(s) I can think of:

1) Because proceeds of auction go to the patent applicant, need to make sure that the applicants can't bid on their own patent (since there's no point in an auction where the bidder is just paying themselves).

2) What to do with the patent applications which don't make the grade.

The obvious thing to do is to make them public domain, since their contents are public (which you need to do to have a fair auction) and therefore they are prior art if someone else submits something similar for a later auction, but it sure doesn't seem fair if you've got a really good idea that just happened to up against some really tough competition.

I guess you might have to just leave it up to being strategic about when to submit your patent application, and to try and keep things as a trade secret if you don't think your idea is good enough to win one of the patent auctions.

Re:in re Bilski

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the people modding have any knowledge of the subject

Re:in re Bilski

[s73v3r]

Let me see if I have your system correctly. There would be a finite number of patents that are valid at any one time. When a patent is invalidated, or simply expires, then its slot would be auctioned off. However, the people with patents pending wouldn't be the ones bidding, but rather large corporations. The corporations would get to decide what is patented, and if they win, they get the patent, not the person who submitted it. So a corporation could put up money to patent something, only to make sure it is never used.

Sounds even worse than the system we have now. At least in the system we have now, a small company has a shot at getting a patent without having to sell their invention to a large company.

Re:in re Bilski

[TemporalBeing]

Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.

Actually it comes from the USC 35 section 102.f

he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented

The courts have taken it as anything that is a law of nature is thereby unpatentable. Math is a law of nature; transmissions are not, though they employ laws of nature to function.

Re:in re Bilski

[TemporalBeing]

The only real way to resolve the issue is not to limit it to a specific number - that just doesn't work with a growing society as you have more and more players participating - but rather to tie it to a process that can be independently evaluated as to whether the patent is "promote the Progress of Science and useful Art" (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8), and enforcing the "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8). The best method to do this today is through business evaluation by the state - essentially, require a business plan with the patent and then hold them to it. If they meet the business plan, then they get it for the length; if they exceed the business plan then they lose it early; if they fail they can either lose it (if it's not meeting the requirements) or be granted an extension depending on the success. Tie the results of the business plan to the amount invested and add a small but meaningful profile (e.g. invested + 20%), and also an industry survey. Require review on a regular basis, but staged with the longer the patent is held the more frequent the review.

Sure this will require resources to regulate; but it certainly would be a big benefit over the existing system, and would be able to get rid of patent trolls if the business plan requirements were correct - e.g. requiring an actual product being put to market by the patent holder that utilizes the patent, no product then no patent.

Re:in re Bilski

[Fallen Kell]

Yes, but even though music can and is described as math, we don't patent music, we copyright it. If there should be any protections on software, copyright should be the only protection mechanism, not patents.

Re:in re Bilski

[Theaetetus]

Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.

Actually it comes from the USC 35 section 102.f

he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented

The courts have taken it as anything that is a law of nature is thereby unpatentable. Math is a law of nature; transmissions are not, though they employ laws of nature to function.

Actually, that interpretation is also in 101, which states that whoever invents or discovers any new process may obtain a patent therefor. By the same analysis, laws of nature have existed since the beginning of the universe - therefore, they aren't new.
But, this isn't any different from what I said... both are judicial interpretations of the statute. Good ones, mind you, but not ones that can't be modified.

Re:in re Bilski

[TemporalBeing]

Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.

Actually it comes from the USC 35 section 102.f

he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented

The courts have taken it as anything that is a law of nature is thereby unpatentable. Math is a law of nature; transmissions are not, though they employ laws of nature to function.

Actually, that interpretation is also in 101, which states that whoever invents or discovers any new process may obtain a patent therefor. By the same analysis, laws of nature have existed since the beginning of the universe - therefore, they aren't new. But, this isn't any different from what I said... both are judicial interpretations of the statute. Good ones, mind you, but not ones that can't be modified.

While IANAL - I would think that the working of what I quoted would make it pretty clear that the one apply for the patent must also be the inventor of the patent. Thereby, if it already exists - as a law of nature - no one can therefore "invent the subject matter" and therefore would be excluded from patenting the subject matter as matter of law, not court interpretation of said law.

Again, IANAL but that's how I see it.

Re:in re Bilski

[Theaetetus]

Also, that bit about math being unpatentable... That's not in the statutes. That comes from the court, so it's an interpretation they could change, too.

Actually it comes from the USC 35 section 102.f

he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented

The courts have taken it as anything that is a law of nature is thereby unpatentable. Math is a law of nature; transmissions are not, though they employ laws of nature to function.

Actually, that interpretation is also in 101, which states that whoever invents or discovers any new process may obtain a patent therefor. By the same analysis, laws of nature have existed since the beginning of the universe - therefore, they aren't new. But, this isn't any different from what I said... both are judicial interpretations of the statute. Good ones, mind you, but not ones that can't be modified.

While IANAL - I would think that the working of what I quoted would make it pretty clear that the one apply for the patent must also be the inventor of the patent. Thereby, if it already exists - as a law of nature - no one can therefore "invent the subject matter" and therefore would be excluded from patenting the subject matter as matter of law, not court interpretation of said law. Again, IANAL but that's how I see it.

Yes, that's what I said. Same thing in both 101 and 102, though both are judicial interpretations of what it means to "invent" or what it means for something to be "new".

But, to return to the original point - it was about math, not laws of nature. It can be argued that an abstract mathematical technique, such as calculus, doesn't exist in nature... nature doesn't sit around computing integrals, it just does whatever. The math is an abstraction that we created to model reality. And certainly once you start talking about 128-bit cryptography, you're beyond what nature is doing. But, it's still math...

So, now we get back to 101... It's something invented, definitely new... but should it be unpatentable because it's math?

Re:in re Bilski

[jonbryce]

You can't patent math. You can patent a process or a machine even if it involves the use of math.

An iPhone app that takes the arguments of a mathematical formula and spits out the result might be a "machine", but it is also "obvious" to semi competant student after their second programming lesson.

Re:in re Bilski

[erroneus]

We are in perfect agreement on that. After all, compatibility does not require copying.

Re:in re Bilski

[Theaetetus]

You can't patent math. You can patent a process or a machine even if it involves the use of math.

Yes. If you had read the past several posts in this chain, you would find that we're all in wide agreement on "you can't patent math." What we're discussing is "why you can't patent math."

Do you have anything to add on that?

An iPhone app that takes the arguments of a mathematical formula and spits out the result might be a "machine", but it is also "obvious" to semi competant student after their second programming lesson.

And probably not. See, what you're saying here - "it's obvious" - is an entirely different question. The question in Bilski isn't "is this obvious to a semi-competent student"? It's "is a process that is completely new and not obvious to anyone, anywhere, at any time still not patentable, simply because it's an algorithm?" And that's both a much tougher and much more interesting question.

Re:in re Bilski

[mOdQuArK!]

The corporations would get to decide what is patented, and if they win, they get the patent, not the person who submitted it. So a corporation could put up money to patent something, only to make sure it is never used.

Person who submitted the idea can always use it as a trade secret if they don't want to give up control of the idea. The whole point behind patents is to encourage publication.

Also, bear in mind that there are probably many patentable ideas which are competing for each available patent slot, so it's not just big companies bidding against each other to grab one particular patent application, but many big companies competing with each other over many potentially patentable ideas per slot, so it's not like a particular company is going to easily gain control over a specific patentable idea unless they're willing to outspend what every other big company things that every other potential patentable idea is worth - and after you've spent that kind of money, don't you think you'd be eager to try and get some ROI?

At least in the system we have now, a small company has a shot at getting a patent without having to sell their invention to a large company.

Why is that a net benefit to society?

Re:in re Bilski

[mOdQuArK!]

The only real way to resolve the issue is not to limit it to a specific number

No, you don't want to allow too many patents, because they fundamentally restrict the free flow of information which is necessary to encourage the constant low-level innovation which allows entrepeneurs to problem-solve without worrying about getting their ass sued off every time they turn around. You want to add just enough patent "sauce" to encourage people to publicly submit truly innovative ideas w/shutting down the normal problem-solving spigot of ideas that every normal business runs on to solve their day-to-day issues.

The best method to do this today is through business evaluation by the state - essentially, require a business plan with the patent and then hold them to it.

Why bother, when a market mechanism can both price the idea & put it into the hands of organizations who have the resources to exploit the idea? If you rely on a state mechanism to gate-keep patents (either the patents themselves or your idea about "business plans", you'll just end up with something like the bloated patent examination system we already have.

Re:in re Bilski

[jonbryce]

In Bilski, they have a mathematical formula for calulating the price of weather futures and a set of rules to decide when to buy or sell them in response to client trades.

They are not obvious, but the first bit is math, and the second bit is business method, and neither of those are patentable.

If you give those details to any averagely competant computer programmer and ask them to write a computer program that does this, they could do it pretty easily.

Re:in re Bilski

[Theaetetus]

In Bilski, they have a mathematical formula for calulating the price of weather futures and a set of rules to decide when to buy or sell them in response to client trades.

They are not obvious, but the first bit is math, and the second bit is business method, and neither of those are patentable.

I feel like we're not speaking the same language. Yes, I know all about Bilski. Yes, I know the claim that "neither [math nor business methods] are patentable." I said that in my previous post.
But here's the question: WHY? WHY are business methods and math allegedly unpatentable? You can't just say "they aren't." This is law - you must say why, and you haven't even scratched the surface of that question.

So, WHY are neither math nor business methods patentable? And how do you reconcile business methods being unpatentable with 35 USC 273, which says "it is a defense to infringement of a patent on a method of doing business that you were commercially using the method of doing business at least one year prior to the date of filing of the business method patent." How does that statute have any meaning, if you can't get a business method patent?

If you give those details to any averagely competant computer programmer and ask them to write a computer program that does this, they could do it pretty easily.

And like I said in my previous post, THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. That's a question of obviousness. NOT a question of "can a business method that is ENTIRELY NEW AND NOT OBVIOUS be patented?" So far, your only answer has been "no, because it's obvious." That misses the question. If this were a test, you'd have failed.

Re:in re Bilski

[TemporalBeing]

So, now we get back to 101... It's something invented, definitely new... but should it be unpatentable because it's math?

Einstein invented General and Special Relativity; and it's basically a mathematical proof. It was new when he published it (circa 1905 and 1915) Would that have warranted a patent? No. Why?

• It's certainly useful - without it we would have a hard time with electronics as we use relativity to predict atoms, etc.
• It was certainly new at that time.
• It was certainly non-obvious at that time.
• BUT it did not involve a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" (U.S.C Title 35 Section 101).

It's that last part that makes the very sticky issue. Sure you could probably make an argument that a series of math formulas put together are a process of sorts; but you still haven't contributed anything that is tangibly useful in doing so.

Why the 'tangibly useful'? I would argue that U.S.C Title 35 Section 101 should be read as follows (italics are my insertions):

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process of matter, machine of matter, manufacture of matter, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Linguistically you can argue that fits - it's a matter of how you are interpreting the application of the comma to the phrases; and I believe that is how SCOTUS has historically interpreted it as well (IANAL, much less a patent attorney, so I could very well be wrong). That interpretation could change, true; but would it be a change for the better? Or is that delineation useful in limiting the scope of patents? Again, I would argue changing that interpretation is not a change for the better, and that it is a useful limitation on the scope.

Why? When comparing methods of protections patents are most useful for tangible, concrete things - not abstract; while copyright is most useful for intangible, abstract things. Clearly we have to sections of law that delineate well along the tangibility and intangibility lines. Why smear the line?

Aside from lawyers making more money on fuzzy lines, is it useful to the purpose of patents and copyright to smear the line? Is it accomplishing the goals of the U.S Constitution Article 1 Section 8.8 in advancing the "Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Or is it just lining the lawyer's pockets and taking up the court's valuable time?

Those are the questions the SCOTUS will really be evaluating in Bilksi. Which side has made the better argument? Or do the current rulings stand to sufficiently satisfy the question? We'll see what they say, certainly. I know that I would certainly like to see them solidify the line that the Federal Circuit muddied (via Statestreet and a few other rulings where they seemingly ignored SCOTUS precedent).

As always, usual disclaimer - IANAL and I don't pretend to be either.

I hope they win

[YA_Python_dev]

I hope every single fucking patent lawsuit for smartphones in the US succeeds. So HTC, Nokia, Apple, Motorola, all the Android phones and pretty much everyone will be prohibited from selling smartphones in the US.

