Slashdot Mirror
HTC Sues Apple Using Google Patents
AlienIntelligence writes "Apparently to stay viable in the IP wars, HTC secured some patents from Google (who purchased them originally from Palm Inc., Motorola Inc. and Openwave Systems Inc.) on the 1st of September. The patents were used to fire a new salvo of shots across Apple's bow today, September 7th. HTC filed infringement claims against Apple in federal court in Delaware, suing based on four of those patents that originally were issued to Motorola. Additional complaints were filed with the U.S. ITC based on the other patents."
Do you really think they would be doing this if Apple weren't?
Apple started it. To quote Gruber: "fair’s fair once you start shooting in a patent war, and Apple started the shooting in this one."
"...HTC secured some patents from Google (who purchased them originally from Palm Inc., Motorola Inc. and Openwave Systems Inc.) on the 1st of September."
If HTC secured them from Google, how then are these patents Google patents?
A better heading could be:
"HTC acquires patents from Google then employs them to sue Apple."
How about that?
Because of their history of operations, and the philosophy of the founders; where as Apple turned into the sue machine about a decade ago.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Do you expect them to lie down while Apple try to systematically crush android OEMs?
About a year ago as the patent litigation really started picking up steam, I saw no reason for them to slow down until the situation reaches a critical time in which the courts or the legislative government calls for an end to all of it. It hasn't even gotten close to that critical moment yet, but I believe it will come. Meanwhile, we will have to see some serious consequences to the US economy before that happens... and it will happen.
Meanwhile, Apple should have realized that this would be a likely consequence. It's not like they were suing Franklin or another Apple-clone/compatible maker. They have exceeded themselves in this case and are behaving frivolously and made themselves a big giant target. They will lose and lose badly.
What a stupid comparison. And I mean mind numbing, Fox pundit stupid.
If someone starts shooting at you, and you shoot back, you aren't doing 'wrong'.
It'snot like Google sent people who Apple HQ to break arms.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I assume you are one of those apple consumers that has the religious parts of their brain activated when thinking about Apple.
Google is not trying to destroy apple, just trying to stop them destroying the smart phone/tablet market...which is their aim.
So in other words if you try to break my arm I am damned well going to break yours first if I can, or at least subdue you!!
The lawyers win, everyone else loses. Just like most patent disputes between large companies.
Funny, I've never seen Google misspelled as Apple. That's the craziest typo I've ever seen.
That would be reasonable in a sane patent system. To make the obligatory car analogy, you and I both have dirty cars but own buckets, rags, water and soap. Both of us realize putting water and soap in the bucket, then using a rag to wash the car would get the car clean. You think of it a little bit before I do, or perhaps run off to the patent office first, and I now can't wash my car for the next 17 years, or have to pay you every time I do.
People would get much less bent out of shape if patent quality wasn't such absolute crap and getting crap patents overturned wasn't expensive.
We can blame all of the tech companies for not trying to extinguish software patents and reform patent law. None of the software companies think they are using patents offensively, all of them believe they are simply defending what they came up with. Neither Google, nor Microsoft, nor Apple are without blame.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In the future, the hardware will be free. The software will be free. You won't be able to use any of it though, because the patent portfolios will not be free, and they will not be cheap. We'll have to purchase separate patent license agreements from each of whatever handful of companies survives this apocalypse.
A: "Cool, what's that?"
B: "It's the iPhone 9."
A: "But... it's got color icons!"
B: "Oh, yeah... I downloaded the Samsung 'folio from the patent store."
A: "Doesn't that cost six trillion US yuan???"
B: "Nah I have a jailbroken patent manager!"
A: "Coooool. Color icons."
Funny, I've never seen Google misspelled as Apple.
You are correct.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For a lot of years all the tech companies, but particularly the phone manufacturers, have existed in a state of what they believed was mutually assured destruction. After all, the products did have to be compatible on at least a basic level for there to be a market at all. So almost all patents were either cross-licensed or available under RAND terms.
