In Wake of Samsung Verdict, HTC Does Not Intend To Settle

Taco Cowboy writes "The recent lost by Samsung in a court battle against Apple apparently does not put a dent to other parties determination to fight Apple, inside and outside of the court system HTC's Chairperson, Ms. Cher Wang, has publicly re-iterated her belief that the $1 billion jury verdict against Samsung in the U.S. 'does not mean the failure of the entire Google Android ecosystem.'"

Comments

How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[crazyjj]

Putting aside the question of whether a company can patent stuff like a rectangle with rounded edges and other obvious design features, all these patent lawsuits of recent years have made me wonder how it's possible these days for any software or hardware startup to even get going. It seems almost a given that any company that comes up with any new idea or piece of software these days, and subsequently makes even a modicum of money off of it, is pretty much guaranteed to get hit by a slew of patent lawsuits, some perhaps from big-name companies with deep pockets and lots of lawyers.

As someone who has thought about going into indie software development myself, this scares the hell out of me. I can't imagine investing a ton of time and money into some innovative new product, only to be drowned into bankruptcy by patent trolls and the software big guns who have quietly patented every obvious element of design and every trivial element of every bit of software and hardware (even those with with decades of clear prior art). I'm not sure I would even consider trying anymore without the investment of a big patent law firm just to protect me.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[ShieldW0lf]

Tesla innovated just fine. He died crazy and poor while lesser men made themselves the gatekeepers to his creations and robbed the masses blind, sure... but he still innovated. Well, invented... innovation is the dumb-grunt work, really... but the principle is the same.

Just because you're a slave doesn't mean you can't work.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[ZaSz-RH]

They usually don't go after indie. They go after BIG profits.
If you start a company that gets there, I guess having to get some lawyers is the last of your problems :)

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Reverand Dave]

This. I can't even begin to think of an equivocal thing that has happened throughout history. Perhaps union busting might come close, but for sweet jesus sake, the way these patent lawyers are working is just sickening. It's funny how you hear so much about tort reform and other such garbage from politicians but you don't hear a peep about patent trolling or the abuse of IP rights which is more of a hampering force on our economy than all of the malpractice lawsuits in the history of forever ever have been or will be.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[DevotedSkeptic]

I agree, the patent system is so broken it is only a new venue for attorneys to grow rich, while innovators and consumers suffer. What is even more disturbing and wrong is the ability to patent life forms, or even genes. Centers performing cutting edge cancer research cannot always have access to genes or genomes they wish to study because they are simply unable to afford the price of admission (licensing). It really is a sad state of affairs.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[KingSkippus]

The sad truth is that there is pretty much only one way: Make so much money so quickly that you build up a war chest capable of mutually assured destruction if someone sues you. Otherwise, your best bet is to get just big enough to be bought by a megacorp and hope that they give you the leeway to keep working on your project relatively unfettered.

Independent inventors/developers/designers/whatever simply don't have a chance in today's patent environment. Ironically, they are screwed by the very system that was originally set up to protect them.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[macromorgan]

Did it not occur to you that perhaps this is what the larger firms want? By setting up this confusing system in such a manner, it makes it nearly impossible for smaller companies to innovate. That ensures they do not have to face nearly as much disruptive technology as they otherwise would, and their revenue streams remain secure.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Chrisq]

I think that America will only realise that this is a problem when its too late. Wait until the Chinese market is bigger than the US market, and any imports are hit by bans because someone has patented a "device with three buttons and a flip switch" or whatever.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Merk42]

Nikola Tesla also died long before all this patent happy business the GP is talking about.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[MrDoh!]

Know how you feel. I had a few voip ideas and at the moment, I can't find anyone actually with a product out that does what I had planned, but when looking at patents, it's a minefield. There's so many patents I could see as /almost/ being the same, methods of communicating type stuff, control channel, that if I did well, I'm sure there'd be a line of lawyers. Still, the lawyers I've spoken with are happy to start the ball rolling, and have recommendations on lawyers to hire WHEN I get sued. They know how the lay of the land is at the moment. I've given up. That slim chance to make enough money to pay for lawyers to fend off the others? Stuff it, not worth the headaches.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[rodrigoandrade]

That's the whole point. The "obvious" rectangle with rounded corners only became obvious after Apple came up with it. How were tablet prototype designs before the iPad was released?

The "obvious" swipe movement to unlock a device only became obvious after Apple came up with it. How come it wasn't "obvious" before the iPhone was released?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how the system hasn't changed at all. You didn't need patents to make slaves then either. It just helps make it easier today. Screw innovation. That's so 20th century.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you can work, doesn't mean you should be a slave. Just like being able to invent, doesn't mean you should die poor and unknown.

I think any new inventors should contact the Mafia, they're a lot more honest than these guys.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the slide to unlock thingy was already known way before. Remember all of those slide things? Or pretty much any mechanical locking mechanism with a slider?

Lets not call something innovation when its just applying a existing solution and paradigm that people are already familiar with, and so bloody obvious to use.

Many things in a computer interface actually use symbolic things like that. Imagine if they all would be patented? We would still be dicking around with only a CLI(I quite like the CLI).

