Slashdot Mirror
Summarizing the Apple-Android Patent Battle
FlorianMueller writes "Apple's patent dispute with Motorola is one of the biggest legal battles going on at the moment. Apple, which is also entangled in litigation with Nokia and HTC, recently beefed up its legal team, but it also keeps throwing in ever more patents. Apple made important court filings last Wednesday and Thursday. The bottom line: Apple now asserts 24 patents against Motorola, which uses 18 patents in claims against Apple. 21 of Apple's infringement allegations relate to Android, 3 to Motorola set-top boxes and DVRs. Motorola targets the whole range of Apple products."
Mueller followed up the above article with an excellent visualization of how the patents, companies, and courts intersect.
It's all about establishing a nasty, thick web of patents not covered by RAND to raise the barrier to entry impossibly high.
This is why I criticize Apple's walled garden, despite not owning one. They're very, very interested in making impossible for those of us who don't want to buy in to actually have a choice.
Apple wants to own the next computer/consumer space. Google wants to own it, too. Rather than letting consumers make the decision, Apple will try to get the courts to decide for them. Easier to sway a single judge - or, at most, 12 jurors - than the entire consuming public.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Apple lost just about their entire claim against Nokia, when half the patents they were seeking to enforce were declared invalid by the FTC, and the rest dismissed as not being infringed.
It would be interesting to see Apple now try to enforce those patents declared invalid against Motorola et al.
This all started when Apple refused to pay consortium of GSM patent holders fees that all other GSM manufacturers subscribe to, some how feeling the were above the law.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I'm sure that each of Apple, HTC, Nokia and Motorola each independently invented the same things, that they wouldn't have invested effort in inventing if they couldn't protect forever with an exclusive monopoly, so now tech progress is protected by these patents instead of being completely logjammed. I'm sure the money spent on lawyers instead of development is promoting tech progress, not scaring away other innovators.
And if you believe that, I'm sure that you're either a lawyer or, worse yet, a congressmember.
--
make install -not war
Apple wanted to pay the fees. It's just that Nokia would not accept the without ALSO being given a variety of patents that Apple owned as well. Which was not at all Non-Discriminatory, as Nokia has done no such thing with any other phone provider.
Nice try at revisionism, Apple Hater.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Remember Motorola had teamed up with Apple to make the MotoROKR phone with iTunes.
What a mess of a phone. Apple put limitation on that phone. It could only play 100 songs and no more even after you add extra memory, you could not store more songs than 100 songs in the phone.
Apple probably had more to benefit from its partnership with Motorola to create the iPhone.
http://direct.motorola.com/hellomoto/rokr/
There was some confusion out there about the ITC staff (Office of Unfair Import Investigations, OOUI) report, and this quote from your post reflects them:
No.
1. As I explained in this recent blog post, Apple's ITC assertions against Nokia were split into two parts. The staff report that the press reported on in early December related to only 4 of the 10 patents Apple originally asserted against Nokia.
2. That staff opinion is just an opinion, not a definitive dismissal. My Apple vs. Android chart does mention that some patents were dropped from the ITC cases between Apple and HTC: on pages 8 ("Move #7 - Apple drops 4 patents from ITC complaint against HTC") and 10 ("Move #9 -- HTC drops 1 patent from ITC complaint against Apple"). But the instances I mention in my chart were definitive partial terminations of those cases. The ITC staff opinion published a month ago on one Apple v. Nokia case is not definitive. It's an opinion and the ITC's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) can agree or disagree with it. There have been many cases already in which the ALJ judge took decisions that were very different from the staff reports. I've seen a long list of cases in which the staff then actually appealed the ALJ's decision, which is clear evidence that decisions deviate from those staff reports quite often. The staff report is an opinion, and I don't mean to downplay the importance of the staff and its reports, but that is just not a dismissal of claims (let alone the invalidation of patents).
3. Even if some patents lost before the ITC, they might (as my blog post mentioned under item 1 explains) still be enforced in a US federal district court. My chart makes that distinction in connection with the patents dropped from ITC cases. HTC's '183 patent is grayed-out from Move #9 on because it was only asserted in the ITC so far and they withdrew it. By contrast, Apple's '867, '131, '852 and RE'486 patents were only dropped from an ITC complaint but Apple does enforce them against Motorola now in a federal district court, so the patents are still alive.
4. The chart this article refers to is purely about Apple vs. Motorola and Apple v. HTC. I'm going to do the same visualization for the Apple-Nokia conflict as well but it will be a separate document because otherwise things would become too complex to fit in a single chart. In fact, I already have that one in place for the most part, so it will become available pretty soon. (Also for Microsoft vs. Motorola and Oracle vs. Google, by the way.)
While you are right that Motorola drew first blood against Apple in terms of actually suing, Motorola's Delaware request for declaratory judgment makes the following claim: "Apple has professed rights [...] based on Motorola Mobility's activities related to Motorola Mobility's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, i1 and Charm products" (you can find the details of that case listed on page 22 of my PDF)
I don't know what exactly Motorola means by "Apple has professed rights" and whether that description given by Motorola is true, but it could mean that Motorola launched a pre-emptive strike. The fact that Apple's suits against Motorola were filed only 23 days later (Motorola attacked on 06 October 2010, Apple filed suits against Motorola on 23 October 2010) -- not a whole lot of time to prepare suits of that kind -- also suggests that Apple would have sued at any rate.
But let me make this clear as well: I don't mean to be judgmental about someone who sues. It would be too simplistic a view to say that the one who sues is automatically doing evil. Lawsuits happen if parties can't reach an agreement on something, and one would have to know about the nature and content of all of the previous communication between the parties to know what resulted in the filing of a suit. In many cases one would probably conclude that it's an act of aggression, but in other cases one might have a different or more differentiated perspective if only one knew all of the facts.
I wasn't going to post in this article with Florian's taint on it, but here goes anyway. In the end I expect this will get nasty for a while, and then the companies will come to an understanding about the coexistence of iOS and Android. They'll cross-license some patents and then once united turn and attack... who?
Go on, guess. Guessing is fun.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
icebike just stated what some of the media reports appeared to suggest a month ago. Right here as part of this Slashdot thread I've posted this explanation.
- Motorola started the patent case agains apple, motorola is the patent troll in this case - Nokia requests patent and licenses which it doesnt require from other companies so discriminating Apple
And 90 procent of the posts will go about how apple is in fault here.... Yeah but they have patents so they are (more) evil then others. If they wouldnt have a patent portfolio they would be sitting ducks...
Just stop coding iAnything for them and their stupid world. Just stop and they will play nice again. It sure didn't take them long to turn into Microsoft.
They give us what we want, so we love them. It's not that hard. Your boss should try that.
Nothing too bad is going to happen in the Great IPocalypse. A bunch of lawyers will get some billable hours to go through the motions. There will be a flutter of competing press releases. Eventually the executives will settle the whole thing over a nice lunch. Some years later some new lawyer will forget to seal the docket in a completely different suit and we'll get to find out who did what to whom and who got paid.
But neither iOS nor Android is going away. This noise will not slow either one. We'll have our stunningly disruptive revolution.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Whether you choose Apple or Motorola, you will have to pay a lawyer tax.
Does anybody else see the parallels between Apple's litigation and World War II? You have Apple (Axis Powers) filing lawsuits (declaring war) against Motorola, Nokia, and HTC (Allied Powers). Honestly, with the business practices Apple has, such as no outside apps (propaganda) without Apple authorization, no tethering (isolation from other countries), carrier lock-ins (you have the limited choices only Apple says you can have), and proprietary software (you live in Apple Land, and cannot leave), they bear a strong resemblance to Nazi Germany. If Der Fuhrer Steve Jobs remembers his history, then he should know he is about to have his ass handed to him and will surrender before it's too late.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Try reading the actual article rather than making up whatever you feel like.
Apple sued HTC first. HTC responded, Motorola responded. Apple shot first, they were the belligerent party and now we are all paying for a futile patent war.
One of the reasons I chose Android in the first place so I didn't have to overpay for a phone.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Apple decided to move into mobile phones and required hardware to do so. Lacking any actual know how on making phones, like many companies they borrowed the hardware from other companies - Motorola. Motorola is used to licensing out their hardware patents. Motorola makes money on just about every phone sale through their hardware licensing. So Apple asked Motorola to license their technology, but not like everyone else. Apple asked Motorola to trade software patents for hardware patents. Motorola told them to piss into the wind. The only way they were getting Motorola patens, Motorola said, was to trade for other hardware patents or pay a licensing fee like everyone else. Apple took choice C - to use the hardware patents even without license so they could make their iPhone - which would not exist without the Motorola technology.
The issue here boils down to this question: Are software patents in general worth the same as hardware patents. And of course the answer to anyone who knows anything about the subject is a resounding no. Hardware patents take billions of dollars to develop and millions of man hours in testing physical objects in a physical world. A software patent is an often unimplemented idea most often without a single line of code - vapor. Software patents often sound like this: "A system where a user can use a icon based interface to lookup information about his/her pet in real time with an image and a video of the pet in the same interface as the typing interface where the pet can see the user type". No - really - they are that dumb and ambiguous.
So Motorola makes an antenna design that will work within solid concrete tunnels without requiring frequency modulation or signal attenuation at the cost of billions of dollars and millions of man hours, testing – certification – more testing, IC engineering, fabrication and design, so much time and effort that to even list what needs to be done would be exhausting - and Apple thinks a fair trade would be the patent that consists of the words: "A system where the user can click and drag through a list of music and select which songs to buy with a button that allows a user to listen to a preview of the song." - Seriously?
Software patents should never exist. Apple should lose their ass for stealing Motorola technology even after Motorola said they could not use it. If you don’t like the terms of the deal –that means no deal! Not I just use their hardware patents anyway. Who the fuck acts like that? Is Apple a 5 year old? Then after stealing Motorola’s hardware they have the audacity to claim patent infringement? Justice would be well served if Motorola got a big chunk of every iPhone or other Apple device using their hardware without permission. A punitive amount too, not a happy negotiated amount. If the normal is %1 they should pay %10. If it’s %10 they should pay %50. Theft should not at the end of the day, be profitable for stealing technology!
You cannot take without paying for it.
You cannot trade software patents for hardware patents.
You cannot make up your own rules if you don't want to play nice with your hardware vendor
yes, the patent descriptions in my examples are fabricated, but they are still indicative of hardware patent vs. software patent. Don’t complain unless you also include the actual patents in question I’m just trying to illustrate the difference between software and hardware patents.
Irrelevant. If companies can hold entire industries for "patently absurd ransoms", then it doesn't matter if it is for "self-defence" or not. The presedence has been set, not just hypothetically, but according to law. This will have a chilling effect on all innovation and economical competitiveness in the US.
Countries that disregard these types of laws will benefit and take over as the intellectual emmigration sets in. Just too bad for the "industrial countries", this is all the resources they've got left.
Politicians, "diplomats", lawyers and huge international megacorporations will take the profits and move to other countries, once this land has been plundered barren.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I think the govenrnment should step in against these IP infringers, fine them each $500 Billion (that's not much more than 1k/device/patent, which seems low based on other recent IP judgements for copyright infringement), and call it good.
None of this annoying individual corps sue another corp - let the government be the police and the fine recipient. That way we can piss of everyone and make up for the unfunded tax cut extension. (For those thinking this is for international companies, I think each government can levy fines for the IP registered in their own countries - they all need a little help these days).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
My own fear about all these court cases is that when the dust settles we'll have half a dozen companies who've paid dearly for nothing (other than the right to distribute their software) and this companies won't take too kindly to new developers.
We'll be left with a cartel. If you want to write software for phones, you better pay the expensive cross-licences or get into the protection of someone who has.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Cost_barrier_to_market_entry
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Seriously. Why does anyone use them?
12.04.10
Apple is Bullying Competitors — Including Linux — Using Software Patents
> Apple is suing to embargo Linux-based phones/phone makers, using software patents to generally remove competition or remove features from competitors’ products.
http://techrights.org/2010/12/04/apple-swpats-vs-android/
On the one hand, I really hope that Apple gets what they deserve: for three decades, they have been copying, cloning, and stealing other people's ideas and not giving anything significant back. The should finally be held accountable, publicly and openly.
On the other hand, I think the best for the market would be if all these patents ended up being unenforceable on all sides. Then the market will take care of the problem by itself: Apple will settle at its usual 3-5% market share and the rest of us can go back to ignoring them, except for occasionally making fun of their bad software engineering and pompous commercials.
The patents in question were related to implementing a global standard for wireless communication (GSM) which Nokia has an obligation to offer on RAND terms to all comers. Nokia insisted that, in order for Apple to implement this global standard, that Nokia get full access to Apple's patents on things that had nothing to do with standards for anything--like the entire UI for the iPhone. Does that sound fair to you? If you want to build a phone then we are literally allowed to make identical clones to the iPhone and sell it with a Nokia brand.
Here's a little math.
1,000,000 hours / 40 hours per week / 52 weeks per year means to get 1,000,000 man hours you would need: <gasp>
(1000000/40/52=481).
480 employees!! OMFG!! How could they employ that massive number of people!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola
(60,000*40*52=1,248,000,000) Total man hours per year: 124,800,000.
Hardware patent example: A standard plastic zipper on a coat, except it's bigger than usual, so you can zip it while wearing gloves.