Apple has since entered the market and really kicked over the wasp's nest. They had no long term investment in past patents and gradual product development. So they came onto the scene with the iPhone 1, licensed all the basic standards and then refused to cross-license with anyone.
Because apparently they believe that the situation is not mutually assured destruction. So the war has gone from a cold one to a hot one.
It's arguable who started the actual legal battles. Nokia and Motorola were dicking around with patents that were supposed to be under RAND terms for standards reasons in order to try and force Apple to cross-license their patents. Apple has been on the warpath about their multi-touch and design IP.
It will be interesting to see if Apple can get out of this without some form of mandatory cross-licensing being imposed. If they can it should be a very interesting shake-up. It would be the first time in the phone industry that a major company would be using their patents to secure limited monopoly of developments instead of simply being a legal bargaining chip.
Calling these patent infringements on either side "stealing" is flat out silly. Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC, google+HTC (order kinda varies here, too much research to figure out what ridiculous patent was filed and infringed upon first) stole from apple, apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back. Right now in the mobile phone industry, EVERY possible conceivable invention, and several inconceivable ones are covered by multiple patents owned by multiple different companies. The only way to defend in the industry is to respond back, oh I'm infringing on 4 of your patents, oh yeah well your infringing on 4 of mine also, we both break even with just a few billion down the drain in lawyer fees, any company must either do that, or just say oh my bad I'll stop selling phones. Just flat out dropping out isn't an option, they are in it way to deep, so all that can be done is to assist the companies making their phones by preventing them from getting steamrolled.
Because Google is not a majority of Congress. Being serious about patent reform does not mean being successful at patent reform. If it was as simple as throwing money at Congress, smoking would still be allowed everywhere, Joe Camel would be selling cigarettes to kids, and cigarette packs would warn you that smoking makes you dangerously sexy.
You shouldn't be able to sell a patent. Period.
Why in the world not? All that would do is force people to set up dummy corporations around each patent, so that you are selling the "corporation" and not the patent.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Very true. I made that point myself in another post.
No, it's not. Patents are supposed to be non obvious. Let's go a step farther. You invent a car that can go to the store, buy your groceries, and put them away. You patent it, and all is well with the world. *I* rush off and patent washing a grocery-buying car with a bucket, soap, water, and a rag--something that has NEVER been done before (but is the obvious way to do it)! Patents are a completely artificial construct society built to encourage innovation. You invest time and money to build something and we'll give you exclusivity for a period of time. It's an incentive to innovate, not some natural right to deprive everyone else in the world the right to build something or perform a certain process.
See the problem? Your grocery-buying car is a REAL invention. It's not obvious. Mine wasn't. Mine is in the class of patents which get granted when someone takes a common idea and tacks "on the internet!" on the end. Patents were never intended to cover such things.
As to why "nerds" think such things, it's simply because we're practitioners of the discipline and are familiar with how to solve these kinds of problems. I don't presume to speak for everyone, but I don't have an issue with all patents, or even all software patents. I have a problem with patents which solve a problem in the way 90+ out of 100 competent developers would solve it. If they can, it is obvious and fails the patentability test.
The situations are different. Android is effectively a consortium of companies with Google as lead developer of the operating system and development tools. Apple owns the "i" line. Thus there positions are entirely different. In this case Google is lending an Android manufacturer a helping hand against a company with ludicrous patents but a chest full of money to keep competitors tied up in the courts for years. No matter how you look at it, Apple is the bad guy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
there's a difference between offensive, and defensive attacks.
Touch-screens weren't invented by Apple. Smartphones and tablets were not invented by Apple. In fact, I can't really think of anything Apple sells that ultimately wasn't someone else's invention first. They're good marketers, I'll give them that, but this idea that you can patent a round-edged rectangular tablet is beyond ludicrous. If Apple is so superior, surely their products can compete without abusive court cases.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This stupid false-equivalence is ridiculous. It is at best cynical to state that Apple's and Microsoft's thinks their offensive use of patents is a defensive use. Lemme ask you this. If someone came into your house and shot someone then claim they were just defending themself would you be so quick swallow their arguments? Just in case you weren't aware patents can be used offensively or defensively Can you cite one instance Just one where Google has used patents offensively? By the way offensive use of patents is the initiating of a patent action against some one. Defensive use of patents is suing someone after they have initiated and action against you first. Just in case you were unaware. There is a difference between stockpiling patents for defensive use and actually initiating patent actions against others. The difference is stark.