Maybe it would be the time that you fix your stupid patent laws that allows software to be patented (most of the patents involved in this shit, especially to most wide-reaching ones and more difficult to avoid, are software patents).

Re:I hope they win

[__aaaaxm1522]

Yeah, I gotta agree with this. Of course they're all suing each other - the only people to make money from this are their lawyers and why *wouldn't* they take advantage of the patent system?

Also: Apple didn't "set off a patent Armageddon in the mobile space", as the original poster suggests. Nokia started it in October 2009 - prior to that, Apple was a sleeping patent-giant.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/nokia-sues-apple-says-iphone-infringes-ten-patents/

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Nokia sues Apple, who kicks the dog (htc)?

Re:I hope they win

[phantomfive]

It's happened before, Qualcomm had a huge patent fight with Broadcomm, which actually did result in an injunction. Qualcomm managed to find a way to work around the patent technologically, thus allowing phones to come into the US still (in case you are unaware, most phones on Sprint and Verizon networks have Qualcomm parts inside). The workaround happened really quickly.

I am not about to investigate all the patents in question, but if they are of the calibre of typical software patents, it won't be hard to work around them. Just annoying.

Re:I hope they win

[sznupi]

Though what supposedly "set off a patent Armageddon in the mobile space" isn't about software / concept patents. And generally seems a bit like something done on behalf of most companies behind cellular technology - it's just that Nokia has not only one of the larger contributions, but also probably the least to loose by any turmoil in the US market.

Re:I hope they win

[bill_mcgonigle]

Look at what you've gone and done - ruined a whole bunch of posts about how n900 owners are lilly white and don't make compromises to evil corporations.

I hope you're happy.

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nokia started it in October 2009 - prior to that, Apple was a sleeping patent-giant."

At least Nokia's patents were proper *hardware* patents related to GSM technologies *they developed* (and everyone in the industry licenses them). Nokia really did *invent* that stuff (first on market with those, ever). So hardly the same as Apple suing ppl around with lame software patents.

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep reading that you guys want Software Patents to be revised, but what changes do you propose?
This isn't me saying this to be a smart-ass, but rather to invoke a discussion. What are your views, ideas and suggestions on how this could be achieved?

Thinking out loud, I think for me the restraints I would be happy with would be to allow all software patents through so long as:
  - No prior "developed" art exists,
  - At the time of application, you have an idea concept constructed with proof of ability to construct (to restrict patents from being filed before the required technology is available)
  - A working prototype satisfying all patented conditions is to be created and shown to the patent board within a reasonable time frame (six to twenty-four months?)

Agree? Disagree?

Re:I hope they win

[nukem996]

Thats been happening for years. The courts view all patents legal but both parties know they are using another companies patents so they cross patent. That way both of them can keep going on like normal. The real downside to that is if your trying to start a new smart phone company and have little if any patents the big boys use your screwed. The current system keeps lawyers rich and startups impossible.

Re:I hope they win

[JAlexoi]

Nokia did start the battle, but contrary to what Apple did they originally only asked the court to set the price for their patents(read the damn complaint, but this is ./ ...). Apple, however, went for the throat with plain patent violation lawsuit.

Re:I hope they win

[pieterh]

Do you know what a patent is?

It is a legal tool designed to reduce competition in some area of business, in exchange for documenting that specific knowledge so that future generations can reuse it.

So two questions. One, do we need such documentation for software, in the form of patents? One might argue that patents do document, for example, steam engines from the 19th century. Are patents conceivably a proper form of documentation for software knowledge?

Second question, is the stopping of competition worth this documentation? For example, patents on the GSM stack are why we pay so much for mobile data and calls. Patents allow a cartel (ITSUG) that controls prices, legally. The only justification for ITSUG's existence is that future generations will receive a neat stack of over 500 patent families documenting how to build GSM networks and phones. Is this better than, for example, the unpatented RFC stack which allows the Internet to function, without cartels, and at a cost that is as much as 1M times less?

If you can answer YES to both these questions, go ahead with ways to improve software patent quality. If either answer is NO, abolish all legal monopolies on trade in software knowledge.

There is no grey area here.

Re:I hope they win

[digitig]

There is no grey area here.

Only becasue somebody has probably patented "A means of generating shading with an absence of color by setting the R, G and B elements of the shading to identical values between 0 and 0xFF, not including the boundary values themselves which are covered by separate patents".

Re:I hope they win

[sznupi]

patents on the GSM stack are why we pay so much for mobile data and calls

You...seriously...believe that?...

Re:I hope they win

[noTimeAtAll]

Duh, patents should become extinct to avoid future monopolies. Let's encourage progress! ^_^

Re:I hope they win

[pieterh]

Yes, it's pretty clear from (failed) anti-trust proceedings in the EU against the telecoms operators that patents are the underlying long term reason for high costs that even regulators cannot correct. Patent licensing makes legal a cartel that would be criminal in any other case. There are no technical reasons for high mobile voice/data costs. Landline costs are low. Internet costs are low. GSM infrastructure is now 10+ years old in Europe.

The cost of spectrum might be responsible for short term high costs but those licenses are long paid off.

ITSUG controls who can and cannot do business with GSM in Europe and USA. Competition is excluded, prices are defined between members, and anti-trust authorities are powerless to intervene because it's all legal, thanks to patent licensing.

It does not even matter what the patents actually say. They simply enable the cartel, that's their key role here.

Re:I hope they win

[sznupi]

I don't really share you observations. Perhaps you really want to look at a very small part of the issue (omitting how the 10+ year old infrastructure is in constant upgrade; or how exorbitant 3G licenses often were)...or apparently you don't realise how cheap mobile services have become here, in the EU, in some places (what, they have "patent moratorium"? Riiight...)

Yes, the cartel might be the problem. But if patents were behind it, no carrier would be able to get away and start a pricewar. Which does happen.

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for making that point. Also I'm amazed you have yet to be flamed by Apple zealots.

Re:I hope they win

[pieterh]

Carriers do break away and start price wars, but it happens locally, in smaller countries. Clearly 3G licenses are not the factor since those break away carriers also paid expensive licenses.

Presumably the cartel agreements allow this kind of local flexibility, to satisfy national anti-trust issues. The French carriers were investigated for collusion and price fixing around 2000, iirc.

Do you have an alternative explanation as to why even the EU's anti-trust authorities have been unable to cut roaming costs, even though these are clearly harming inter-EU trade, and have no technical basis?

When a group of companies that effectively control a market maintain consistently high prices, this is illegal. It should have been broken up over 10 years ago.

Why do high roaming data and voice costs still exist? What actually stops the regulators from fixing this? You've not provided an explanation.

Re:I hope they win

[sznupi]

In larger countries too, I live in one such. Accidentally, a place where 3G licenses weren't insane... (and the carrier most rocking the boat was established long after the insanity with those 3G licenses)

There are at the least carriers giving the same rates while calling abroad, within the EU; I believe that also extends to roaming in some cases. Voice can be cheap, too.

And generally...whoa, you are supposed to present an evidence that any possible cartels are via patents; for starters.
Me - I'm only showing that pointing fingers at existence of any cartel at all is probably unfounded. Common interests at most, but without real colluding. And with cheap alternatives available. Which doesn't stop people from using, en masse, much more expensive carriers. Hell, differences in price of data transfers can be more than order of magnitude apart...and yet the more expensive offer is still widely used by people.
Why? I have no idea. But choice is there.

Re:I hope they win

[Rational]

That's not what I've read - didn't Nokia initially try to force Apple to license their own interface patents in return?

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

>So hardly the same as Apple suing ppl around with lame software patents.

"oh hai, i sue you 'cuz i have patent on object oriented operating systems!!11"

bleh...

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what a patent is?

It is a legal tool designed to reduce competition in some area of business, in exchange for documenting that specific knowledge so that future generations can reuse it.

No. Patents in the US derive their authority from Section 8 of the constitution, which says

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

So a patent is a legal tool designed to reduce competition in some area of business as a reward for people who invent something, to encourage people to invent things in the first place. No provision is given for "documenting" for "future generations" (though that might be a nice side effect.)

Re:I hope they win

[Lars T.]

At least Nokia's patents were proper *hardware* patents related to GSM technologies *they developed*

Ohh, so they changed their suit to not include all the "Method to" patents? Which were about half of them? Not to mention the fluffyness of the rest of the patents:

Data transmission in a radio telephone network

Abstract

For bidirectional transmission of packet data, a packet data service unit (Agent) is disposed in a digital cellular system connected to be in association with a Mobile Switching Center, and connecting the cellular network to the date network. As a mobile station is connected to the packet data service unit, signalling related to connection formation characteristics of the network is first accomplished. As a result thereof, the mobile station and the data service unit are provided with a number of stored parameters relating to each other. This situation creates or is called a virtual channel. When a mobile station wants to transmit or receive data packets between the mobile station and the data service unit a packet data transfer channel is established making use of the parameters of the virtual channel and thereby using substantially less signalling than the channel establishment signalling characteristic of the network, one part thereof being a radio channel and the other part a time slot in a digital trunk line. On termination of data packet transfer, at least said radio channel is disassembled but the virtual channel is maintained until the disconnection of the mobile station from the data service.

Translation: when a device connects to a network, both sides keep the connection open - over RADIO. Wow.

Re:I hope they win

[Lars T.]

Nokia did start the battle, but contrary to what Apple did they originally only asked the court to set the price for their patents(read the damn complaint, but this is ./ ...). Apple, however, went for the throat with plain patent violation lawsuit.

Citation desperately needed. But not actually expected.

Re:I hope they win

[Lars T.]

Yes, it's pretty clear from (failed) anti-trust proceedings in the EU against the telecoms operators that patents are the underlying long term reason for high costs that even regulators cannot correct.

If that were true, Nokia wouldn't need to sell phones anymore. Instead they desperately do.

Re:I hope they win

[pieterh]

Collusion... I recall, and I'm sorry to not be able to provide a reference, discussing with someone from DG Competition (the EU's anti-trust authority) in 2007, who said, more or less, "we were able to get the operators to agree to lower roaming voice rates, but in return we had to allow them to continue their high prices on roaming data".

The mobile operators negotiate collectively with the regulator to set rules on end user prices.

So what gives these operators freedom to control prices, collectively, over 20 years, beating off several attempts by anti-trust authorities? What legalises collusion and price-fixing? In any other market the very notion that regulators would have to accept continued high prices (artificially high, as is trivial to prove) in one segment in return for lower prices in another, would be shocking.

Let's see... we allow electricity companies to charge us 1000x the normal rate in exchange for keeping voltages to agreed levels. Or, we allow all the bars in a city to raise their prices by 1000x in exchange for allowing free access to their restrooms.

What legal tool is trumping regulation oversight and allowing the operators to continue to charge obscene amounts for roaming data?

Answer: patents.

Re:I hope they win

[mdwh2]

I keep reading that you guys want Software Patents to be revised, but what changes do you propose?

Get rid of them ("pure" software patents, at least, not part of a hardware invention). This is how it is in European countries. Software is covered by copyright already; algorithms are mathematics, and should not be "owned".

Re:I hope they win

[elrous0]

I hope the judge makes them Thunderdome for it. I'm willing to bet that, in a life-or-death situation, Steve Jobs sheds his fake human skin and shows his true alien form.

Re:I hope they win

[Anzya]

If it's hard to get right it's obviously not a "simple" word :)

Re:I hope they win

[Nadaka]

I believe that copyright is more than sufficient IP protection for software.

Eliminate software patents completely.

If you don't do that, you should give up copyright protection and submit working source code to the patent office.

Re:I hope they win

[MachineShedFred]

Ok, we can shut off Slashdot now, because no one's going to beat this post.

You win Slashdot.

Re:I hope they win

[Dragonslicer]

Abstract != Claims

Re:I hope they win

[Cornelius the Great]

Lesson #1 on deciphering patents: Ignore the title and abstract- read the claims. Claims are far more specific, and are the only enforceable part of the patent.

Here is the patent you're referring to.

Here are the claims:

Claims:

1-59. (canceled)

60. In a mobile communication system, a method comprising:adopting a robust header compression (ROHC) scheme;configuring uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information based on the ROHC scheme, wherein the downlink parameter information and the uplink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

61. The method of claim 60, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

62. The method of claim 60, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

63. The method of claim 60 further comprising:receiving mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme from a mobile terminal.

