Apple Wins Injunction Banning Import of HTC Devices

Newly accepted submitter squish18 writes "All Things D reports that Apple has won an injunction banning the import of some HTC phones starting in April 2012. The ruling by the ITC stems from two claims of the '647 patent concerning software used to enter personal data in mobile devices. It is interesting to note that the ITC has also reversed previous rulings regarding regarding infringement of two other '647 claims, as well as patent '263 claims." It looks like Apple's victory is relatively minor. They lost claims on all patents except for one, and HTC/Google can work on implementing similar functionality in a non-infringing way.

Comments

Evil Monopoly

[YayaY]

Apple is becoming an evil empire!

Re:Evil Monopoly

[ClaraBow]

NO! The patent system, as it stands, is the reason why every company seems to be suing every other company! It's completely broken, and it seems like companies have to sue each other as part of their operating procedures so they can have leverage when they negotiate cross-licensing! It's completely maddening!

Re:Evil Monopoly

[Samantha Wright]

have to

Nope. It's a choice. Apple is choosing to strangle the competition while they have the strong hand. Microsoft chooses to set up a protection racket with companies that infringe on their vaguely-defined Linux patents. In contrast, IBM and Google (generally?) don't pursue patent suits unless they're attacked first. (At least, that's the impression that's been put forth by tech journalism.)

Re:Evil Monopoly

[eparker05]

Essentially apple patented a method where an 'analyzer program' checks text for patterns (such as phone numbers and email addresses) and makes them actionable with a click.

The patent goes on to discuss that arbitrary patterns can be searched for using a plugin and that the analyzer software allows for users to select the program that handles the type of link. It seems that Android does indeed violate this patent in every way possible. I wonder if automatic hyperlinking of email addresses count as prior art; although this does not include the user interface element asking which program to use.

Either way; I think this is a sucky patent to have to contend with. It reminds me why I don't like software patents to begin with.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, companies are choosing to act the way they are, but the current patent system is incentivizing this behavior. The question should be whether there is a system with better incentives, not whether companies should stop doing what they are doing, because some companies will behave responsibly, but others invariably won't and you have to expect that behavior.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[Nerdfest]

I find it completely incomprehensible that anyone in the software development field can defend Apple in any way, or buy or recommend any of their products with the attitude and behaviour they've had the last couple of years. Yes, they have some nice hardware, and used to be the underdog, but enough is enough. They need to be shown that it's not acceptable behaviour.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[mug funky]

i believe word processing software does this with spell checkers.

the first example of a realtime spell checker i encountered in 1997 with MS Word.

autofill has been in all browsers since about that time as well.

google does the same as you type into the search box.

Apple are full of the worst kind of shit in this case.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[icebike]

Once again, Apple is using a law supposedly about innovation to ruin everybody else's chances in the marketplace. Their time on top is over, and legal protection for bogus patents is the only thing they have left.

Further, this was a horribly expensive "win" for Apple. They lost claims on 4 or 5 patents (these can never be re-asserted) and they won a tiny UI feature, that can easily be programmed around. Apple won't be able to enforce those patent claims against any other phone makers either.

The permanent loss of the patents far outweighs a UI quirk that can be avoided with a minor programming change which will be in place before the ruling takes affect. Its like going to war with 4 entire divisions, getting totally out trounced, but coming home with a mess-hall cook as a POW.

A few more wins like this and Apple will need a whole new patent portfolio.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[elashish14]

I suppose the only thing left to lament is all the money HTC had to waste to bring this common sense to light. Money that could have been spent on, well, something useful.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[sdguero]

I think what Apple has been doing in the courts recently goes far beyond "marginally unethical." I mean, the company is actively trying to stymie innovation in the mobile space, and this is after they have made BILLIONS of dollars off of other companies/peoples work (and much of their own hard work but that is beside the point). It is a public company, so being driven by profit and being too short sighted to recognize that they tarnishing the brand really isn't that rare or surprising. At this point, I only know one engineer worth his salt that is still on the iOS platform (out of dozens). Those that have jumped ship from Apple cite itunes, Apple's recent legal wrangling, and/or the flexibility of the Android environment (for users and developers) as their reasons for switching.

Maybe I'm just a weird case study but a year ago I could not of said that, and I don't think it bodes well for Apple when nerds are running from their platform. Just read the /. comments. The vast majority are negative regarding Apple's recent moves.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is to encourage entities just like Apple to spend billions of dollars researching some new technology, in full confidence they will be able to recover those billions of dollars in future by having a high profit margin on their product.

But then every other person in the country who has a similar idea, cannot recover their research investment simply because they didn't win the race to the patent office. The problem with patents today is the absolute guarantee of unlimited exclusive use of said idea for so many years it might as well be a lifetime. And especially software patents. They don't cover just one implementation. They end up covering every potential implementation of an idea.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[aztracker1]

Well, first off, it it a software/design/conceptual patent... it probably shouldn't be valid... If it occurs in nature via breeding, it shouldn't be valid... If it's a business, not a technical process, it shouldn't be valid.

That would be three good rules to start with.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[Rexdude]

I don't think it bodes well for Apple when nerds are running from their platform. Just read the /. comments.

Nerds have never been part of Apple's target demographic since the days of the IIe which shipped with circuit schematics. The vast majority of people are looking for a computer/phone that works like an appliance, and are never going to tinker with or tweak them in any way.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[moronoxyd]

Apple has to sue them and protect their IP.

What IP? "rectangular with rounded corners" is no IP, it's something that was around for thousands of years. (clay tablets, anyone?)
Putting the screen more or less in the center was there before (just about any TV).

Apple did NOT invent the MP3 plaer.
Apple dit NOT invent the smartphone.
Apple did NOT invent the touch screen device.

Apple itself is only copying.
Mouse? GUI? Design of iAnything?

Apple is not willing to pay for past use of somebody elses IP (current Motorola case in Germany), but everybody is supposed to respect Apples IP.

Apple is evil.
I'm not saying that the other players aren't, too.
But Apple is EVIL, and the worst of the bunch, in my book.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[jasomill]

What IP? "rectangular with rounded corners" is no IP

This claim concerned a design patent, specifically granted for the "ornamental nonfunctional design" of an object. The prototypical example is the Coke bottle: there's no functional reason it has to be shaped like that.

Alas, there are rather good functional reasons for a tablet to be flat and rectangular with an aluminum body, rounded corners, and a black bezel.

On the other hand, it seemed to many observers inside and outside the courtroom that the Galaxy Tab was not only flat, rectangular, ..., but in fact designed to look like an iPad.

In my eyes, it's just a silly game, really, and most likely intentional on Samsung's part, a calculated risk that, at worst, might lead to iPad-related publicity for the Galaxy Tab, not so much because they're "shameless cloners," but simply because they're trying to sell stuff and the press likes to talk about the iPad.

Apple may be similarly silly, but this hardly arises to the level of "evil," if only because, in the grand scheme of life and death, we're talking about somewhat trivial aspects of somewhat trivial products, and marketing stunts that are mildly entertaining rather than either "soul-sucking" or invasive. Evil is the assholes who want to enjoin medical diagnoses derived from "protected knowledge."

Re:Evil Monopoly

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, companies are choosing to act the way they are, but the current patent system is incentivizing this behavior.

If you own a shop and someone sets up a similar one across town and takes away some of your business you are incentivized to throw a petrol bomb through their window, but that doesn't make it right. In both cases the incentive is profit, and profit can never justify being evil.

Re:Evil Monopoly

[penguinbrat]

I'm no Apple fan, but their R&D has been increasing year after year - the percentage is dropping because they are making more...

$2,398,000,000 (2.2% of est $109,000,000,000) 2011
$1,760,400,000 (2.7% of $65,200,000,000) 2010
$1,329,900,000 (3.1% of $42,900,000,000) 2009
$1,105,000,000 (3.4% of $32,500,000,000) 2008
$792,000,000 (3.3% of $24,000,000,000) 2007
$714,100,000 (3.7% of $19,300,000,000) 2006
$556,000,000 (4% of $13,900,000,000) 2005
$331,200,000 (4% of $8,280,000,000) 2004
$496,000,000 (8% of $6,200,000,000) 2003
$437,600,000 (8% of $5,470,000,000) 2002
$428,800,000 (8% of $5,360,000,000) 2001
$399,000,000 (5% of $7,980,000,000) 2000

(same link)

Screwed up Patent System

[nikomen]

Just another reason why our patent system needs to be changed. And another reason I don't know who to vote for these days. It seems that all politicians (or most) support the current patent system or don't care to do anything about it. I mean, how can you patent touching a phone number on a screen? That isn't even close to an invention. Absurdity.

Re:Screwed up Patent System

[mug funky]

i think you, like the USPTO, have confused "invented" with "implemented".

it's the implementation of a blindingly obvious idea. it's not (or should not be) patentable in any way.

Re:Minor victory?

[0123456]

Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?

Who's going to be able to innovate if they're being forced to waste their time looking for ways to work around stupid patents instead?

Patents need infringment time limits

[viperidaenz]

If you filed a patent 15 years ago and there have been infringements of your patent for the last 10 or so years without you even blinking an eye about, it should be declared invalid.

I recall my pocket pc doing something like this. I bought it in 2002.

Re:has it always been like this?

[steelfood]

No, it wasn't. Apple's terrified of Android--not necessarily what it is, but what it may become, which is another Windows against their MacOS. That's history they don't want to see repeated on the smartphone and tablet. Except, they're a little too late, so they're scrambling around desparately throwing out whatever they can against Android hardware manufacturers in hopes it'll be enough to cripple Android and Android's ecosystem for the near future.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is just stalling while they try to get their house in order and put out a decent smartphone and tablet OS. This is why they're compelling other companies to pay royalty instead of outright taking them to court over the supposed infringed patents. They want these same companies to make Windows Mobile phones, not to go out of business.