Apple is trying to refight the UI design battle it lost over two decades ago. It didn't win that time and it won't win this time. In fact, now it has basically kicked up a hornet's nest by picking fights with people who can use actual legitimate technology patents to smack them, and Apple will regret ever having tried refight the UI war. It was moronic and shortsighted. They would have been better off just to simply work on market penetration, like the other mobile companies have been doing for fifteen years.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Welcome to the current patent and legal system?
Google had no interest in mountains of patents and this type of litigation until the competition started using it to attack them. That left them no choice but to retaliate or get pushed out of the market. Saying it's childish isn't really fair to Google--they're just playing by the rules that have been in place now for the last couple of decades. Let your government representatives know how you feel, but don't expect companies to stay above this kind of behavior when, legally, the only alternative is to give up on a product.
Apple is trying to refight the UI design battle it lost over two decades ago. It didn't win that time and it won't win this time.
There have been some changes in the last 20 years. If the 1-Click patent is valid why wouldn't Apple's patents be ?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
It's funny how you left out the entire rest of the paragraph. Here it is in full:
Well, for starters, Apple didn't invent touch screens, smartphones or tablets.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They're suing over patents using a proxy company today.
Google are helping an Android hardware vendor defend themselves from Apple's litigation.
Your blind hatred of Google is making you crazy.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Hypothetical: Judge gets annoyed with infinitesimal patent differences, and strikes down a whole bunch of patents as invalid, both Apple's and Motorola/Google's.
Question: Which side walks away with a sly smile on their faces?
That's the side that isn't abusing patents.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
You've already basically admitted that someone can and has challenged Google, so it's easy to reiterate that no one is forcing anyone to use Google. Bing is actually a very good search engine and if someone detested Google so much that they refuse to search through it; there are completely viable alternatives.
Because of their history of stealing other peoples work and calling it their own; where as Apple comes up with original designs
Fixed it for you.
FAIL "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs
FAIL "Good artists copy; great artists steal." -Steve Jobs
"Any product" being very specific products from Samsung.
There are a ton of Android handsets and makers, and Apple is not blanket suing all of them. They did go after the one who ripped off the iPhone design to such an extent that almost every review site commented on it. In that sense, they have a case - Samsung practically photocopied the iPhone. All the frothing by slashdot about "zomg rounded corners! they patented the rounded rectangle!" misses the point; it's not a single design element in isolation (there are plenty of products before and after the iPhone that feature rounded corners of a particular radius), but a whole slew of design elements that when combined together, form the iPhone. Arranging your icons in a grid: not unique. Arranging a very specifically coloured set of icons and graphics in a grid using rounded edges on a black background: iOS. Samsung's choice of icons was pretty blatant, especially when combined with the design of their phone.
Had Samsung had the same physical shape of the phone and gone with a different UI: no problem, or gone with a different phone shape with a similar UI to the one they used: still no problem. They didn't do that though - they made a phone that everyone looking at went "hey, looks nice, but exactly like the iPhone"
There are many, many more Android handsets that have not raised the ire of Apple's litigation department because *they don't look exactly like an iPhone*.
I'm as fed up as the next person with frivolous lawsuits and patents, like "once click shopping" or "arranging music in a list", "specific multi touch gestures", but in the case of Samsung copying the iPhone... it's pretty cut and dried.
Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC
Quite possibly.
apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back
Only after Google stole from them. But that's not even what this thread is about. This thread is about Google's lie that they would never use a patent offensively. I'm really not bothered that Google is protecting their property. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing they *should* do. But I do care that they play a double-standard here and blatantly lie about it.