64. The method of claim 60 further comprising:transmitting mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme to a network.

65. In a mobile communication system, and apparatus comprising:an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer adapted to perform header compression and/or decompression; andan entity in an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer adapted to configure uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information for the entity in the PDCP layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the asymmetric parameter information comprises at least one of MAX_CID parameter information and Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

66. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

67. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

68. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.

69. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the entity in the RRC layer is further adapted to transfer the asymmetric parameter information to the PDCP layer.

70. In a mobile communication system, an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer comprising:a compressor performing header compression based on uplink parameter information transferred from an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer;a decompressor performing header decompression based on downlink parameter information transferred from the RRC layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

71. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

72. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

73. The method of claim 70, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.

In summary: this is a little less obvious than your analysis of the abstract. Unless there is prior art, this patent has teeth.

Re:I hope they win

[spire3661]

Palm would just take over then. No one can touch Palm and its patents.

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing. Eventually, nobody will be able to sell anything. Of course they get around this by paying each other patent use fees, which effectively keeps out new products from little guys with innovation. Why aren't politicians screaming in campaign speeches that they want to get rid of software patents? Take a look at who is donating money.

Re:I hope they win

[Cornelius the Great]

Apple and Nokia were in talks for a while- from what I've been told (by insiders), Nokia wanted the same licensing fees plus a cross-licensing agreement that it had done with nearly every other GSM smartphone manufacturer before, but Apple overvalued their patent portfolio (which admittedly is mostly software and UI/window dressing patents). Apple walked out of the talks, and then Nokia sued.

Legally, Apple doesn't have much to stand on in the Nokia vs. Apple suit, so they thought they could swing some of their weight around and attack smaller companies to build up some credibility for their own IP.

At first, they threatened Palm, but suing them would be like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip- not to mention that Palm has quite a hefty IP portfolio themselves, so the battle would be costly and drag on for years. So instead they went after a foreign target that was having lots of newfound success in the smartphone market. They may have attempted to associate HTC with the slew of KiRF-device (blatant knockoffs- ie, Meizu M8) manufacturers from China and Taiwan. It would also have the benefit (for Apple) of taking some of the wind out of Android's sails. Win-win, according to Apple's legal team.

That strategy seems to be backfiring.

Re:I hope they win

[stevew]

I looked at the list of patents. I believe one of them can be invalidated due to obviousness of the idea. Apple patented lowering the voltage to the processor to reduce power. It is OBVIOUS to a practitioner of the art (I'm an EE in the business) that if you reduce voltage you reduce energy consumption (it's kinda basic -like ohms law!) It is a method that has been in use for a LONG time in the chip business. So that is one of the multitude of patents that can and should be thrown out. Prior art on this one has to be HUGE -

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps limiting software patents to one year would seem more reasonable. Others could wait one year before using it, or could pay and use it earlier. But I noticed that the comparison to plans for an engine was interesting, and made me think about the plans for software. It seems those plans are in the source code. Perhaps we should require the source code for all software patents be published, and then others could use them after a year or two.

Re:I hope they win

[goombah99]

So, Nokia sues Apple, who kicks the dog (htc)?

mod up. this is the first person to notice the Han Solo Shot first. Saying that Apple has unleashed patent armegeddon is a bit much. Apple is not a patent troll who produces no product or innovation but simply sues others with dubious IP. The IP in question here is not dubious or obvious. If it was obvious then why was the late-comer iphone such a run-away hit? others had plenty of time and funds to originate it.

You can of course argue that somethings should nto be patentable or the degree to which patents should matter. But the point is Apple is not abusing the system here like actual patent trolls do.

Is Nokia abusing apple? is HTC abusing apple with it's counter suit? Given that HTC was well aware of Apple's patents why did they choose to run smack into them? well that's pretty obvious: the patented innovations were crucial to success in that market, thus demonstrating precisely why Apple is on solid ground to patent them. They are not dubious innovations they are critical.

One can say the same thing about the Nokia innovations that apple has stepped on. apple knew they existed but chose to template their protocols on Nokia's successful ones presumably because they had proven successful.

I have no doubt that some of these patents are silly or restating past work with small tweaks of language. But It seems pretty clear that Nokia gor where it is, and Apple got where it is on the basis of innovation in highyl cometitive active markets. Thus they have every right to try to protect their crucial innovations that caused their sucess.

Moreover there is likely more sound than fury here. The real issue is cross licensing. What is the relative value of the Nokia patents to apple comared to the Apple patents to Nokia. They obviously could not decide amongst themsleves or at least could not do do quickly enough for market timing, so instead they will measure each other in court. Then settle and cross license. In the end each will get a fair result and everyone else is doomed.

On the other hand, if the sound is great enough and there are enough vested interests this may become political in which case the EU might doi something like force apple to give its patents at less than fair value. Or there could be equivalent pressure from the US on Nokia and HTC. Or HTC might engage some trade leverage from it's home country.

THe problem is thus not the court settlements but potential political ones.

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr... A patent for a protocol that has headers that describe the channel? And those headers are compressed. Sounds like pretty much every comm protocol since smoke signals.

So obvious and unexceptional that it can't possibly be patented. Yet it probably is or will be. Yup, patents like that will advance science and are to the benefit of society. Not.

Re:I hope they win

[phantomfive]

It's rare to have a patent thrown out because of obviousness (I mean, can anything be more obvious than the 'one click purchase' from Amazon?). What you have to do is prove prior art, and to do that you have to look exactly at the claims, and find something that matches those claims exactly. Usually a patent has something in the claims that differentiates it from what comes before, and usually it will actually reference to what has come before. Even if the difference seems obvious, you still have to take it into consideration.

Re:I hope they win

[Unequivocal]

Yeah - this is public theater. The trial lawyers demonstrate to shareholders that the company is on solid ground. The other team of lawyers work behind the scenes to hammer out cross-licensing. At some point the trial lawyers wink at the judge and he magnanimously declares: "You parties should work out a cross licensing agreement." Two days later they present one to the judge and the newspapers print the "news" and we then we start yet another thread on on /. about software patents. This is getting old.

Re:I hope they win

[Lars T.]

Lesson #1 on deciphering patents: Ignore the title and abstract- read the claims. Claims are far more specific, and are the only enforceable part of the patent. Here is the patent you're referring to. Here are the claims:

Claims: 1-59. (canceled)

Obvious stuff found in lots of wire-full networks cut. IOW nothing left.

Re:I hope they win

[Lars T.]

Claims == Obvious OVER RADIO

Re:I hope they win

[Pollardito]

So, Nokia sues Apple, who kicks the dog (htc)?

If it was obvious then why was the late-comer iphone such a run-away hit? others had plenty of time and funds to originate it.

You're completely ignoring the questions of whether these particular patents apply to the same aspect(s) of the phone that made it a hit and whether what made them a hit wasn't just an obvious evolution of what others were already doing (this seems to be what made the iPod a hit). They're suing for 22 different patents at this point, so really all we need to know about those 22 claims is that the iPhone sells a lot of hardware? Nokia sells even more phones than Apple does, so by your standard all their patent claims must be valid also.

At least some of these Apple patents have to do with using two fingers to move in different motions, where using one finger to poke or slide on a touchscreen was an established practice. Was it a good idea for them to do this? Yes. Is it so novel that no one else should be able to do it for 25 years unless they pay Apple money? Not in my opinion.

Re:I hope they win

[hacksoncode]

And also, BTW, it's a software patent.

Re:I hope they win

[bit01]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that giving an old idea a new name somehow makes it a new idea. Why?

Nothing in those claims is new apart from the labels.

Re:I hope they win

[hardwarefreak]

THe problem is thus not the court settlements but potential political ones.

No, the real problem is stupid Americans who allowed the fucking cell phone to become a status symbol. Recall the Motorola Razor? Same phenomenon as the iPhone but you didn't have Motorola Zealots in the purchasing crowd like with the Apple Zealots. I know 10 people who bought iPhones. One, only one, actually uses the features that would possibly justify the purchase. The other 9 bought it as a status symbol because they could afford it. Actually 3 really couldn't afford it but bought anyway. And these 3 are totally leveraged to hilt with big mortgage, car note, maxed credit cards, etc etc. They just had to have the iPhone to keep up with the Joneses.

Cell phones have ruined our social discourse in many ways. I got so fed up with the status symbol crap and having a cell glued to my ear that I canceled my contract one day 3 years ago and chucked the phone in the can. I regained aspects of my life that I'd forgotten I once had. I've since bought a prepaid phone that stays in the car for emergency use only, and I went back to carrying a pager, again, for emergencies only, whether family or business.

The freedom of no longer having to plug my head into and electronic gizmo 20 times a day can't be sufficiently described in words. I got life back, or at least most of it.

Re:I hope they win

[jabbathewocket]

Actually The real issue here is not android at all, it is HTC stepping on Apples patents not with "android" but rather with respect to touchflo and sense..

I rather think that 2 reasons prevented suit earlier when touchflo was windows only...

1) it was possibly covered under the cross-license deal between Apple and MS that dates to the 80s

2) it was such a small market segment that it didn't matter (a tiny portion of windows mobile phones from HTC actually had touchflo)

3) touchflo in its previous incarnations before sense was basically not close enough to the patents in question that they didnt feel a suit was needed

4) Apple was merely building its case since they hate to lose in court, and this was actually set in motion with touchflo 1.0

5) some combination of the above.

Point is.. this is *not* in any way relevant to the apple-nokia suit, nor does it relate in any way to "android as a whole" any more than it affects windows mobile devices as a whole, or "feature phones" as a whole.

As you point out nokia/apple suit will likely result in a cross-license deal of some sort, or one of them paying the other $$$ and a cross-license deal.. the same cannot be said of HTC-Apple.. since HTC owns nothing of interest patent wise.. and a loss in court could easily result in the company becoming non-viable (bankrupt) as a result.

Re:I hope they win

[hkmwbz]

Apple set off the Armageddon by demanding special treatment, and asking for the same price as everyone else despite everyone else also cross-licensing patents. Apple wanted to keep its patents, and get the same price as everyone else. They were basically being asshats.

Re:I hope they win

[sznupi]

You fail to provide any solid argument linking all those phenomena with your chosen bogeyman, the patents.

And totally dismiss any other factors. For example - one would expect that carriers have necessarily quite good standing with authorities, considering batshit insane amounts they had to pay to be able to use 3G spectrum. For them to not have such good standing would be simply indecent. That had nothing to do with patents, everything to do with control of the authorities. And is just one example.

lawl

[Zixaphir]

I love how competition works in a system that seems designed to make it fail.

Apple is flailing.

[kuzb]

It sees that in the long run, google's ecosystem is just better, so it's trying as hard as it can to stop it from succeeding before it gets too big.

I sincerely hope android destroys the iphone.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Aeternitas827]

I sincerely hope android destroys the iphone.

Looks like Cupertino might have given them a hand on that...not enough data yet to pull out the failboat, but it doesn't look promising...

As an aside, I will admit that the source above might not be the most objective; but I likely wouldn't link it if it were one person, one device, on each item so far...time will tell if we see other sites getting the same reports and all.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't. Not because I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm not. But because Google needs competition from something like Apple. Why? Apple make phones that are popular, and they're not popular because they have the best phone, but because they have the best marketing. Thus Google needs to have a significantly better OS to compete with that. And I think that ultimately benefits everyone in the mobile space.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[sznupi]

So, when that source will nickname it iPhone Death? ;p

Re:Apple is flailing.

[JAlexoi]

I am an Android fanboy and develop for it. But I sincerely hope that iPhone doesn't die, but rather becomes more open so that everyone can win....

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Jesus_666]

Why? So Google has less incentive to innovate? Competition is good. A healthy market is one where multiple systems compete against each other, constantly being forced to improve in order to gain an edge. A market where Google stands alone is neither competitive nor healthy. Of course there's still Microsoft (well, not if they continue down the path they are on), Nokia (small presence in the USA) and RIM (not very attractive for non-business customers) but as far as brand recognition goes it's currently iOS vs. Android.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Tim C]

I sincerely hope android destroys the iphone.