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[tgd]

This. I can't even begin to think of an equivocal thing that has happened throughout history. Perhaps union busting might come close, but for sweet jesus sake, the way these patent lawyers are working is just sickening. It's funny how you hear so much about tort reform and other such garbage from politicians but you don't hear a peep about patent trolling or the abuse of IP rights which is more of a hampering force on our economy than all of the malpractice lawsuits in the history of forever ever have been or will be.

I feel the need to post this on ever damn patent story on here. Read your history. This is both nothing new, and pretty tame by patent battle standards. The industrialization of the US happened both in spite of, and *because* of these sort of patent battles. The patent battles over things like programmable looms and sewing equipment made Samsung vs Apple look like something Judge Judy would preside over. And the fallout of those battles during the 19th century established the foundation of the companies that went on to fund the continued industrial growth and innovation in the US.

And the answer to how you can innovate these days is simple -- the same way every other company did over the last 200 years. License what you think is critical, ignore the things you think you can get away with, and patent as much as you can because the cheapest way to license patents has always been to cross license patents. Oh, and really study your history. They say there's nothing new under the sun, and in IP and technical litigation, that is absolutely true.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[KingSkippus]

It most certainly has, and it's most certainly working. :(

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[the computer guy nex]

"Putting aside the question of whether a company can patent stuff like a rectangle with rounded edges"

OK I expect this from an Android fan forum, but I expect more out of Slashdot.

Apple has a trade dress patent. There are around 10 individual characteristics that make up the image of an iPhone. This includes rounded corners, grid of icons that can be swiped, lower set of icons that are static, edge to edge glass, black or white with chrome borders, etc.

Apple does not own a patent over any of the individual characteristics. To say they do is flat out ignorant. To violate trade dress, you need to copy all or almost all of the individual characteristics. Simply having rounded corners is not something that Apple has an exclusive license on.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love your comment on "obvious design features" Everyone hates the man on top don't they? I don't own a single Apple product but please give me a fuckin break when you say that the raft of phones today didn't happen because of the innovation the iPhone brought to the market 7 years ago. Yes OBVIOUS TODAY.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[noh8rz8]

Flip side: tesla innovated just fine, building a new generation of electric vehicles. Teyre now a public company and on the cusp of rolling out a new model. Clearly patents did not hold them back.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Alex Belits]

And the survival rate of such companies will be, exactly what?
"Over the last 200 years" only a very small percentage of people could afford starting an industrial business.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[WolfgangPG]

Cross License. Microsoft spends a lot of money licensing other people's tech and in return they expect others to license their tech.

Though it does seem like it would be hard for "the little guy" to improve upon Apple or Microsoft's designs because I doubt they can afford to license Apple's patents.

And of course I don't see how you can patent a rectangle with rounded edges. It amazes me that no one rounded the corner on a rectangle until 2007 /sarcasm :)

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[oh_my_080980980]

Three things:

1. Samsung is not a startup

2. Apple is not a patent troll.

3. Microsoft managed to create a smartphone that does not look and feel and operate like an iPhone.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the whole point. The "obvious" rectangle with rounded corners only became obvious after Apple came up with it. How were tablet prototype designs before the iPad was released?

The "obvious" swipe movement to unlock a device only became obvious after Apple came up with it. How come it wasn't "obvious" before the iPhone was released?

i completely support your statement. unfortunately, you and i are in the minority on this viewpoint and even if apple wins every case defending their patents (which i wholeheartedly believe they should), many people still wont understand whats happening.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[VortexCortex]

It's not possible to do anything really, if you're a small time independent. I wrote my own video and audio codecs, encryption algorithms, and distributed file transfer protocols, virtual machine, and put together a secure unified messaging / VOIP / File sharing system. It's basically in beta -- All the features work, and I'm just working out a few small scaling issues. I wrote every line of code myself. My "dependencies" are OpenGL, Pulse Audio, X11 or Win32 -- Basically, an OS, and low level audio / video APIs. I didn't implement anyone else's protocols or formats, and still the Software Patent Minefield prevents me from monetising or open sourcing the system. Fortunately this is a multi-year "free time" project that began as a bunch of smaller learning experiences, not my bread and butter. Eg: "I wonder how would one create a video codec?", I asked myself, then just did it -- The same for making compilers, interpreters, encryption, etc. (cipher block chaining can turn any one way hash into a two way cipher). Making new software isn't really hard at all; It doesn't take genius, just takes time.

Due to the current patent laws I can't afford to publish my software (except to friends and relatives) -- A single lawsuit would be the end of me even though I've never looked at a technology related patent. If I open source the code, that just opens me up to patent trolls so they can try to find their exact way of doing something in my code, then sue me for retroactive "damages" caused -- Yes, even just my own personal use of the code I wrote myself can be considered infringing and thus "damaging".

The messed up thing is that both Patent and Copyright in the USA were created for the express purpose of benefiting the society as a whole. Patents and Copyrights grant a monopoly over works for a limited period of time to incentivize creators to make their works open to the public.... Uhm, that falls flat on it's face when you consider that Open Source projects jump the gun -- They don't want the monopoly at all, and explicitly allow the public to benefit directly at the time of publication. So, since Free (libre) Open Source projects already meet the stated purposes of the patent & copyright laws, forfeiting the monopoly by choice, shouldn't they gain exemption from patent lawsuits to repay them? Ah, but then anyone could just implement a software patent and open source it, and the whole software patent market falls flat on it's face, see? Patents are stupid -- Any Artificial Scarcity of Information is stupid in the Information Age.