Interesting that you say Apple only POSSIBLY STOLE and yet Google STOLE... has anything gone through courts yet?
If Apple did steal, didn't they steal first?
Are you also concerned about the double standards that Apple is displaying? e.g.:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs
"Good artists copy; great artists steal." -Steve Jobs
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you sure come across like you have an Apple bias.
Apple has some great products but also have some questionable habits (imo). Google is fighting back with patents as they should, I suspect they would prefer they didn't have to so if they now come out and say "we will use our patents to defend our products", would that make you happy? No, I don't believe Google is perfect and I do not believe they are still living up to "do no evil".
To quote you: You work within the system you have, not the system you wish you had.
That is precisely what Google is now doing.
BM3
Google do appear to want to tackle the situation on their own terms, and appear rather embarrassed to be getting involved with patents at all.
They're probably trying to coax a few details out of you. You can resolve it so easy by just telling us:
What are a few examples of the patented features that Apple is claiming they 'own' that you forthrightly would agree they 'own?' Give the folks here an idea what ground you stand on. It doesn't have to be a huge amount of detail. What does Apple have the right to that the other companies are 'stealing?'
The last time Apple tried this crap, in the touch-and-feel era when they sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (for their NewWave object-oriented desktop which ran on top of Windows 3) they were ultimately thrown out of court. We're trying to make sure they don't pull that same sort of obstructionist crap again.
This all started because Google decided they needed to crush iOS by giving away Android for free.
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where Apple was trying to sell iOS to other manufacturers.
People still need to _buy_ hardware before there is any competition here.
Are you _really_ suggesting apple should have the right to all things touch screen and square with rounded edges?
No, and no one else is suggesting this either.
And yet those are the patents that Apple is using to keep Samsung from selling tablets in Germany and Australia, and I believe the ones they're also throwing at HTC. The very system you are defending is the one you now deny.
Yeah, and if Apple wasn't infringing like their lives depended on it they wouldn't be counter sued. Again, welcome to the patent system, where everyone infringes and only MAD keeps things somewhat sane. Until it doesn't.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
If Google was serious about patent reform, why would they spend $12 billion to acquire Motorola Mobility to get their patents?
Huh, let me see, it could be because as long as the patent system is not reformed, and it is not, they have no choice but to do this?
Not sure if trolling ... or just thick.
I take it you never defend yourself when somebody attacks you. Mr. Darwin approves of that.
Yes Microsoft is evil. It may have had its wings clipped but there is no doubt that if it hadn't we might not even recognize the internet that exists today. And Apple is even more evil.
Is it just the shape (and there were other devices that had a big glass front and buttons on the bottom of the screen). Was it the placement of the icons? (a grid? really?
You seem to have replied to a post that you did not read, because you're asking questions that the post addresses.
Apple's problem with Samsung appears to be with the sum total of the Samsung products from hardware and software design changes made after the release of Apple products, packaging, marketing and advertising material copying the layout of Apple's advertising material.
Now whether you agree that Apple has a case or that legal proceedings should be used to address these complaints is another matter. But Samsung's nods to Apple's design success were widely commented on in the press before Apple kicked off legal proceedings. So no, it's not just Apple and its "fanboys" who have perceived the similarity. Claiming that you can't see it seems disingenuous to me.
>"Your honor, my client never shot anyone before he bought that gun."
More like: "Your honor my client hates guns, has publicly spoken out against them and never owned one. When he was repeatedly shot at over the last few months, he finally bought one and started shooting back".
I am not sure I'm in favor of google getting the Motorolla patents - or any patents - but you should at least get your facts straight. Frankly in your OWN analogy - google is clearly a self-defense case.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Let me add a little bit to what's going on here. Florian has spun this as a "this is bad for google". Yes, that retarded florian mueller. From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/htc-sues-apple-alleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html . Of course they have to use patents in a lawsuit. How else will they defend themselves? Google isn't suing anyone with these patents, but they are handing them out to folks like HTC to defend themselves (and thus android). They aren't going after folks. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement from google to lend these patents to HTC is something like exactly that.