I sincerely hope they both remain viable, popular platforms and thus provide competition for one another.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[notknown86]

'Tis simply the nature of magical devices, traveller. One must not lay hands on the precious without firm grounding in the mystic depths of the reality distortion field.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Rational]

Oh, yeah. Apple is *really* flailing.

Android is what you get when iPhone OS is reverse-engineered by martians. A bunch of features, vaguely similar in the surface, but done with absolutely no understanding of how people in the real world use a device. Perfectly suited for the demographic of neckbeards whose main hobby is to compare feature list lengths. No wonder Google has to fucking *give it away*.

Jesus fuck, I've been on Slashdot since the very beginning, but I'm increasingly embarrassed to call myself a nerd.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[DrgnDancer]

That's bullshit. I got modded Flamebait yesterday for saying the same thing with an iPhone slant. Simple fact is that most Slashdot moderators think "Flamebait" and "Troll" mean "I disagree". Thankfully, most people are smarter than this... Both I and the GGP got modded back up by more sensible mods. The system works, mostly.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[intheshelter]

I wouldn't say better, just a different approach. If you picked one narrow customer demographic then you could probably make a general argument that one is better than the other, but as a whole each has strengths and weaknesses with their current business model. I don't see Apple flailing at all. I see them spending a lot of effort developing the original iPhone concept, only to see everyone copy them when it came out, and now they are not going to stand by and let others poach for free. They learned their lesson from MS in the 80's. Time will tell how this will all shake out, but as an Apple fan I don't expect them to trounce everyone (nor do I necessarily want it for competitive reasons) and I think the Apple haters are foolish in thinking this is going to sink Apple.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[2sheds]

Dude, that's just flamebait. I'm neither a Google nor an Apple fanboy. I've had two iphones and a couple of Android devices too. Early on in the game your criticism may have had some substance but my current handset, the HTC Desire, is without a doubt the best phone I've ever had. It Just Works in the way that Apple are usually so proud of.

You can prise my Macbook Pro out of my cold dead hands but on the mobile front I'm not a lover of the iphone our-way-or-the-highway approach.

The good news is there's room for all these companies in the ecosystem. Healthy competition breeds innovation from all comers.

"The combination of modern ordnance and outdated tactics had, as ever, created enormous casualties on both sides." - seemed like an apt Banks quote (from Excession) considering the state of the mobile arms race...

Re:Apple is flailing.

[spire3661]

Android vs iOS vs WebOS. HP is going to dominate corporate MIDs

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny enough, in France RIM has started to target the teen-age market with their BlackBerries. I see more and more teens texting away on the public transport using BB's. I would say iPhone/BB has got about 15% each of the market (hah, can't get more anectdotal that that!)

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Dare nMc]

A market where Google stands alone is neither competitive nor healthy.

That may not be true (or it may be.) The android doesn't need competition because it is more akin to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contestable_markets because of the open nature of the operating system, if google fails to continue to invent, it would become fairly easy for competition to enter (they can start with android and expand it.) While Apple (IMO) is putting google into more of a compete with our marketing first, not on substance.
The phone OS market is likely a natural monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly where competition, simply adds cost, not value (because it is also contestable). Apple vs Nokia vs HTC competition on hardware is a much more "competition needed" front. But if Apple were to simply switch to android, continues to compete on hardware, that would likely be a win-win.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, none of the various companies making Android handsets have had any issues?

Re:Apple is flailing.

[kuzb]

Competition should never be about suing your competitors to try to gain an upper hand. It should just be about trying to make a product that is better than what the other guy is offering.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[kuzb]

You're right - that is bullshit. Even if I take the opposite view, it really means nothing without someone making counterpoints. I don't want you to blindly agree with me, I want you to make an argument if you're able. Maybe you can do that here.

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Jesus_666]

Wait a second. You're telling me that the mobile OS market is characterized by a particularly low barrier to entry but at the same time is one where the first company to market (in this case Nokia, through the Symbian platform) has an overwhelming cost advantage over everyone else. I find it hard to reconcile these two standpoints.

I also don't think that the competition is inconsequential from an OS improvement standpoint; for instance, Microsoft responded to the success of iPhone OS by designing Windows Mobile 6.5 and 7, which move away from the old pseudo-desktop user interface to one more suitable for mobile devices. Would they have done so if Apple hadn't shown that smartphone-specific interfaces work really well? I doubt it.

Also, even though Apple does compete on marketing, what's to stop anyone from doing the same with any other platform? In fact, is there anyone who competes differently? You either sell to the consumer market (which means your marketing is all about how cool your product is) or you market to companies and professionals (a smaller, more specific market).

Re:Apple is flailing.

[Jesus_666]

Well, yes. But that doesn't mean we should entirely remove companies form the market for demonstrating what a phenomenally bad idea software patents are. They deserve to have their cases squashed and their softare patent portfolio invalidated - but do the consumers really profit if Apple's technological effects on the market get taken away because of industry-wide dubious business decisions coupled with trigger-happiness on Apple's part? Do we stand to profit more from a quickly ended patent war or from Apple continuing to release iOS? Whether you like Apple or not, they constantly bring up new concepts (whether they came up with them or not).

Also remember, Apple used their softwate patents "defensively". They used them inappropriately (by retaliating against valid patent claims from Nokia with software patents) but this is exactly what all the companies sitting on software patent stockpiles do: They claim to only have their patents around for MAD purposes. Now we see how this plays out. If anything, it's a valuable chance to observe large-scale patant warfare and its effects.

I hope that this patent war will quickly spread out as far as possible and entangle as many actors as possible. Software patents are going to be much more vulnerable when several corporations are losing megabucks through them. And in the long term maybe we get a scenario where all players involved in this war continue to force each other to constantly improve while software patents are completely demolished. I think that would be the best outcome for the consumer.

TT

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder at what point the courts will be completely fed up with these ego-companies serially accusing each other of infringements on what are no doubt petty patents.

Re:TT

[Aeternitas827]

I'd venture to say there's enough left in the courts as far as going by the letter of the law that it will continue for quite some time, through various suits, appeals, and whatnot. The folks on the bench are there, ideally, to uphold the law, and unless the law has an obvious conflict with the Constitution--which, as far as I can recall, mentions naught about IP--it'd take Congressional action or SCOTUS making a decision on it.

Flawed though they may be, IP laws in the US are apparently the controlling factor in how these cases come about. Until these laws are changed or struck down, the enormous lawsuits will continue.

Re:TT

[Anonymous Coward]

SCOTUS is looking into it (google "in re Bilski"), but no information is yet coming out: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100617102220583.

captcha: vulture :-)

Re:TT

[Hognoxious]

The folks on the bench are there, ideally, to uphold the law, and unless the law has an obvious conflict with the Constitution--which, as far as I can recall, mentions naught about IP

Your memory is faulty.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Apple getting told again

[Anonymous Coward]

Yellow screens, "difficulty" making white phones, can't even add a wallpaper to a "3G" phone, flash 10.1 released for all other phones. All this and they are screaming "patents" like SCO did for "copyrights" on Linux.

Looks like you applefags sure got told again

Re:Apple getting told again

[mjwx]

Ipad is the new Lisa,

The patent lawsuit is the new "look and feel" lawsuit.

Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apple has the same hubris that bought it down the first time, now MS has no impetus to save them this time given the fact that they are now a convicted monopoly and have no chance of losing that status.

Re:Apple getting told again

[intheshelter]

Ahh, I've visited this idiots site before. Apple fan or hater, if you want to see the lowest rung on the evolutionary chain then swing over there. It gave me the mental image of a bunch of 15 year old geeks in a circle, masturbating and saying "you sure got told". I tried to ask one of them what that stupid phrase meant and their reply made no sense. Not sure how so many idiots managed to find the same site, like flies to a pile of shit I imagine.

Re:Apple getting told again

[intheshelter]

iPad is the new iPhone. Very successful so far.

And I think you misunderstand history in this context. First, Microsoft did not save Apple. Second, this is not the late 70's, early 80's, the landscape is much different. The iPod has been wildly successful despite all the iPod killers. The iPhone has been wildly successful despite all the iPhone killers (seems everyone knows this is the top dog and why they're trying to kill it in the first place). Mac sales our growing at about double the industry rate. Apple leads both customer satisfaction and customer service polls for several years now.

Apple is doing just fine.

Re:Apple getting told again

[Lars T.]

flash 10.1 released for all other phones.

If by "all other phones" you mean "some Android phones".

Re:Apple getting told again

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't add a wallpaper to the 3G because Apple added a drop shadow on the home screen, to make icons more visible on the now-not-solid background. Except drop shadow + older phone hardware = runs like shit. So they had to decide between no drop shadow, but crappy visibility, or no wallpaper. I think they chose well.

I recommend replacing that entry in your gloating victory with "lol, iAds"

Re:Apple getting told again

[sznupi]

Apple is doing just fine, sure, but calling their products "wildly successful" or "top dog" is way, way too much of a stretch. "Influential" might be a better word.

There were 260 million iPods ever produced, total. Add 50 million of iPhones (which are also iPods of course) ever produced, and you have 310 million; total, ever (how many in operation?). Now, that is in the range of the number of mobile media players just one other manufacturer, Nokia, sells annually (then there's Samsung, LG, dedicated, et al). Hey, considering that mobile phones with audio playback debuted at the same time as the iPod; and they overtook all dedicated music players, combined, in 2005 or 2006.
As for strictly iPhone, "top dog" with 2% of sales and around 1% usage share (end of 2007 - 3.3 billion mobile subsribers, end of 2009 - 4.6 billion, so now probably close to 5 billion), right.

Except for a very few, highly "visible" markets, Apple almost doesn't exist. Hell, I can probably count on fingers of one hand the number of iPods I have ever seen here (a number excluding my iPod of course...), and that's in a reasonably prosperous late EU memberstate. A long time ago, Chinese "S1" mp3 players were the norm; for a few years it's mobile phones (mainly so called "feature phones" - though I can't help but wonder about the classification: many of them, SE ones for example, have full multitasking of installed apps). Guess the world at large.
Effects of scale might again marginalise Apple, eventually.

And BTW, Microsoft probably did save Apple in the second half of '90s, when they were in very poor shape & desperately needing cash (and MS needed competition, in light of monopoly probe)

Re:Apple getting told again

[sznupi]

"Being released" is quite ok, too.

Re:Apple getting told again

[mjwx]

iPad is the new iPhone. Very successful so far.

Too early to tell that one. The Lisa sold like hotcakes when it was first released because people though it would be like the Apple II. Lets try this one again in a few months shall we.

And I think you misunderstand history in this context

I understand history fine, I just dont understand the revisionist history you seem to be preaching.

First, Microsoft did not save Apple.

Yes they did, Microsoft bought 150 Million USD of Apple stocks when they were about to go under. MS did this to get Anti-trust regulators off their backs.

Second, this is not the late 70's, early 80's, the landscape is much different.

Yet Apple keeps making the same mistakes. This is quickly turning into the 90's MK II for Apple. Trivial Lawsuits, locked down products. The parallels are astounding.

But of course keep believing your revisionist history. Mac sales are not growing, in fact world wide they are shrinking even when Apple ties Mac and Idevice sales together. People are getting sick of Apple's iLockin and are looking for alternatives. Google and now Nokia are giving them high end alternatives (I'm a android fan, but I look forward to the expansion of MeeGo as a bit of actual competition and innovation is good).

Re:Apple getting told again

[sznupi]

Look what Enlightenment can do, in software, on very "slow" machines (accidentally, it seems Samsung took some components from it, in creating their bada OS - which is targeted also at the mainstream, not expensive ("lesser" hardware) devices; and should be quickly #2 smartphone OS)

It's a drop shadow + older phone hardware + Apple priorities; they want to sell people new phone, that's all.

Shackled Market Economics

[freddled]

I fondly remember the days when products lived and died on their fitness for purpose, not in the courts. So much for free market economics. What shall we call this? SHAckled Market Economics

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[randomsearch]

"I fondly remember the days when products lived and died on their fitness for purpose, not in the courts. So much for free market economics. What shall we call this? SHAckled Market Economics"

You do? When was that? Some time prior to capitalism?

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[L4t3r4lu5]

I don't think you need that E for the acronym to work.

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[Pharmboy]

I was about to say, go research Tesla's life, and that alone is filled with patent issues, from Edison, to Marconi to Westinghouse getting hosed, then hosing Tesla. (although they were friends) Patents were how they made money.