The USA's forefathers didn't contemplate a market would exist in which people would create things explicitly for the public to use free of charge. The founders weren't perfect, that's why they allowed amendments... As it stands it's questionable whether one can even place something into the public domain as soon as its created (Automatic copyright + "It's free" + "Nope, changed my mind, its not free" == ??) We should be treating every law with deep suspicion and testing every law's effectiveness via the scientific method. Otherwise we're operating by untested hypotheses. We don't really know if patent or copyright laws are actually beneficial to society as a whole. I'm fed up and ready to do the experiment: Abolish patents.

I say "not possible to do anything", but what I mean is anything of real importance. Making games is a less risky venture, so I'll try that on the side now.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[IRWolfie-]

I'd say do it, but just not in the USA.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[DJRumpy]

You realize a common sense post like yours will quickly be downmodded as flamebait, trolling, even off topic? Slashdot is no longer interested in intelligent dialogue. They are all in a frenzy over 'rounded corners'. It's a little sickening.

I suspect a good number on here haven't even looked at the patents found to be in violation, let alone what trade dress is. At this point I've given up on any attempt to discuss it. It's like a liberal guest on Fox News. Pointless.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, do you have any critical thinking skills? Is Apple stopping you from writing any kind of software? Apple is suing Samsung because Samsung spent 3 months doing a crash drive on copying.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Nerdfest]

Nice .... so you can try, but you won't be allowed to actually succeed. The New American way?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[QuasiSteve]

That's the whole point. The "obvious" rectangle with rounded corners only became obvious after Apple came up with it.

I think you're mixing up two words there; "obvious" and "popular".

You remember the 1994 device by Fidler, right?
http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-05-at-11-03-06-am.png%3Fw%3D604

To him, a rectangle with rounded corners must simply have been an option. To others, sharper corners were an option. yet others had maybe pondered square devices, or round, or triangular.
Point is - none of them are "obvious" per se - they're simply one of many choices out there that, if you were to ask a person, would come up with.
There's certainly advantages to a rectangle - we're used to rectangles. Be it horizontally when dealing with TVs, computer screens, etc. or vertically when dealing with newspapers, magazines, books, etc.
There's also advantages to making the corners round. Making them razor sharp simply makes them uncomfortable to hold.
In that way you could say it's certainly a more obvious choice than a triangular, sharp-cornered, screen.

The thing Apple did do - through its marketing prowess, among other - is make it popular. But its popularity is not what makes it obvious.

Similarly slide-to-unlock. No, 'slide' mechanisms weren't very popular until the Apple's use of it. That in itself isn't what makes it obvious, though. The average lock on a public restroom stall may be what makes it obvious - because if you ask 100 people to come up with ways to perform an action (not necessarily unlock) given a 2D surface on which a continuous/non-continuous position may be tracked, 'slide' is more than likely to come up as one of the first suggestions.
So why didn't others use it before? Because there weren't 100 'others'. There was Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, essentially. Most everything else were what you would now call 'feature phones' and unlocking those is pretty universal.. '*, OK' or '#, OK'. Maybe that was patented, too, and everybody licensed that from whoever held that patent. I should hope not, though. They copied that model - Windows Mobile required pushing an on-screen 'unlock' button or *, followed by an on-screen button or the 'enter' key, for example. If Microsoft were told by, say, Ericsson that they patented 'a two-tap method for unlocking' and to quit using it and also get all devices banned from sale (instead of just licensing it out for something a little less ridiculous than e.g. $10/device), odds are that Microsoft would have implemented a slide action - and thought of 50 more ways, patented them all, etc.

There is a difference between these two, though.
The former is form following function. Nobody wants to be jabbed in the hands by the throwing star tablet and look at the accompanying screen because it's just impractical - so the rectangle with more or less rounded corners is something that you eventually tend to evolve toward. Granting a patent on that, or even its use as a component in a patent (design or otherwise) is shenanigans.

The latter, however, is completely arbitrary. To use the bathroom stall analogy - there's knobs you have to turn, buttons you have to push, bars that you have to flip over. If the cleaning crew wants to access the maintenance room, they may have to enter a pin, or hold up a card (NFC), etc.
There's so many ways in which to implement a device lock/unlock method that at least when faced with patent litigation, it's not worth the bother to fight over keeping a 'slide' mechanism on your device unless you're fighting it out of principle (i.e. believe the patent should not have been granted OR that it should be FRAND).
That's not to say that the horizontal slide is innovative, ground-breaking, etc. Just a lot more 'meh'.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[ShieldW0lf]

The patent system was never designed to protect creators or the public. It was designed to protect the people who exploited those parties. Patents protect the capitalist who owns the factory that manufactures the goods. Copyrights protect the capitalist who owns the factory that binds the books. The system isn't broken, it's doing what it was designed to do... preserve and increase the power of the few over the many and make that power completely arbitrary and unbound by the will of the people.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CanHasDIY]

And the survival rate of such companies will be, exactly what?

Well, if we're talking about the patent-whoring machines founded by the likes of J.P. Morgan, George Westinghouse, and John Rockefeller...
pretty
damn
good.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[kbonin]

The modern American Software start-up business model is simple - rush to market, and hope to either: 1) Be acquired by someone with a large enough patent portfolio to provide defensive cover, or 2) become highly profitable quick enough that you can afford to defend yourself by the time a predator notices you.

Note that #2 is becoming more difficult as the big patent predators like Intellectual Ventures are moving their way down the food chain, hoping to capture a larger share of start-up capital before companies die due to market pressures.

Left unchecked, the current patent system has begun the end game of grinding small companies and start-ups into the dust, and with them most of the innovation (and jobs) that used to occur. Apple v Everyone was just the first really big play, while IV tries to remain under the radar while tuning a process intended to eat most of the small fish before anyone realizes the pond is almost empty.

Wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think of the monster he helped create...

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[firex726]

They go after indie guys for precedent, then they turn around and use it as ammo for the case against the big guy.

The big guys, can and will defend themselves, but it'll be harder for them, if you got a dozen cases supporting your claim.

It's well worth it to spend and not recover $100k on a case against an indie, if it'll make the big guy pay our an extra $1m because of how strong your case is.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Shagg]

That's the whole point. These laws and lawsuits are a way of stifling competition, they have little to do with protecting innovation.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[gl4ss]

Nikola Tesla also died long before all this patent happy business the GP is talking about.

Tesla was alive when the patent wars over an automobile with internal combustion engine was on(though, that got squashed eventually).

Easiest is to just not sell in USA. but it's friggin sad that despite there now being software and parts available for everyone to build phones, we didn't actually get any more phone producing companies to the western market than before.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[gl4ss]

curious, how does it prevent you from open sourcing? wouldn't patents just prevent people from actually using it?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Nadaka]

And iPhone made a smartphone that looked and operated much like the preexisting tablet computers.

Its a grid of icons above a bar with button(s) on it.

Its obvious basic functionality, much of which has existed in some form for years or even decades.

That isn't inventive or innovative.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[rhp997]

That's the point. Barriers to entry always benefit existing companies.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but I have already patented the term "indie software" so if you want to do that, you need to pay for a license.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Shagg]

Have you read the D504889 patent?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

With or without the long term survival rate of companies is small. How tiny is the percentage of companies which survive 100 years? I doubt it is different for 18th, 19th, 20th century or now. And before you come with some examples of old companies, they are the exception but their contemporary competitors are forgotten because they failed a long time ago.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Custard Horse]

I can't agree on the rectangle with rounded edges issue. Desks, keyboards, crockery, remote controls, hole punchers, plastic containers - all these things have rounded corners (and all of which are in my area of view as I type so my list is not exhaustive). Rounding off corners prevents injury and resolves the issue of weakness where an angle would produce a point e.g. a credit card.

The shape of electronic devices is unremarkable as a tablet/e-book/smartphone generally has the shape of a piece of paper - A4, legal, fullscap - there or thereabouts i.e. somewhere around the golden ration of 1:1.6. A smartphone is very similar to a (paper) notebook or slightly wider. There is no innovation in a rectangle - it is simply the most convenient and pleasing shape.

I will give it to Apple though, they made the touch interface popular as it worked very well. I couldn't bear the interface per se as it didn't really work all that well. ATMs were a pain to use as was the control panel of my Toyota Soarer (1991 vintage). The precise nature of the touche screen opened up a whole new market.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[noh8rz8]

Dude, no worries, this isn't a big deal. These days, the cycle is innovate, get acquired, cash out, and innovate again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I think it's awesome that you want to innovate in softwAe. A good role model might be the guys that did that draw anything pictionary game on iPhone, thA were snapped up by zynga, or the guys at ngmoco thAt were snapped up by ea. or the guys at posterous that were picked up by twitter.

There are plenty of great role models for what you're trying to achieve. Good luck!

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

>This includes rounded corners, grid of icons that can be swiped, lower set of icons that are static, edge to edge glass, black or white with chrome borders, etc.
So you're saying that they own the patent to use those things together in a single device?

I realise your comment is limited, and I haven't read the whole claim, but doesn't the claim to any number of design choices sound ridiculous to you?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Quila]

Putting aside the question of whether a company can patent stuff like a rectangle with rounded edges and other obvious design features

It seems obvious now, but the tablets on the market didn't look like that until after Apple's design patent (note, design patent, not utility patent).

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[alen]

no, they had lots of patent lawsuits in the 1800's as well. its the reason tesla and edison worked on AC and DC and different hertz equipment

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Sique]

The first artist who got a copyright on his own work was Albrecht Duerer - 100 years after the first copyrights (imprimatur, as they were called then) were handed out, and only because he was the Albrecht Duerer , and some people felt that his works were actually his to profit on. The first law to recognize that an artist has a general right to his own works was the Statute of Anne 1710 -- 250 years after the first imprimatur. All those laws and principles were designed foremost to protect the manufacturer, the rewarding of the creator has always been an afterthought.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Wovel]

Be original. If you are going to leverage someone's IP, license it. If you can't, do something else.

Your comments seem to indicate you believe Samsung was suprised by all this. Samsung knew they were copying Apples features. T was a risk v reward calculation. You don't have to avoid being a developer, just don't take risks you can't afford. From the day Samsung released their first touchscreen android phone, they knew. They knew they would be sued. They knew why. They knew they would likely lose. They determined it was worth it. To any casual observer it is quite obvious.

Since I doubt you will be playing high-risk games to try and corner the global smartphone market, you have nothing to fear. Sure there are some actual patent trolls around. Yes they are annoying. No this case has nothing to do with that.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[the computer guy nex]

I realise your comment is limited, and I haven't read the whole claim, but doesn't the claim to any number of design choices sound ridiculous to you?

Apple owns the identity of the iPhone. You can articulate this identity by detailing a list of specific hardware and software choices that make the iPhone unique. Almost all smartphones are rectangular with rounded corners - and this by itself is completely innocent. Samsung made dozens of purposeful and willful choices to create a product that mimicked the iPhone in almost every way possible. This is not ridiculous whatsoever, and an entire jury agreed.

http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg

This blatant copying should not be allowed.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Tesla innovated just fine. He died crazy and poor while lesser men made themselves the gatekeepers to his creations and robbed the masses blind, sure... but he still innovated. Well, invented... innovation is the dumb-grunt work, really... but the principle is the same.

Just because you're a slave doesn't mean you can't work.

Nikola Tesla also died long before all this patent happy business the GP is talking about.

Slave?? Tesla was issued at least 278 patents internationally, wikipedia has a list of his American patents. Westinghouse for example licensed Tesla's patents for large sums of money so Tesla was an 'evil IP monopolizer' or 'gatekeeper' as you put it. Also keep in mind that patent trolling was a problem in Tesla's day just like it is today so it's not exactly as if the late 19th and early 20th centuries were some sort of patent lawsuit free golden age of innovation.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jeffmeden]

It's funny how you hear so much about tort reform and other such garbage from politicians but you don't hear a peep about patent trolling or the abuse of IP rights which is more of a hampering force on our economy than all of the malpractice lawsuits in the history of forever ever have been or will be.

Apple is an American company, the reason is pretty obvious. You can be sure that if the IP lawsuit traction *against* them overseas continues, the US politicians and media will be up in arms about how foreign countries are being anti-competitive and monopoly-enforcing and basically anti-American. National interest is determined solely by self-perceived "justice" (or lack thereof) so when it goes against us (even though this trend doesnt really benefit anyone but lawyers) that's when you will start to hear about it.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Wovel]

You clearly have little grasp of obviousness in an IP sense. There was a good story floating around a couple says ago. You should read it. What you think != what is.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[sa666_666]

I'd argue that it's always been like this, but the 1% want you to believe in the 'American Dream' and that you can actually achieve it. As long as you're toiling away with dreams of eventually making it, you won't be distracted by the system that is so obviously set up for you to fail. Once large numbers of people start to realize this, then those in control will really be in trouble (the Occupy movement was a brief start).

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you release the software, don't identify yourself as American. Rent a VPS in Europe or India or somewhere to host the project. Don't let lawyers stop innovation.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Artraze]

At the end of the 19th century there were a total of about 650,000 patents granted. Now there are over 8,000,000. There's a bit of a difference. Moreover, may of those patent battles were over fairly significant innovations, or at least ones which would require a fair about of investment in terms of time and money to use. Are we seriously comparing pinch-zoom to a sewing machine? Something that requires a day of effort at best and can be rolled out in under a week to something that one builds a manufacturing facility around? It'd barely be the equivalent of using different colors on some knobs on the sewing machine, in terms of relevance to the overall device/complexity. It's something that is _only_ worth patenting to use as a part of an attack portfolio.

And while that's not to say that _never_ happened a hundred years ago (because occasionally it did), these days it's standard operating procedure. I have to side with the OP. This is a different world.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jacknifetoaswan]

Exactly. I actually passed on a job a few weeks ago with a mobile phone software start-up, simply because their profits were increasing TOO quickly, and they were building a product lineup that directly competed with some very lawsuit hungry companies. The profit portion was great; year over year profit increases of 75 - 125%, for the past four years, but the prospect that they'd soon come into the class of some very big names scared me off.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jpstanle]

In the United States, there is no such thing as a "trade dress patent." Trade dress is a legal concept that is related to both trademark and design patents, but it is certainly not a type of patent.

As far as the rounded rectangle thing goes, look up D504889. All you need to do to violate that patent is make an "electronic device" that kinda looks like that (a flat rectangle with rounded edges), no need to involve trade dress at all.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[fufufang]

Putting aside the question of whether a company can patent stuff like a rectangle with rounded edges and other obvious design features, all these patent lawsuits of recent years have made me wonder how it's possible these days for any software or hardware startup to even get going.

Well, in countries where copyright is not respected, innovation may occur. e.g. China (Although currently they only seem to do low level copying.)

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[JDG1980]

Apple has a trade dress patent. There are around 10 individual characteristics that make up the image of an iPhone. This includes rounded corners, grid of icons that can be swiped, lower set of icons that are static, edge to edge glass, black or white with chrome borders, etc.

Trade dress is NOT supposed to apply to functional aspects of the product. See this article and this one for more details. Rounding the rectangular corners of a phone or tablet is functional as much as it is aesthetic; consumers generally don't like to be poked with sharp corners, which can easily happen when a square-edged device is placed inside a pocket. Likewise, the "grid of icons that can be swiped" is almost entirely functional, since it was designed as the easiest way to allow a selection from a large number of graphical elements on a small touchscreen. Same with having a lower set of static indicators. Adding all these together basically says that Apple has a trade dress patent on making a smartphone or tablet that is easy and convenient to use. But you aren't supposed to be able to get a trade dress patent on any such thing, only on purely aesthetic elements.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[JDG1980]

Microsoft managed to create a smartphone that does not look and feel and operate like an iPhone.

And no one wants to use it because it's crap.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla was issued at least 278 patents internationally

Domestically, the tally is closer to 1000... most of these patents are, however, still designated top secret by the US government. Truth.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[amiga3D]

If the big guys were smart they'd defend the little guys and stop it dead before they could get the ball rolling. It's a lot easier to stomp this kind of stuff out before they build a war chest from suing the small fry and get momentum on their side.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[PortHaven]

Let's see...how the Apple's New Clothes look (naked).

Rectangle with rounded corners - done before.
Grid of app icons - done before
w/lower set of icons - done before (granted, they were reduced in size to allow more than four)
edge to edge glass - pretty much done before as much as the technology allows
black or white with chrome borders - done before as well

So essentially, Apple bought a dress at Walmart and is suing everyone else for owning the rights to it. And dammit, right now I want to go to Home Depot, buy a couple cans of paint. Walk into an Apple store and "vwalla...let Apple know what I think of their dress lawsuit"

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[amiga3D]

Really the problem is software patents. I think everyone can understand mechanical and chemical innovations being patented but software just doesn't seem to work as well under the patent system. Maybe if they just let copyright cover software it would solve most of the problem.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Reverand Dave]

I feel the need to point out the HUGE difference between industrial patent technologies and a simple programming algorithm patented as IP. Actually I don't. If you don't understand the difference then I don't have the time, willingness, or patience to explain it to you.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[PortHaven]

Yes we have. And as such, think the iPhone should be banned from sale because it clearly copied the LG/Prada phone.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[PortHaven]

Samsung should have walked in, and said they stole the idea. They admit it, and they are willing to pay damages. And then show the Palm Pilot Tungsten. And offer to pay Palm a $100 million for their theft of the user interface, rounded edges, and fitting as big of a screen as economics allowed.

That'd have been great...

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[PortHaven]

Look at the LG Prada. Phone design was already headed in that direction. Yes, Apple proved it was popular and accelerated it by about a year or two. This is mainly, because most other phone manufacturers had to endure extremely long reviews by controlling cell phone companies like Verizon. (Look at the HTC 6700, came out on Verizon a full year after everyone else had it.)

This was typical business by the cell phone companies. Apple came to AT&T at a time it was bleeding customers and said, we'll give an exclusive Apple phone that's about a year ahead of the competition. But onlyif you give us control.

That's what made it happen.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[PortHaven]

So please please please show me what Apple came up with that was new and not demonstrated before.

Every aspect of their "dress" was basically done by Palm Pilot.

So if Samsung owes anyone, they should be paying Palm $100 million

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[hierophanta]

if you dont like it here please leave. if you do stay around, it would be great if you posted comments that actually contribute to the discussion instead being the very entity that purportedly sickens you. in the words of Ghandi - be the change you want to see in the world.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a selection bias there. For every company that became huge and lasted a hundred years there are hundreds that failed.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[hierophanta]

I believe this is the patent in question here:

http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

there is no mention of icons, swiping, glass, or boarders. it is simply a patent on a electronic device that looks like a pad. i can not conceive as to how this was given a patent

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[robot_love]

There's a lot of good stuff in your post. We often forget the historical perspective.

My objection is your conclusion that innovation happens in spite of and because of these patent battles. This is incorrect. Research shows that in almost every field, there was rapid innovation, then patents were brought in to consolidate. The evidence is outlined in the freely available "Against Intellectual Monopoly".

TL;DR - Innovation does not happen because of patents, innovation happens, then patents happen.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the irony...

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[InsectOverlord]

Really? I thought all patents were public by definition? A trade secret is something else.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Twinbee]

Er, the real issue is that the OP wasn't modded down, and got 5 in the end, so DJR was mistaken.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

A patent is, by definition, not secret. The fundamental requirement for getting a patent is disclosure of the invention.

Who is the genius who modded you informative?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[realityimpaired]

Secret patents exist on technologies that have military applications... cryptography systems are very commonly granted secret patents, because you don't want any member of the public to see the algorithm your army is using to encrypt its top secret files.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rounded corners also make the phone easier to holster.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That argument was made in the court case against Samsung and dismissed by the jury. As it has been by anyone who has actually looked at the facts and the timeline of both those phones development.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jedidiah]

The obvious part is not WHAT to do but HOW to to it.

Patents are supposed to be about HOW to do interesting things. They are meant to encouragement of the disclosure of trade secrets about HOW to do things that would never otherwise be shared.

Patents aren't a virtual land grab.

"Click-drag-release" is not the least bit inventive.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[afgam28]

While the iPhone clearly was innovative, a lot of the ideas behind it become obvious once you assume that you're going to be using a capacitive (multitouch) touchscreen. Apple released the iPhone in the early days of capacitive touch, and so they deservedly took over the market.

Here's a video of Steve Jobs demonstrating multitouch. At 33:30, he demonstrates a pinch-to-zoom gesture, which he uses to zoom in on a photo. The audience love it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uW-E496FXg

Here's a video of Jeff Han demonstrating multitouch. At about 2:45, he demonstrates a pinch-to-zoom gesture, which he uses to zoom in on a photo. The audience love it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

Note that Jeff Han's video was filmed in February 2006, which is one year before Steve Jobs' iPhone announcement.

Once you decide that you're going to put a capacitive touchscreen on a phone, then swiping and pinching really do become obvious. If Apple had invented multitouch, then their patent claims might be fair, but there's clearly prior art on this.

Unlike Samsung, HTC didn't just blindly copy the iPhone. It's hard to claim they violated trade dress, and so it should be a lot harder for Apple to win this case.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jedidiah]

Don't kid yourself. You're the one that doesn't have a clue what's going on here.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...Tesla and his friends at Westinghouse never had to invent a two-prong lightbulb connector to sidestep Edison's patents when Edison refused to allow his lightbulbs to be used at the world's fair in retaliation for losing out on the bidding.

Oh, wait, yeah they did. Face it, the only thing that has changed is that Apple hasn't (yet) killed a large pachyderm in an effort to slander Android.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jedidiah]

ALL of that is generic. Some of it is basic 80s UI stuff. Together it's no more distinctive than any of it is in isolation. NONE of it is fodder for a good trademark.

You've just described an HDTV running a Linux WM from the 90s like WindowMaker.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That doesn't mention "rounded corners" anywhere, that's the talking point the Andoid camp has turned it into. In fact you may want to scroll down that patent and look at the "referenced list" to see which companies registered patents similar to that one.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jedidiah]

> Apple owns the identity of the iPhone.

No they don't. This is a pro-corporate fantasy. What's worse is that you are pushing it based on brand association on par with a sports fan identifying with some team of professionals despite being a couch potato spectator.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[davester666]

They do exactly that. There have been various reports of large companies stepping in (Apple, Google, Microsoft) when smaller companies get sued, because they know they'll be next, and it's not just the war chest, it's the legal precedent they want to prevent (that a court establishes the patent is valid and must be licensed in these circumstances).

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That has fuck-all to do with rounded corners. HTC (D617793) and Samsung (D641018) have similar patents to protect the look of their devices, as do most companies.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jedidiah]

I generally hate to give Microsoft any credit but basically this whole mobile nonsense is a scaled down version of what Microsoft was doing with large expensive touch screen surfaces and hybrid laptops.

It seems like during every tech transition we have to endure another set of "with a computer" or "with the internet" generic patents.

Although some are blatant duplication and should be obvious to anyone. The jury foreman's DVR patent is a good example of this.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

There are also patents on televisions that look like Sony's, handsets that look like Nokia's, tablets that look like Samsung's, etc., etc. It's industry SOP.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[idobi]

A patent is, by definition, not secret. The fundamental requirement for getting a patent is disclosure of the invention.

Who is the genius who modded you informative?

Invention Secrecy Act allows the patent office to classify defense-relatd patents secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[jedidiah]

Just writing a simple shell script puts you at risk.

It puts you at risk because there are so many garbage patents out there. Trivial nonsense gets patented and then the proudly ignorant come along and defend that kind of nonsense. It leads to a sort of legal quagmire where you cannot possibly avoid being in violation of someone's bogus patent.

The risk of being sued by some patent troll that is abusing a corrupt system is just the cost of doing business.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Shagg]

That doesn't mention "rounded corners" anywhere

Sure it does. In a design patent, the pictures are the claims. The patent contains 9 drawings of a rectangle with rounded corners.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

This blatant copying should not be allowed.

Even with this premise, you still should agree that these patents have NOTHING to do with innovation.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are probably trolling but I'll bite.

Regarding rounded corners. It is so common to have round corners that the software you use to design all manner of parts, from toasters to robots (solidworks, autocad, et al) all have a button for it, the fillet button:
http://tlaana.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/03.png
Anyone who has ever designed something knows you really need to put a fillet of SOME size on your corners based on manufacturing method. Its much harder to make an injection molded part without fillets.

As for the swipe to unlock... its just a software analogue of a momentary slide switch. A quick search on digikey reveals about 100 _off_the_shelf_ physical versions made by 7 different manufacturers:
http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en/switches/slide/ (you need to apply filters for anything that says Mom)

Haven't you ever had a piece of electronics that has a physical on off slide button you had to hold on for a second or so and it springs back if you let go? To me that is what makes it obvious.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CODiNE]

You should watch the Tucker movie some time.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[DRJlaw]

At the end of the 19th century there were a total of about 650,000 patents granted. Now there are over 8,000,000.

The majority of which have expired. You neglect the fact that patents will expire appx. 5, 9, or 13 years after grant due to non-payment of maintenance fees, and 17 years after grant or 20 years after filing even with full payment of the maintenance fees. Pretty much any patent with a number below appx. 5,300,000 has expired.

There's a bit of a difference.

Yes. The number of different areas of technology and manufacture have increased. Your implied point that any one engineer 'must' consider vastly more patents remains to be proven.

And while that's not to say that _never_ happened a hundred years ago (because occasionally it did), these days it's standard operating procedure. I have to side with the OP. This is a different world.

I beg to differ.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[tgd]

TL;DR - Innovation does not happen because of patents, innovation happens, then patents happen.