Meanwhile, guess what? Look at the groklaw debunk carefully.
Google has access to tens of millions of viewers. They can change their logo and the talk around the office cooler is about an obscure Polish artist's 208th birthday
I'm not sure whether your office is much more interesting, or much, much duller than mine.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You are an idiot.
which is totally what she said
And iOS is still ahead of Android in marketshare when you include all iOS devices - yet another vector you refuse to consider but is indicative of anything but Apple being stagnant.
Sorry, the facts say you're wrong. StatCounter includes ALL mobile devices, including tablets and iTouch devices - anything that is mobile. Android has passed iOS in marketshare and is second only to Symbian - which hasn't lost any marketshare.
Overall, Android is gaining at the expense of Apple and RIM - both are losing marketshare, everyone else is pretty flat (or tiny changes) except Android - which is skyrocketing. iOS is now in 3rd place, and could very well fall to 4th - especially if Nokia makes a big push in their historically-dominated markets with Windows Phone.
Apple can compete against one or many companies, but that few other single companies are capable of really competing against Apple
Except Samsung. In fact, Samsung has probably already passed Apple in terms of smartphone sales. They were very close back at the end of June, and at the sales growth rate of Samsung and Apple over the April-June 2011 timeframe, Samsung should pass Apple sometime around the first half of September - now. And HTC wasn't too far behind, with its sales growth rate putting it ahead of Apple sometime next year. No surprise that Apple is predominantly attacking Samsung and HTC - the two who have passed, or are threatening to pass, Apple in terms of number of units sold and marketshare.
All they are asking is Samsung to stop making devices that look EXACTLY like the equivalent Apple devices. And they appear to have enough of a case that a few courts agree, which means your assertion has been tested and failed in a court of law.
That's ONE court, that didn't hear Samsung's argument, and already greatly scaled back the scope of its INITIAL injunction. The other EU court - the Netherlands - pretty much slapped down Apple, hard. Samsung will face no real problem from that and will get to cheerfully continue sales in the rest of the EU - outside of Germany (which will probably end up following the lead of the Netherlands).
The Dutch court decided that Samsung didn't infringe on any "look" and that, in fact, the Apple CD was so vague as to be unenforceable. Additionally, the whole "slide to lock" thing was found to have prior art (thus tossing Apple's patent) - and we already have precedent in courts about the LG Prada being prior art for the physical look that Apple is trying to cement.
Also regarding that physical look, consider the Samsung media viewer from early 2006. Predates the iPhone and the iPad - and looks an awful lot like the iPad copied its styling cues...
The other reality is that very soon Windows Mobile 7 is going to start eating up Android marketshare.
EVERY analyst in this field has said that Android will emerge on top, marketshare wise, and that Windows Phone will probably end up in second place, with iOS battling for 3rd with Blackberry. That doesn't sound like Windows Phone 7 (get the name right) will eat up Android so much as it will eat up iOS.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"sequence of events is "Apple builds a phone that revolutionizes the smart phone market, everybody including HTC tries to rip off Apple, Apple uses patents to defend against the ripping off, and Google gives HTC patents to countersue with the goal that they can continue to rip off Apple". That is offensive in every meaning of the word."
Nope. That's a defensive use from Google and offensive use from Apple. The fact that you _think_ that Apple "deserves" to be a monopolist has nothing to do with it.
At least WebOS and Win7 phone and RIM Blackberry and Nokia N Series, and, and, and, .... tried to do something original.
Fixed.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Most of Google's partners are established players in the mobile marketplace. Apple was a late comer to the market. The iPhone is a great product, but it was not the first smartphone; Apple simply integrated and packaged existing technology better than most of the competitors. What Apple is trying to do, is to eek out some small space of "innovation" in all of the borrowed or cross licensed technology in the iPhone and use it to suppress competition. So far, what they have come up with as innovative, game changing iPhone technology are things like rounded corners, rectangles, specific gestures and possibly multi-touch.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem