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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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: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: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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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

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.

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: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: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:I never understood

[__aasqbs9791]

Don't forget:

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

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: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: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: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: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.

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: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: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...

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: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: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.