Software patent example: An algorithm for accurately locating and identifying the faces of individuals in photographs, in mixed-light conditions, with compensation for noise and motion-blur.
The descriptions in my examples are NOT fabricated.
The basis for your argument is garbage.
A punitive amount too, not a happy negotiated amount. If the normal is %1 they should pay %10. If it's %10 they should pay %50. Theft should not at the end of the day, be profitable for stealing technology!
If I recall correctly the patent system already has a punitive damage multiplier of 3x for willful patent infringement. By that standard 1% becomes 3%, 10% becomes 30%.
Good enough for ya? B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Apple is Bullying Competitors -- Including Linux -- Using Software Patents
> Apple is suing to embargo Linux-based phones/phone makers, using software patents to generally remove competition or remove features from competitors' products.
Apple has a long history of using legal "Intellectual Property" attacks against competitors.
Two shining examples were the "Look and Feel" suits they filed against Digital Research's GEM in 1985 and Microsoft's early Windows product in 1988.
If I understand it correctly: These attempted to stretch copyright and trademark law to treat the overall appearance of a windowing interface as a "performance" (like a play) and the individual elements and/or their grouping and interaction as a trademark. Allowing this would have given Apple a monopoly on windowing systems lasting as long as copyrights and trademarks (virtually forever and as long as they were used for business, respectively).
Digital Research knuckled under, crippled their product, and fell by the wayside. Microsoft fought an won on virtually all points (except for the desktop "wastebasket" and disk-drive icons/functionality.)
For this one: Rah Microsoft! B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Apple only went after HTC. Motorola then jumped Apple for other reasons and Apple countered.
Which .pdf is that? The article linked to, the Bloomberg article, says Apple's lawsuit against Nokia was a "precursor to Apple patent battles with Motorola Inc. and HTC Corp." The second says "Motorola threw down the gauntlet in what looked to me like a pre-emptive strike at a point when Motorola probably knew that Apple was already preparing suits against it."
If Apple was initiating all the lawsuits, I'd say this was true, but that does not seem to be the case.
Except Apple does have a walled garden. Apple arranged it so only software available for download from Apple can be installed on iPhones and iPads. And Apple keeps a tight grip on what download it allows.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That would totally explain why Motorola sued Apple first. No, wait, it wouldn't at all. Nokia also took the first swing in that scuffle as well. The only large recent suit where Apple instigated matters was against HTC.
Yes Motorola filed first but they knew Apple was filing a lawsuit themselves. Now if you know someone's going to sue you can wait or you can sue them first. Motorola decided to sue first.
This is all likely to end in one big cross-licensing deal where the established players carve out there own share of the market pie and keep anyone else from joining the party.
Except that's not possible. Some of those established players are using Android which is based on Linux and is GLPed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Wow! Really? Apple's Gross Profit Margin is 41% whereas Microsoft's is 84.8%. Looks like MS has the higher profit margin, at more than twice Apple's. And I didn't know Amazon and Bestbuy were boutique retailers. Or are you just showing your anti-Apple bias?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Motorola knew Apple was going to sue, so they sued first.
And 90 procent of the posts will go about how apple is in fault here....
Whereas Apple fanbois will say Apple is not at fault.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
An algorithm for accurately locating and identifying the faces of individuals in photographs, in mixed-light conditions, with compensation for noise and motion-blur.
What is being patented, a general idea or a specific method? General ideas should not be patentable. And is that specific method based on math? Math shouldn't be patentable either.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Apple's marketshare is more than that. It's several months old but AppleInsider has the article Apple sells estimated 1.4M Macs in US to capture 8% market share. That 8% puts Apple's marketshare in 5th place, behind HP, Dell, Acer, and Toshiba. More recently, October, Gartner and IDC say Apple marketshare broke 10%. That puts Apple's marketshare in 3rd, ahead of Acer and Toshiba and behind "Others". The only named companies with higher shares are HP and Dell.
the rest of us can go back to ignoring them, except for occasionally making fun of their bad software engineering and pompous commercials.
HAHA!!! I switched from Windows PCs more than 3 years ago after using PC for more than 10 years. My one regret is that I didn't switch sooner. Of 3 new Windows and one new Linux PC, only one did not need to be repaired in less than 1 year. In the more than 3 years I've had the Mac I'm typing this on I've only had to have it repaired once, about a year and a half after I got it.
Not only did I have my PC hardware fail a number of tymes, I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes which each PC.
Should there be a Law?