The problem now is most software patents are obsolete before they expire, which completely denies the payoff that the public is supposed to get by allowing a limited time monopoly on the invention. It used to be that inventions belonged to the public, but the inventor was allowed a limited time to have the monopoly, but now it is treated as if the public has NO interest and it is "owned" by the inventor, forever.

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[Theaetetus]

I fondly remember the days when products lived and died on their fitness for purpose, not in the courts. So much for free market economics. What shall we call this? SHAckled Market Economics

Really? 'Cause the first Patent Act in the US was in 1790, only three years after the Constitution was written. And prior to that, individual states had their own Patent Acts under the Articles of Confederation. So, are you sure you're remembering "something", rather than "nothing"?

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[DrgnDancer]

And before *that* the colonies were regulated by British Patent Law. According to Wikipedia the earliest patent laws appeared in England in 1623 and were formalized in the early 1700's.

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[bigrockpeltr]

SHAckled Market Economics

SHA ME
no version specified assuming SHA1
result: b4 d3 62 cf cf 75 5b 81 1b 30 5c e0 f4 af aa b5 0f c4 24 5b

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[demachina]

There was years of wrangling over patents for the electric light starting around 1880 and I doubt your old enough to remember before that. Patent disputes have existing pretty much since the U.S. was founded. They do server a useful purpose in allowing an inventor to recoup their R&D investment and make a profit before someone rips them off. Without them there would be little motiviation to sink years and larges amounts of money inventing anything. Of course with places like China ripping off IP on a wholesale basis they don't even really work anymore in a globalized world where they are only enforced on national boundries.

Software patents are just somewhat more insidious than hardware patents, and they weren't particularly common in the earlier years of software development which is maybe what you are talking about.

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[steelfood]

Some time prior to patents. Or courts. Whichever one came first.

Re:Shackled Market Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

That would BE capitalism. Which is not what we have now with 'too big to fail' and government regulations forcing banks to lend to those who can't afford the loans, or preventing them from lending to those who can.

But I suppose you'd prefer to live in socialism where you can't even get toilet paper or food.
You're probably too young to remember the USSR, and haven't talked with those who lived under that crap.

Re:Google is unstoppable.

[Anonymous Coward]

If we can pay for a first post on Slahsdot, we can pay to have your grandma assassinated.

Food for thought.

Looks like you wasted your money. My grandma already grabbed her popcorn, posted before you, and even managed to die before you could get her assassinated.

So all you're telling us is that you're slower than my grandma.

Food for thought.

It should be noted...

[mldi]

It should be noted that Microsoft is only siding with HTC because of their own game of patent roulette... to which HTC caved. So now every HTC purchase brings more profit to Microsoft. They don't wanna share the pie.

Re:It should be noted...

[sznupi]

Not because HTC is an important partner of MS in bringing (for better or forse...) WinMob phones to the market?

Re:It should be noted...

[mldi]

Not because HTC is an important partner of MS in bringing (for better or forse...) WinMob phones to the market?

Are Windows phones included in the list of "guilty" devices? Or will they include features listed in the supposed infringements?

Re:It should be noted...

[shutdown -p now]

Are Windows phones included in the list of "guilty" devices?

Yes. The list (in the original lawsuit, not sure if they've extended it since) is: Nexus One, Touch Pro, Touch Diamond, Touch Pro2, Tilt II, Pure, Imagio, Dream / G1, myTouch 3G, Hero, HD2, and Droid Eris. As you can see, a good chunk are WinMo phones.

It's not clear if it has something to do with base WinMo system, though, or with HTC's TouchFLO.

Re:It should be noted...

[mldi]

Ah... very informational... *puts away tinfoil hat*

So what's all this sensationalism surrounding "getting at Google" then? I can easily see why, but it seems clear to me they just see HTC (damn them with their slick handsets!) as a giant threat in regards to style.

Re:It should be noted...

[shutdown -p now]

So what's all this sensationalism surrounding "getting at Google" then?

I don't know why this side of it is emphasized so much lately. When the lawsuit started originally, the talk was about "getting at Google and Microsoft", with some ironic consideration of a possible joining of forces between the two to defend against the threat. I suspect people focus primarily on Google now due to Android vs iPhone sales numbers.

In truth, if we remember about Nokia as well, it's pretty much Apple vs everyone else.

Re:It should be noted...

[sznupi]

Simple share numbers perhaps? Relative growth of HTC as of late seems to propelled primarily by Android devices.

I never understood

[iPhr0stByt3]

I never understood how companies can get patents for "natural" progression in technology. I bet 99 out of a 100 technology "patents" are based on previous works and given the same situation I would have thought of the same idea in about.. mmm... 5 seconds. Patents should only be awarded for truly excellent and NEW ideas. ...as determined by me, of course...

Re:I never understood

[Torvac]

you dont make money with common sense

Re:I never understood

[Kvasio]

Yes, but you've got to buy license.

Patent #3928742023483: business method in which you make money without common sense
Patent #3928742023491: business method in which you make money without common sense with computers

Re:I never understood

[__aasqbs9791]

Don't forget:

Patent #3928742023561: business method in which you make money without common sense with computers on the internet

Re:I never understood

[Torvac]

Patent #3928742023562: business method in which you make money without common sense with smartphones on the internet

Re:I never understood

[badkarmadayaccount]

I have prior art on that - with IPv6, using a smartbook with integrated phone, with one gesture.

YAWN

[paimin]

The iPhone vs. Android flamebait stories are getting real fucking boring, guys.

Re:YAWN

[L4t3r4lu5]

So spice them up a bit!

"Apple iPhone used to bludgeon pensioner, HTC handset used as shield by rescuer!"
"iPhone used as canoe by 14 year old stranded after typhoon!"
"Beowulf Cluster of HTC phones used to cure cancer!"

See? It's like working for a News Corp company!

Re:YAWN

[CaptainZapp]

"iPhone used as canoe by 14 year old stranded after typhoon!"

Yes, but apple didn't honor the warranty, since the hunidity indicators on the outside of the phone went red.

Re:YAWN

[drinkypoo]

The iPhone vs. Android flamebait stories are getting real fucking boring, guys.

The people whining about iPhone stories are getting real fucking boring, guy.

iOS vs. Android is nothing less than a battle for the hearts and minds of consumers. Which will win, the locked down environment with the most candy coating, or the Free Software, Open Standards competitor? Personally, I find it relevant enough to follow.

Re:YAWN

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say that it's not relevant, just that it's grown boring and he's right. The problem is that all of these stories degenerate into the same ad-hominum-throwing food fights. No one has introduced a new point into the debate in months.

And this isn't a battle for the "hearts and minds of consumers." The average consumer couldn't care less about virtually every one of the iOS v Android points thrown around on /. Consumers think in terms of price vs. features, not "locked down with candy coating vs open source." The average consumer couldn't even tell you what Open Source is. We do and we care, but if the Slashdotters had a collective brain, we'd all admit that competition benefits us all and that it really wouldn't be a Good Thing (tm) for either Android or iOS to kill the other. People who think that a highly successful product should be crushed because it's design and operation doesn't stem from their preferred set of principles do nothing to help push technology forward.

Re:YAWN

[mdwh2]

But it's a false dichotomy to pretend that these two are the only platforms. The market leader is Symbian, on 50% of smartphones. It's also open like Android - both that it can be used by other manufacturers, and it's open source.

And even if this is meant to be a US-centric story where Nokia don't have much presence, it seems like RIM have been forgotten, despite still being popular (weren't they number 1 on smartphones?)

I do agree that the open vs closed is relevant - and certainly better than the Iphone, Iphone, Iphone coverage we usually get that completely ignores everything else. But I think it's misleadingly biased towards Apple to pretend that their only competition is only the one platform that has less market share than them, conveniently ignoring the more popular platforms. It's a common tactic - mostly Iphone stories, with the occasional "Let's compare them to Android", to give the illusion that over platforms are being covered, whilst still making Apple look good.

Re:YAWN

[drinkypoo]

But it's a false dichotomy to pretend that these two are the only platforms. The market leader is Symbian, on 50% of smartphones

Symbian is going away.

But I think it's misleadingly biased towards Apple to pretend that their only competition is only the one platform that has less market share than them, conveniently ignoring the more popular platforms.

We don't care about the more popular platforms. They all blow compared to Android except Maemo which is now a dead end in favor of Meego, which is a long way from being something that can be installed on any old phone (except, perhaps, android phones.)

Re:YAWN

[allometry]

+ fucking 1 my friend.

Re:YAWN

[paimin]

It's not the iOS vs. Android part that's boring, it's the blatant flamebait part.

Re:YAWN

[Aphoxema]

The iPhone vs. Android flamebait stories are getting real fucking boring, guys.

Then either lobby for change or quit reading Slashdot. Don't just sit there and bitch about it.

Re:YAWN

[shutdown -p now]

And yet every new story gets 500+ comments in a day.

Re:YAWN

[paimin]

And thus the word bait.

There's two issues here

[Whuffo]

One issue is the corporate use of questionably valid patents to attack their competitors. This does nothing to advance science or technology and is a clear abuse of the patent system. I'm not talking about legitimate patents covering real inventions - I'm talking about all of those patents that cover pre-existing technology or obvious ideas. There's far too many of those and they're taking a toll on our economy.

The other issue is the free riders - those corporations that choose to copy other's inventions and profit from someone else's ideas. This is what the patent system was intended to address and it's not doing very well at that either.

Rather than point fingers and toss accusations, I'd like to offer this thought to my fellow Slashdot readers: think back to what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out - and what they're like now. Say what you will about Apple but they did cause a revolution in cell phone design. They provided the "inspiration" for all of the touch-screen Iphone wanna-be phones that are now being produced by numerous companies - including HTC. Who will win in this latest exchange of legal briefs? One thing is for sure: it won't be the consumer.

One thing you can depend on is that patent suits take time and money - huge amounts of money for both the winner and the loser. And these expenses will be passed on to you in the cost of your new cell phone and the price of the cell service - the corporations aren't in business to do anyone a favor and they'll always make a profit no matter how much it costs you.

Situations like this one clearly show that the US patent system is badly broken - it's not promoting science and the arts and it's not protecting those who invent useful technology. It's become nothing but a weapon that corporations use to beat up on their competitors legally. This needs to change, and change soon.

Re:There's two issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

In a truly free market, why shouldn't you be allowed to "copy other's inventions and profit from someone else's ideas.". Think it through.

That's what grates me, these people harp on about how they're love a free market, yet everything they DO says otherwise.

It's an odd sort of freedom where a clearly winning strategy is to be aritificially restricted.

Re:There's two issues here

[JAlexoi]

I don't believe that inspiration is patentable, or even copyrightable... Yes, they did cause a revolution in phone design, but they did not invent a lot with the iPhone(if they invented anything at all). Bringing existing technologies to the market is also not patentable.

Re:There's two issues here

[Vapula]

Palm smartphones did exist BEFORE the iPhone...

iPhone, Android phones, ... are *NOT* Phones, they are "Smartphones" which are a mix between PDA and phone... And that did exists before... Palm had several of them which already had big touch screen

Keep in mind that most progress are improvements over something that already exists... And Apple marketting make you think they "invented" the technology...

Blueberry/Palm --- iPhone
Creative/Sony/... --- iPod
Xerox --- Macintosh GUI
Arm --- A4 processor (it's nothing more than common blocks put together, nothing new)
And so on... But with a good marketting, they make people believe they invented the wheel !!!

What they did create is the market for smartphones, not the smartphones... Before, smartphones were limited to a few CEO... Now everyone wants a smartphone (even if he has no need for it) And there are no patents protection for "creating a new market", only for creating a new product.

In this case, Apple IS the freerunner... Nokia holds most of the mobile phone patents (the technologies needed to connect to mobile networks). Apple made the iPhone without paying royalties to Nokia...

Re:There's two issues here

[asnelt]

Say what you will about Apple but they did cause a revolution in cell phone design.

An iPhone like design was inevitable. You need a big screen to display nice visuals and video. Controlling by touch is a natural extension for a device that is "all screen". Apple just put enough money into it to be ahead of its competitors in 2007.

Re:There's two issues here

[Psaakyrn]

I thought it's the implementation that patentable, and not the idea itself, or am I mistaken?

Re:There's two issues here

[sznupi]

Yeah, "inevitable" in 2007...

Not a surprise really, since it was there in 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710
(a bit sooner really via UIQ devices; and many others, really)

Oh wait, or was it 1993? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon

Re:There's two issues here

[weicco]

I bought SonyEricsson P800 back in 2002. I loved the phone and its touchscreen. It was precise enough so that I could use it with my fingernails, even when drunk as a skunk.

Re:There's two issues here

[Whuffo]

Nope, you're not mistaken. The idea drives the implementation but patents (should, used to) only deal with actual physical things. Ideas aren't protected because there's no way to determine what's in your head.

Re:There's two issues here

[James_Duncan8181]

You are; the whole concept of a patent is to prevent reimplementation of an idea for a limited period in return for documentation of that idea.

Re:There's two issues here

[sznupi]

...think back to what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out...

Hm, yeah; I can think of Ericsson R380, from 2000 (not a "true" touchscreen smartphone since one can't install apps; but by that measure iPhone wasn't one either, in 2007). Or similar one from...1993. But if necessarily "true" touchscreen smartphone - SE P800 does fine. Did in 2002, actually. Five years of difference (sort of six, if looking at apps)

Oh, I get it, you're talking about waiting until absolutelly every piece of "tech surroundings" is firmly in place for some time? Plus nice marketing in a visible, to you, market?

Re:There's two issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

What apple did that was unique, was that it was an American company that for the first time produced a decent phone, being American and also a favorite among journalists, is a very good starting point of re-writing history in your favor.

Re:There's two issues here

[Cyberax]

"Rather than point fingers and toss accusations, I'd like to offer this thought to my fellow Slashdot readers: think back to what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out - and what they're like now."

There were prototypes of touch-driven phones back in 2002. I saw one at CeBIT in 2003, it even looked like iPhone and if I'm not mistaken it was finger-driven. Unfortunately, it was waaaaaaay outside of my salary at that time.

Then there was Palm Treo, they had grafitty-driven Phone-PDAs back in 2003.

So it's not like iPhone is an absolutely novel invention, it certainly used ideas from earlier products. They just found a combination of ideas that works really well.

Re:There's two issues here

[asnelt]

Totally agreed, Apple didn't invent the touch screen smart phone. As I understood it the parent referred to the form factor and capacitive touch for which you don't need a pen.

Re:There's two issues here

[ultranova]

In a truly free market, why shouldn't you be allowed to "copy other's inventions and profit from someone else's ideas.". Think it through.

There is no "truly free market". In the presence of any regulation, the market is not "truly free", and in the absence of it there is no market, since people can simply take what they want by force.

"Free market" is an abstract economic concept which some people have elevated to the status of divinity - or would that honor go to the "Invisible Hand"?

That's what grates me, these people harp on about how they're love a free market, yet everything they DO says otherwise.

Most people who preach about free market are actually trying to weasel their way out of having any responsibility towards their fellow man or the society in general, but are either too cunning to reveal that to others or too spineless to admit it to themselves.

It's an odd sort of freedom where a clearly winning strategy is to be aritificially restricted.

Only if it's a winning strategy for someone else against me. If I have patents/copyrights/whatever, the system is good and just, if I'm trying to manufacture something, and patents get in the way, they're eviiiiil. It's all about me.

That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing us nowadays: our society rewards egomaniacs and in fact glorifies them, while any talk of cooperation is socialism and therefore evil.

Re:There's two issues here

[ultranova]

Saying that Apple didn't invent anything when they created the Iphone is like saying that Thomas Edison didn't invent anything when he produced the electric light. Glass wasn't new and neither was carbon or the other materials his bulbs were made from. It was the unique combination of those existing technologies that made the electric light an invention. In the world of cell phones - what Apple created and called the Iphone is very much an invention.

IPhone is an invention in the same way that a lightbulb with a smiley face painted on the bulb would be. Or perhaps we should compare it to the infamous patent on swinging sideways? Or those innumerable "X... in the Internet!" -"inventions" that plagued dot-boom?

No, iPhone is not an invention. It has no features that some existing device didn't already have, or which wouldn't be obvious extensions of some existing features. Given a list of iPhone's features, any engineer could put it together. It's just a smartphone with Apple logo on it.

Re:There's two issues here

[sznupi]

I see, so you think one needs a pen for resistive touchscreen device... (and it's now also about the style of the casing? Well, not only other manufacturers don't necessarily follow it - Apple doesn't innovate much)

Re:There's two issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha. You're trolling, right?

YOU think it through. R&D wouldn't last and things would stagnate without some sort of protection. R&D costs millions and even billions of dollars. What incentive does a company have to put that kind of investment into something, if they think they can just rip it off of someone else for free?

Re:There's two issues here

[LKM]

The other issue is the free riders - those corporations that choose to copy other's inventions and profit from someone else's ideas. This is what the patent system was intended to address

Wait, is there general agreement that his "issue" should be adressed? Because I disagree. Profiting from someone else's idea is not a problem for society, it's how society progresses. Every book written in the history of mankind has profited from the idea of other people. Every movie made in the history of mankind has done so. Every product ever developed has relied on ideas from other people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this; it's called "progress."

Re:There's two issues here

[sznupi]

There's a problem when free riders want their ideas to be protected, of course...

Re:There's two issues here

[drinkypoo]

Say what you will about Apple but they did cause a revolution in cell phone design.

There were windows mobile phones with touch-only interfaces (okay, most of them have a D-pad, but I'm talking about not having a key pad) before the iPhone. Say what you will about Apple, but please try to restrict yourself to facts.

Re:There's two issues here

[Rational]

That's precisely why common sense trumps "freedom".

Re:There's two issues here

[Hognoxious]

I thought for a minute you meant this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_(game)

Re:There's two issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe the facts backup your assertion. I used to work in the cell phone industry. There were plenty of high end phones with touch screen capability. In fact, one of the james bond movies used one. But here's the thing, those phones were over 500.00 and still had keypad. Most of the phones that had touch screen were more like touch screen kiosk with a separate keypad. Designing an elegant blend isn't easy at all. In fact it is very hard. It was an evolution, but no one else put all the pieces together in a pretty package. If engineer could have put it together, Apple wouldn't have been first to take all these different technologies and make it elegant. Sony, HTC, Nokia, Motorola, microsoft and palm all could have beaten apple to it. Fact is, they didn't and now everyone is copying apple. In turn, other people's work has inspired apple. Isn't that how it's suppose to be?

Re:There's two issues here

[Hognoxious]

capacitive touch often don't work with a stylus (or require a special one), but that doesn't imply that resistive touch screens need one.

Re:There's two issues here

[Hognoxious]

the whole concept of a patent is to prevent reimplementation of an idea for a limited period in return for documentation of that idea.

If we're talking about how the law is written, you're wrong.

If you're talking about how it's currently interpreted, you're right.

Re:There's two issues here

[GORby_]

No, apple made the market boom...
Palm had a relative success with the Palm Centro, aimed at the younger non-business crowd.
Too bad they screwed up so badly. WebOS should have been there a few years earlier.

Re:There's two issues here

[intheshelter]

Are you really making the argument that there was no difference between a Palm phone and the iPhone? Really? Because that is pure BS. The poster you replied to is right on the money. The iPhone has had a HUGE impact on the mobile landscape and on handset design. Some of these technologies did exist before the iPhone, yes, but the iPhone implemented them so much better that EVERYONE knew something revolutionary had been released. Go back and look at the press releases from Jan 2007. Tech analysts were gasping in the audience during the demo, no one had seen it implemented like this before.

Your cheese-ball excuse that this is all good marketing is burying your head in the sand.

Re:There's two issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is it the lg prada?

Re:There's two issues here

[oliphaunt]

Or, you know, the Palm Treo series. I got my first one in 2003. Still have a 755p now, but shopping for an android to replace it (droid 2 probably, I'm a sucker for hardware keyboard). Palm OS had an open dev environment, free SDK availability, widely distributed app downloads, native ssh and imap clients, the first big (for the time) color touchscreens, data tethering over usb cable and bluetooth, etc etc etc.

Too bad they were so goddamn stupid at actually running a business that they've never made a profit.

And the Pre feels like a piece of junk.

Re:There's two issues here

[rhizome]

In a truly free market, why shouldn't you be allowed to "copy other's inventions and profit from someone else's ideas.". Think it through.

Where is this "free market" you refer to? I've only seen it in books and internet comments.

Re:There's two issues here

[KarrdeSW]

What incentive does a company have to put that kind of investment into something, if they think they can just rip it off of someone else for free?

You're trolling, right? Their incentive is MONEY. The onus is just on the company, and not the government, to protect it.

Many companies today choose to forgo the patent system and keep their methods protected through Trade Secret. The idea is pretty simple: Protect your own information, if someone reverse engineers or develops it in parallel, tough luck. If someone outright steals it from your files, they're liable.

Re:There's two issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

But those "obvious" ideas aren't obvious to the 60 year old patent office workers or judges, so I guess they get a free pass.

Re:There's two issues here

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this "free market" you refer to?

I believe one exists in Somalia.

Misinformation about Android sales beating Apple

[jmcbain]

The original posting cites a May report from NPD that says that Android beat iPhone sales in Q1 of this year. However, that was now found to be erroneous: that survey was only for the consumer market. When business/enterprise sales were counted and reported in June by Nielsen, then iPhone beat Android by 3-to-1 and is closing in on RIM. Furthermore, most likely the only reason Android beat out iPhone in Q1 for consumers was because people were already anticipating the newest iPhone 4 released today. Apple sold 600K iPhone 4 during pre-orders, which as 10x the sales for the iPhone 3GS.

Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[keeperofdakeys]

Did I miss something? I mean, I really haven't read anything about android sales surpassing iPhone sales. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool and everything, but I just don't see it happening.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[Totenglocke]

First quarter 2010, there were more Android phones sold than iPhones. Also I was reading various articles on this, and a site (I wish I'd bookmarked it now - maybe someone reading knows which one it is) showed graphs for mobile browser usage - over a one year time span, May 2009 to May 2010, iPhone browser usage dropped 8% and Android browser usage increased 12%.

I had an iPhone 3GS from the day they went on sale until two weeks ago when I bought an Evo. I loved the iPhone at first, until all of it's shortcomings (virtually none of which have been fixed in the new version) became too obvious to stand. Android is a much better platform and you get a large selection of different handsets to choose from. Out of all the people I know, it's about 50/50 for iPhone vs Android ownership. However, I currently know no one looking to buy a new iPhone - but I know several people looking to buy a new Android phone and several who want to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone (but that's just my personal experience).

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[debatem1]

Did I miss something? I mean, I really haven't read anything about android sales surpassing iPhone sales. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool and everything, but I just don't see it happening.

Kind of. Here's the article, but now that the iPhone4 is out its unclear whether this was a blip or a sign of things to come.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we forgetting android platform copies heavily from iPhone. The UI still isn't as polished as iPhone. It's great to have a ton of knobs to turn for developers, but the average phone user doesn't care about that at all. It's only google fanboy wannabe mobile developers that give a crap about it. Of the people who have an android based phone, how many actually develop apps and make use of all those knobs? I'm guilty of the same thing myself, so lets be realistic. All this noise is just childish.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[FatAlb3rt]

There will be a blip in the other direction today, but Android gives users too many choices (providers, handsets, apps that don't have to get the approval nod from mommy) for it not to succeed.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[anethema]

And my experiance is the opposite.

I had a 3GS and figured I'd give something new a try.

Bought a Nexus One right from google.

At first it was 'ooo widgets' etc. The OS really is nice in some ways. Then I began to see the shortcomings. The UI operates at maybe 5FPS. There is a 2-300 ms lag when dragging the program icon menu around.

Then I tried to do my nerdly stuff with it like I did on the iPhone. BZZT. There is no gnu tools compiled for it, just busybox. WTF Linux phone and no gnu tools? Ok I want to SSH in...no OpenSSH. Some people have gotten 'dropbear' working. Dropbear really?

With my iphone I had full pub/priv key authentication set up, a bunch of scripts written for stuff I do on the phone, etc. I had a full apt GUI and command line for installing any tools I'd like as easily as I'd do on Ubuntu.

When I asked around why no proper environement has been built for the phone they just asked 'well why do you need it? Who needs ssh you have the adb shell'. It's hard to argue with people like that.