Apple sells estimated 1.4M Macs in US to capture 8% market share
Even if true, probably much of that is the result of Apple's exposure through iPhone and iPod. Historically, Apple market share is 3-5%, and that's what they're likely going to go back to in a competitive market.
Not only did I have my PC hardware fail a number of tymes, I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes which each PC.
And that has to do with Apple's bad software engineering... what?
there are some great economic studies that are critical of the patent system -- but there's no shortage of studies supporting it (and of companies funding such studies). So the only way that politicians would act is that businesses themselves exercise effective pressure against the patent system.
Yea there isn't a shortage of studies, and a bunch of companies support them, however how many are not biased to begin with? Yes there are studies that conclude patents are not good that start with a bias too. And businesses, some of them that is, support patents because it reduces their competition. Reduced competition means less progress. Without government granted monopolies, which is what patents are, I believe and many economic studies support it there will be more progress. Is if businesses have to compeat to stay in business they'll innovate more. Sure another business may use their innovation, or the business can make use of trade secrets. That even works for the individual inventor who has no financing for manufacturing. What they can do is go to a contract manufacturer have have them sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, NDA, which are frequently brought up here on Slashdot.
So the only way that politicians would act is that businesses themselves exercise effective pressure against the patent system.
That's true if only businesses pressure politicians. If however voters apply pressure politicians will have to listen.
As I see it though there's a huge problem, international trade and trade agreements like World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and World Trade Organization (WTO). As it's name suggests WIPO was created to protect "intellectual property", IP. Every nation would have to agree to eliminate IP and that is close to being impossible I think short term. As Billy Holiday sang The impossible will take a little while.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Even if true, probably much of that is the result of Apple's exposure through iPhone and iPod. Historically, Apple market share is 3-5%, and that's what they're likely going to go back to in a competitive market.
As if there's not a competitive market now. Gee, with all the stores and websites selling PCs I'd never know there was no competition, it certainly looks like there is competition.
Not only did I have my PC hardware fail a number of tymes, I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes which each PC.
And that has to do with Apple's bad software engineering... what?
How stupid can you get? I never said Apple's engineering was bad, my point was the exact opposite, I have not had problems with my Mac like I did with my PCs. I do see where I did mess up though, where I said "I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes which each PC." It should be "I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes on my PCs."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
As if there's not a competitive market now.
Not for iPhone, iPod, and iPad. Apple has managed to get a temporary (legal) monopoly by attracting developers to its app store early. Eventually that will change.
How stupid can you get?
Yeah, how stupid can you get?
I never said Apple's engineering was bad
No, but I said that, and you responded with something totally irrelevant about reinstalling Windows. Hence my question: what does reinstalling Windows have to do with Apple's bad software engineering?
As if there's not a competitive market now.
Not for iPhone, iPod, and iPad
So this is a lie: The iPhone 4 faces stiff competition? As is The Year of the Tablet: The iPad's Competition and Ipod Vs Competitors? And there are no businesses looking for Android developers?
I never said Apple's engineering was bad
No, but I said that, and you responded with something totally irrelevant about reinstalling Windows. Hence my question: what does reinstalling Windows have to do with Apple's bad software engineering?
I guess you don't understand simple English. Yes you brought up Apple's bad engineering so I asked if it is so bad then why have I had problems with Apple's competitors' product but not Apple's products? Again I have not had problems with any Apple engineered products but I have had problems with products engineered by Apple's competitors. How stupid can you get?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So this is a lie:
No, it's not a lie. The competitors are out there and they are good and inexpensive, but it's going to take a while for Apple's temporary monopoly to erode because the market hasn't reached equillibrium again.
I asked if it is so bad then why have I had problems with Apple's competitors' product but not Apple's products?
Well, since you evidently can't figure it out: (1) bad software engineering doesn't necessarily translate into more crashes or reinstalls, and (2) maybe the competitors are using bad software engineering practices too.
No, it's not a lie.
If it's not a lie then you lied when you said there was no competition. Is there is is there not competition for iPhones, iPods, and iPads?
Well, since you evidently can't figure it out: (1) bad software engineering doesn't necessarily translate into more crashes or reinstalls, and (2) maybe the competitors are using bad software engineering practices too.
Weaseling out, or trolling.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If it's not a lie then you lied when you said there was no competition.
I didn't say that. Learn to read.
Weaseling out, or trolling.
No, you're just too stupid to understand even simple English.
I love the patent diagram. Does it run at 3.5GHz?
LOL, Apple's countersuit ably illustrates the Golden Rule of patent litigation: Sue not, lest ye be sued.