Between the lack of polish, slow UI even with a MUCH faster phone, and lack of an in depth Linux environement, it just isn't the platform for me, at least not yet. With the iPhone I really felt like I had a full computer in my pocket. I could almost replace my laptop if I had to (need an ethernet dongle!). I just don't (again, YET, android has a ways to go and I'm sure it will mature) with android.

I know it seems backwards, but the iPhone is the only phone I've found so far that really feels like a geek's phone, but ONLY once jailbroken. Without the jailbreak, I'd have the Android for sure.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[AlterEager]

Bought a Nexus One right from google.

Well, there's your problem, right there.

Should have got yourself an n900.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[Altus]

The multi-hour line outside the apple store I passed today indicates that you may very well be right.

And no, it wasn't just presales, they had 2 multi-hour long lines, on for presale and one for purchasing.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[anethema]

I thought about it pretty hard actually.

Three major things made me decide against it.

1. I've heard mostly bad reports about usability. Given one of my major complaints about Android is the unpolished UI, going to something like the N900 would probably be a step backwards there.

2. It is a dead end device. There will be no major upgrades to it since Nokia itself has said it won't be supporting Meego.

3. It only has AWS 3G bands, so on every major carrier here in Canada, I'd have no 3G.

As a concept though I love it, just a phone running linux. The thing is, with a jailbreak, I get pretty much everything the N900 gets except it's Darwin not Debian.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[shutdown -p now]

Are we forgetting android platform copies heavily from iPhone.

Of course it does, and I hope they keep doing that. Just as iPhone copied from so many other platforms. No-one exists in a vacuum, and when good ideas proliferate, it's great for everyone.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[shutdown -p now]

I'm in the same boat here, though there was one more point:

4. Lack of apps. Seriously, have you looked at Ovi Store? And sure, there's some third-party stuff, but if you compare it even to Android Market, it's not even funny. Oh, and you can run plain Linux apps - such as OpenOffice - but they're not practically usable on such a screen.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[cheesybagel]

Since when are lines a measure of success? It used to be we considered those a sign of backwardness (think store lines in the Soviet Union). If iPhone was actually sold in more stores, in an actual market based fashion, and had more models, I doubt you would see these lines. You need to compare iOS smartphone devices with Android devices. I think in the long run the winner is going to be Android.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[Totenglocke]

Well first off, you're comparing a jailbroken iPhone to a stock Android phone. If you compared it to a rooted Android phone, it would be an even comparison. Secondly, I've never used a Nexus One, but the only time I've seen the performance issues you mention was on an older phone that was running a non- supported version of Android (such as a Moment running 2.1). So either you had a bad phone or you're spreading FUD.

Re:Android sales greater than iPhone sales?

[Totenglocke]

Also, you fail to realize that you MUST jailbreak an iPhone to get those tools you love. With Android, you (or someone else) can simply write the software and install it without rooting it and voiding your warranty.

That doesn't make hardware unpatentable

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't make hardware unpatentable, it only makes digital logic unpatentable. If you have a way of making a binary AND gate that isn't patented or prior art, you can patent the way you MADE that AND gate. What you CAN'T do is patent logical AND.

The genius was never in, it appears.

Re:That doesn't make hardware unpatentable

[Anonymous Coward]

http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Computing

this could be done in real life, I think.

Re:That doesn't make hardware unpatentable

[left00coaster]

I have to agree that the genius was never in. Evaluating Out's SIG reveals a tragically flawed syllogism.

The opposite of "ignorance" is "knowledge" (or its equivalent). After all, a genius can be ignorant of many things and still be counted a genius in his or her fields of expertise. Similarly, "madness" and "bliss" are much closer to synonyms than antonyms.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[BlackCreek]

Yesterday at the Droid X launch, the quote was of 160.000 Android phones being sold per day. I assume that this number is global. So at any 4 working days Android (sales world wide) matches the iphone 4 (US) launch. How well do you think the sales between these two fare on a normal week world wide? Truth is, we both don't know.

I think that at the high-end price point, the iphone seems to sell a lot more. But the trick is that, world wide, not that many people have the disposable money. Android OTOH is present both at the high-end and at the mid-range.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[sznupi]

Android OTOH is present both at the high-end and at the mid-range.

That's...probably going a bit too far. "Present both at the highest-end and at the high-end (entry-high-end?)" more accurately describes the situation. Especially since you're talking about the world.

It got modded to +4 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

It got modded to +4 Insightful because it's defending

a) Apple
b) Software patents

There's a lot of astroturf and libertarian nuts in slashdot.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[LingNoi]

In Thailand you can buy an android based WelCom A88 for around $277. That's about a months salary for someone making a really shitty salary here.

There is definitely a huge amount of variation in android devices from around the world and I bet you've only heard about the ones in the US.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[sznupi]

Me hearing only about the ones in the US would be a bit weird considering I haven't really ever ventured even on the general Western hemisphere part of the planet...

That phone you link to is still at least two times more expensive than what can be comfortably called mid-range. Not far from an order of magnitude more expensive than low-end. And you know it.

Not necessiarly

[Sycraft-fu]

The federal government doesn't have to wise up and fix the patent problem overall, they can just take away the patents in question. Since patents are a power specifically granted to the government, it also means they are theirs to do with as they wish. The government can revoke patents for various reasons.

Well, if smart phones were going to get banned, that would have national security implications. The government relies heavily on mobile phones for communications. National security is a reason they are allowed to revoke patents for.

This sort of thing was threatened in the RIM lawsuit, and is one of the reasons it settled. The federal government told the court that if an injunction was issued against RIM stopping their operations, it could have national security implications. They asked the court not to grant it, and it was strongly implied if it was they might just take the patent away. The court then strongly suggested to the parties that they might want to settle this shit.

Not saying that's what would happen, just saying it is a possibility. The government could basically say "Ok all the patents in question are gone now, anyone can use the tech. Problem solved, let's all go get drunk," and ignore the underlying problem with the system.

Re:Not necessiarly

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of thing was threatened in the RIM lawsuit, and is one of the reasons it settled. The federal government told the court that if an injunction was issued against RIM stopping their operations, it could have national security implications. They asked the court not to grant it, and it was strongly implied if it was they might just take the patent away. The court then strongly suggested to the parties that they might want to settle this shit.

Er, that's not quite what happened.

The court ordered blackberry to shut down their network within x days, the feds asked the court to overturn that due to national security concerns, and the court said "So sad, too bad".

RIM was forced to settle because the court was shutting down their network, regardless of gov't intervention. The feds could probably have played hardball, since the government pretty much has free access to all patents issued in the US, and probably could have indemnified RIM, but that would likely have led to a whole new series of court actions.

The kicker was that the patent office had revoked the patent in question after the judgement, but RIM was still forced to settle with a clause revoking their right to pursue future litigation down the road, just because they were running up against the deadline.

So, no, it's not quite that simple.

Re:Android sales are surpassing the iPhone's.

[flimflammer]

No. First quarter this year, more Android loaded phones were sold than iPhones.

How much is spent on litigating this?

[EmagGeek]

I have to wonder what percentage of your cell phone bill goes to pay the cost of stupid litigation like this...

Re:How much is spent on litigating this?

[AlterEager]

I have to wonder what percentage of your cell phone bill goes to pay the cost of stupid litigation like this...

Uh, none of it?

My cell phone bill goes to my network provider, not handset manufacturers.

If Google is the REAL target...

[Slash.Poop]

Then why is Apple suing HTC? Is this just another case of Apple picking on the little guy?

Re:If Google is the REAL target...

[gnasher719]

Then why is Apple suing HTC? Is this just another case of Apple picking on the little guy?

What "little guy" do you think Apple has been "picking on"?

Nothing but accounting

[betterunixthanunix]

If all the litigation magically stopped, your cell phone bill would not be decreased as a result -- at best, it would stay the same, but more likely the companies would just raise it. What the money is spent on is only loosely related to what the cell companies charge you at this point.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[BlackCreek]

A friend has been to South-Korea recently. She said that local Samsung shops were selling Android phones for 70 euros there (she didn't buy one because they told her it would not work in Europe).

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the manager of my plant in Thailand already has an iPhone4.

And has received requests from others for 12 already........

They like nice things in Thailand too.

***THIS IS STEVE JOBS***

[smilnrt]

"I am God, and you can not sue God; but I can sue you N00bS and tr011s!! Muhahahahahaha!!!"

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[mdwh2]

Who cares, it's both nothing compared to Nokia - not to mention all the other companies like LG, Samsung, Motorola, RIM. Indeed, as you note yourself with "is closing in on RIM" - why yes, they'll soon be in position number 5...

(Although I think Android is still interesting long term, as it's potentially an OS that all those other companies, except presumably Nokia and RIM, will switch to using.)

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[mdwh2]

I think that at the high-end price point, the iphone seems to sell a lot more.

Even at the high end "smartphone" point, Nokia are still number 1 with 40-50% share. It may be that Apple are ahead of Android devices, though they're also still behind RIM I believe.

But the trick is that, world wide, not that many people have the disposable money. Android OTOH is present both at the high-end and at the mid-range.

But yes indeed, world wide and out of all phones, Apple are less than 5%. Not sure how Android phones do, but Nokia still lead at 40%.

Also, I'd say it's not just about disposable income - even if you have a good job, not everyone wants to spend hundreds of pounds/dollars (or equivalent in contract) on a phone just so it has a 1GHz processor and 3D chip. Even bog standard cheap "feature" phones these days run apps and support the Internet (in fact it's been that way for at least five years), and support large touchscreens. Although I get the sad feeling that some people out there are buying expensive Iphones just because they've swallowed the marketing hype that you need an expensive Iphone just to access the Internet on a phone...

Someone mod him other than "Funny"

[Anonymous Coward]

THAT post deserves karma.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[Anonymous Coward]

The parents point was about there being only expensive phones for android not that they can't afford them.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[BlackCreek]

Although I get the sad feeling that some people out there are buying expensive Iphones just because they've swallowed the marketing hype that you need an expensive Iphone just to access the Internet on a phone...

The "fancy phone" public right now is far beyond the user group that actually uses mobile internet.

I think the main point of sales (of top phones like the iphone 4) is that phones have become fashion accessories. So people will pay multi-hundred dollars/euros for phones just like they pay multi-hundred bucks for sunglasses, watches, shoes etc.

Think about all the previous "simple" blackberries that had a much longer battery life, and extreme utility for reading email. Couple of years later all new BBerries lasted much less (for the sake of features that almost no one used) but higher up managers would only have the shinny new ones with low battery. Because those were the fashionable ones.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[intheshelter]

Define high and mid range? From what I've seen in the US, Android phones cost $99-$299 (w/2 yr contract), which is the same price point as iPhones. I think they are also about the same price without a contract. I think it's a myth that Android phones are any cheaper.

It could. So?

[Anonymous Coward]

It could. So? You don't get a patent on "I will add two numbers together by taking a number of apples equal to one number and another group of apples equal to the other number then counting all two groups of apples together" just because this is using hardware (apples) rather than intellectual effort.

How do you connect that lever to the widget? How do you get that widget to do what you want rather than do nothing? How do you build it so you can keep it all working well. THESE are patentable. Maths is not.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[Lars T.]

Yesterday at the Droid X launch, the quote was of 160.000 Android phones being sold per day.

Nitpick: that Android devices per day, not phones. Which get compared to iPhones, not iOS devices.

Is Apple the choice of snobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I once was a admirer of apple being a company pushing the edge.I also witnessed many users of apple products and I observed one thing very common to all, they start behaving like snobs the moment the apple gadget lands on their doors. They almost start believing into this cult of apple which shuts down creative inputs from other players.I can now relate with apple inc.'s behavior which embodies the same pathetic trait. With their nonsensical litigation and closing doors to other technologies they ensured one thing, lost me as a potential customer and make sure the most deserving competitor will get my business. This also goes to the AT&T which did a nice bait and switch for their apple users.I used to have AT&T as my cell phone provider, they are out too. I love my freedom to choose and my small contribution will not come their way.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be joking. The poster is talking about full retail price, not US subsidy pricing with a contract.

If $277 is "at least two times more expensive than what can be comfortably called mid-range", then you live in some market where mid-range phones cost $135 retail? The low range for unlocked GSM phones in the US is roughly $100-150, unless you find some weird gray market item like the Motorola F3 at $30 (stupendously low range import from South America) or some ancient surplus item.

Nokia was on the wrong side of that one

[Brannon]

Nokia participated in a consortium to create the GSM standard, including (as often is the case in these kinds of standards) utilizing several Nokia patented technologies in the standard. Usually the companies which contribute such technologies agree to license such patents in a RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) way towards anyone who wants to implement the standards. Which means (roughly) that Qualcomm pays the same amount as Apple.

Nokia, however, decided that instead they were going to insist, as a condition of licensing the technologies necessary for implementing the GSM standard, that they be granted access to all of Apple's patents covering things like the iPhone. Basically, they could turn around and make a complete iPhone clone--and that was the "cost of admission" for building any kind of phone. This is not RAND because obviously the value of the Apple francise is a bit higher than any number of other companies that Nokia adopted such terms with. It would have been reasonable for Nokia to insist on cross-licensing for any technologies from Apple related to GSM, but where's the justification in them getting free access to Apple's patents on iPhone hardware design, for example.

This is Rambus-level behavior from Nokia--and they are going to get smacked down for it.

Re:Nokia was on the wrong side of that one

[zeroshade]

Considering both the parent and GP are conflicting opinions of the entire situation, how about a citation?

Re:Nokia was on the wrong side of that one

[Cornelius the Great]

I really don't think Nokia wants to make an iPhone knockoff. Rather, they wanted protection from the legal threats that Apple had been making over Nokia's touchscreen smartphones.

Non-discrimination aside, wouldn't you want competitor, who continually threatens you and others with litigation, to back down as a condition of licensing terms? I think that's reasonable.

No, it was Apple who picked a fight with Nokia. Nokia simply called their bluff.

Re:Nokia was on the wrong side of that one

[hkmwbz]

Nokia, however, decided that instead they were going to insist, as a condition of licensing the technologies necessary for implementing the GSM standard, that they be granted access to all of Apple's patents covering things like the iPhone.

If I am not mistaken, it was Apple which decided that cross-licensing wasn't for them, so unlike all other cell phone manufacturers, ever, Apple tried to have its cake and eat it too. The right thing to do would be to enter a patent cross-licensing agreement like every god damn other cellphone manufacturer.

This is why Apple sucks

[dave562]

As much as Apple fans like to tout Apple's uniqueness and originality, the reality seems to be closer to the fact that Apple is shovelling the same thing as everyone else. Their packaging might be slightly different, and their marketing department is pushing some industrial strength Kool Aid, but at the end of the day they aren't that different from anyone else.

All of these patent claims over mobile devices puts me in mind a car analogy. If Ford were like Apple, they would have patented the "steering wheel". They would have patented "brakes". They would have patented each individual part of the car. Taken to the extreme, nobody else would have been able to produce an automobile because all of the key parts of the automobile would be patent encumbered. Luckily for the world, Ford wasn't run by Steve Jobs and so we have a wide range of automobiles to choose from.

Is Microsoft siding with HTC?

[walterbyrd]

Microsoft also forced TomTom into a cross-patent agreement. Is MS "siding" with HTC the same way that MS was "siding" with TomTom?

Wrong use of resources

[Anonymous Coward]

Observation over many years: From time to time a company starts using lots of resources on suing competitors. In a few years the company is out of the marked.

Pål

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[sznupi]

Why would I be talking about anything else than a price without contract? Why would you throw the US here, when we (other posters & me) established it's not about this quite atypical market, it's about the world.

Yes, a large chunk of mid-range phones can be had for somewhat above $100, unlocked and without contract. So called "feature phone" segment, basically (but really, when you look at the essentials of the features, they aren't that far from so called "smartphones"). And yes, low-range means totally basic handsets, 20-50 for example (btw, there are some noticeably better ones than F3 - this one has quite dreadful UI, for starters).
As for smartphones which could fall under "mid-range" - I'd guess Nokia 5230 is pretty damn close (can be had by me right now for $145; Symbian, touchsceen, really free (offline) turn-by-turn GPS, you name it), and it's not even the cheapest one from Nokia. $277 cannot be considered as being in the same league, not when it means whole months salary.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[BlackCreek]

If you *think* that that is a myth, I *know* you... hum... that need to check some facts ;-)

You are either only looking at high end Android phones, or not considering the contract prices as part of the total price.

When I bought my G1, getting an Iphone 3G (not the 3GS) would have cost ~220 euros more. In Europe, LG has dozens of cheap phones running Android being sold unlocked. As I mentioned in another post, a friend has been to South Korea where Samsung was selling Android phones (unlocked & without contract) for 70 euros.

If Apple has enforceable touchscreen patents...

[Brannon]

...then they should be able to enforce them.

I don't understand your point...Nokia has the right to demand money for use of their patents (as part of a standard) but Apple is entitled to nothing wrt their patents on unrelated technologies?

Think honestly whose side you would be on if the situation was reversed. Suppose as a condition for implementing a standard over which Apple held some patents (I don't know, HTML5 video codecs) then Nokia was required to give Apple free access to their entire patent portfolio.

That's the point: apple DO NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the point: apple DO NOT have enforceable touchscreen patents. The touchscreen hardware is licensed from another company. What apple have are software patents some of which are using touchscreen as the hardware that could be used. Pretty much "move the mouse cursor over the "File" button and click the rightmost button to activate the file menu" patent. Someone else had the patent over the mouse and the VDU hardware.

But Apple do not have patents on touchscreen hardware.

Re:If Apple has enforceable touchscreen patents...

[Cornelius the Great]

The difference is, IMHO, Nokia's hardware patents stand up to scrutiny. UI and software, on the other hand, have not yet been court tested, and there's even a small possibility that software or UI patents may be invalidated by a surprise Bilski decision in the Supreme Court.

It stands to reason that Nokia's portfolio is more valuable.

Neither you or I really know exactly what deals Nokia or Apple had in mind going into the talks- but one thing's for certain: Apple walked. The same way they walked from talks with Cisco over licensing their registered trademark for "iPhone", and then used it anyway without approval (fortunately, Apple learned its lesson by the time it used Fujitsu's iPad trademark). Who else chooses to walk from a legal agreement just so they can spend millions on legal fees over the fallout?

I might be extrapolating, but here are my two observations:

1. Apple doesn't seem to be a very agreeable company in negotiations. They're the prima donna of the tech industry, and everyone knows it.

2. They take a hypocritical stance when violating IP of other companies.

Other things to consider: Apple has already proven themselves to be quite the patent troll, and even intends on attacking free software soon.

Sorry, but this pattern of behavior is hard to justify.

That's a nice little fantasy, but...

[Brannon]

it doesn't match up with reality. Apple has lots of hardware patents as well--they are a hardware company, btw--and Nokia wanted access to those as well.

> It stands to reason that Nokia's portfolio is more valuable.

Now we all know that you are completely full of shit.

Re:That's a nice little fantasy, but...

[Cornelius the Great]

Now we all know that you are completely full of shit.

Sorry, I didn't realize that my criticisms of Apple's patent trolling had offended you personally.

Does Apple pay you to defend this practice, or do you volunteer?

Re:Android sales are surpassing the iPhone's.

[BasilBrush]

No. First quarter this year, more Android loaded phones were sold than iPhones.

No they weren't. One study from on firm, covering US sales only and excluding corporate sales claimed that. It didn't come to the conclusion that total Android phone sales were larger than total iPhone sales at all. And no other study shows Android as even being close.

I cite your prior art but...

[IBitOBear]

I patent a method of setting the R, G and B values to ranges between 0x0 and 0xFFFF so that you aren't allowed to use your invention in platforms with 64bit pixels.

Additionally I patent setting values to "nearly equal values" to _approximate_ gray.

Finally I patent choosing values for R G and B relative to actual or approximately equal values so as to achieve variations of intensity relative to a neutral.

You best not try to upgrade your stuff without paying me now buddy...

Re:*Grabs Popcorn*

[Meski]

We predicted this. No doubt the extra patents relate to Apple's innovative use of multi-tasking.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[sznupi]

I find it quite unlikely, considering that's significantly less than cheapest Chinese "clones"; plus Android devices from Samsung aren't exactly aiming for low price (that's where their bada OS will be - I suspect a lot of people are for a surprise with its marketshare in the future)

So when ALL software patents disappear

[Anonymous Coward]

So when ALL software patents disappear, this one will too. Leaving Apple able to implement it. Of course, if there are more than software patents on Nokia's list and nothing in Apple's list, then Apple is still up shit creek. If Nokia ONLY has software patents, or Apple has some hardware then this would mean continued investigation. However your insinuation that Nokia has only software patents would be proven either way to be either false or true.

I have no problem with that. So how about you ask Apple to drop the software patents and Nokia to do so as well?

Re:If Apple has enforceable touchscreen patents...

[jabbathewocket]

You are quite wrong about UI patents not being tested in court..

The Apple UI patents where tested almost the day they where issued (see MS vs Apple over UI for windows and the resulting cross-licensing)

UI patents are NOT software patents.. oddly enough teh nokia patents are in fact about software.. just because its embedded on a chip does NOT make it any less onerous than a patent on an algorithm in a computer application.

So UI patent == "design" patent

OR "the windows start menu/taskbar combo" is equivalent to the "industrial design" of any other physical object such as the shape of a mouse, or the "look" of a laptop, etc.

Software patent / method patent are both crap, and unfortunately Nokia's patents are not for hardware innovation, they are for the *SOFTWARE* running within general purpose cpu's and DSP's within cellphones that make them GSM compatible.

If all it takes for slashdot to like software patents is to put them in a ROM or DSP, then the anti-software patent movement is doomed to fail.

Apple didn't set it off

[gig]

Nokia sued Apple first. Nokia is the leading smartphone vendor by volume who has lost its way technologically and is now trying to get Apple to pay more for GSM than everyone else. So Apple didn't set anything off.

As for HTC, they should have hired designers and inventors. Now they will have to hire lawyers. HTC is like a kind of cancer on the mobile industry. Other cloners are noticing and saying hey we had better hire designers and inventors now instead of lawyers later. That is good unless you want to see the mobile market collapse into a copy of the moribund PC market.

Apple's suit has nothing to do with Google. Google passed on all liability to HTC via software licensing. That is the reason Google only makes software, same as Microsoft. High profit, low liability, no need to be original.

Every once in a while, Android outsells iPhone. Like for a day at a time, when Verizon has a 2-for-1 or something. Extrapolating that one day to a whole year is not just stupid but pathetic.

The hypocrisy of Android is just stupefying. Closed networks, proprietary phones, closed native C API, malware, spyware, spamware, apps being deleted from user's phones, horrendous bugs in every device, and an endless stream of invective directed against the community you copy from that is exceeded only by the grandiose predictions of world domination "any moment now" and excusifying for the current half-assed state of the Android nation. So fucking miserably tiresome. I love it that Linus Torvalds loves his Android phone. I hate it that the same phone is being sold to consumers as "just like an iPhone" when it's not. I hate it that a friend called me up on her landline to ask for my help getting her Android phone to stop crashing like she had a Windows PC. And this is someone who had 2 trouble-free years with iPhone. Just an incredible lack of quality in these devices HTC keeps shitting out. It's a plague.

Re:If Apple has enforceable touchscreen patents...

[Cornelius the Great]

The Apple UI patents where tested almost the day they where issued (see MS vs Apple over UI for windows and the resulting cross-licensing)

Say what?! The Apple vs. Microsoft case was about "look-and-feel" copyright, not patents. And the end result was that Apple had their asses handed to them after the court noted that Apple's GUI wasn't original itself, and borrowed heavily from Xerox.

The "cross-licensing" occurred before they ever went to court. The only reason why Apple sued was because Microsoft decided that they no longer needed to license Apple's tech for Windows 2.0 (they had paid Apple fees for Windows 1.0).

I actually have issues of Infoworld I kept since the 80s that followed the case very closely.

I must be old...

And I agree that most hardware and all software (and design patents) are bunk. Unfortunately, the courts and USPTO can't seem to make up their minds (1981, 1996, 1998, etc). The Supreme Court needs to be especially careful when they make a ruling on Bilski, as it may invalidate more than just business method patents. Here's hoping they don't avoid the issue.

Re:Misinformation about Android sales beating Appl

[sznupi]

How many really can't and it still doesn't stop them? (in whatever market)