Companies wouldn't bankroll the innovation without the protection they provide,

At a smaller scale, patent trolls were also the norm during the 19th century. It was a common practice for inventors to come up with some mechanical widget or mechanism and seek patent protection, and seek to sell it as a component of some larger mechanism the bigger companies were doing.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Any number of patents by other companies show similar drawings. Eg. : LG television receiver (rectangle with kickstand), Nokia Handset (rounded body with 2 buttons), etc. This is about the look of the device in general, not rounded corners specifically. Of course people have jumped to that conclusion because Apple devices on the outside are famously featureless (spartan in appearance) which in a technical drawing ends up looking like a rounded rectangle. This is why in the court case the jury did not rule exclusively based on the patent but was also shown a lot of the prototypes and design documents.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[gbjbaanb]

Similarly slide-to-unlock. No, 'slide' mechanisms weren't very popular until the Apple's use of it. That in itself isn't what makes it obvious, though. The average lock on a public restroom stall may be what makes it obvious

so it is obvious that slide-to-unlock exists and isn't something that was patented simply because it has been around since ancient times. What Apple did to "innovate" was to use the slide-to-unlock principle on a smartphone. Se, those few last words make all the difference within the patent system, that's what's broken.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[tgd]

I feel the need to point out the HUGE difference between industrial patent technologies and a simple programming algorithm patented as IP. Actually I don't. If you don't understand the difference then I don't have the time, willingness, or patience to explain it to you.

That's a biasedview of it, ignorant in history, coming from the standpoint of someone versed in software. An algorithm implemented in code is more more or less obvious or "mathematical" than a physical mechanism transferring force around via gears and levers, and those are patented. There have historicaly been just as many, if not more, "obvious" patents granted on mechanics than software by a very large margin. The difference is, most of them expired a hundred years ago.

And thankfully for the US, the people responsible for rmaintaining the patent system understand that, and understand that the system is behaving as intended. I have absolutely no issue with software patents -- a new algorithm or technique is just as valid as a new combination of gears used to distribute power between axles. Its the result of the same problem solving train of thought and effort. The same is true of business process patents.

IMO, the *only* junk patents are the gene patents issued for *discovering* a gene, not *creating* a gene. Come up with a DNA sequence that creates a useful protein? Sure, patent it. Sequence some slime mold somewhere and find one? Don't think so. You don't get patents for engineering, you get patents for design.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[hierophanta]

in my opinion the real issue is that the OP posted a good comment that did further the discussion and DJR told him not to bother. this stifles the entire forum community.

if the OP was modded down, then the real issue would be the complaints detailed in DJR's post.

you have my apologies for being as off topic, as i know i am.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[robot_love]

That's certainly what a lot of people think. What I'm trying to say is that is not what the evidence says. The innovation happens anyway. Only after the innovation has happened to patents get applied to the new field.

Anyway, check out the book I mentioned (Against Intellectual Monopoly). It spells it out in much greater detail.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[tgd]

Really the problem is software patents. I think everyone can understand mechanical and chemical innovations being patented but software just doesn't seem to work as well under the patent system. Maybe if they just let copyright cover software it would solve most of the problem.

So why is a sequence of steps someone works out to transform chemicals to create a new molecule a less creative process than a sequence of steps to transform data in an algorithm? Or a sequence of steps to assemble gears and springs into a new watch mechanism?

I'm honestly curious. That differentiation seems to be at the core of the bizarre knee jerk reaction to software patents -- its almost like software engineers value their work less than the work that other engineers do, and I've always been puzzled why.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've given up, then publish it and fuck the folks who would patent your inventions. Alternatively, look into patenting it through some of the anit-patent troll organizations.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[StripedCow]

I think it is time we start digging through all registered patents to find out which ones are infringed upon by Apple, and inform the owners. Alternatively, we can use these patents as evidence that the patent system is nonsensical.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

And most of the 8000000 patents you speak of have expired. Not so much for the 650000 in 1899.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Shagg]

Apple devices on the outside are famously featureless (spartan in appearance)

Which is precisely why people are upset that a patent was granted for the "featureless" design. It creates a patent that is way too generic/broad.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[tyrione]

Tesla innovated just fine. He died crazy and poor while lesser men made themselves the gatekeepers to his creations and robbed the masses blind, sure... but he still innovated. Well, invented... innovation is the dumb-grunt work, really... but the principle is the same.

Just because you're a slave doesn't mean you can't work.

Tesla was poor because he was too nice. The man let all his stock rights to Westinghouse be foregone to keep Westinghouse afloat. In hindsight, I doubt Tesla would be nice, today, and nor should anyone expect it of him or any one else.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[tyrione]

By 1900 the US Population was: 76,094,000. The World Population was:1.656 Billion. Today we're over 310 Million the US and over 7 Billion world-wide. What's your point? Did you somehow expect the total number of patents to grow considerably slower because the world's population exploded.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Hatta]

This blatant copying should not be allowed.

Why not? What harm will come to society if we allow Samsung to copy the iPhone?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[chowdahhead]

What's even more absurd is that Apple filed for another patent, which I think was recently awarded, that removed the dependency of the "along a predetermined path" language. The claims are incredibly vague and probably cover any current and future implementation of unlocking a touchscreen, aside from using a physical button.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[PastTense]

"Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must meet the relevant patentability requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness."'

Because these software patents do not really meet the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness. If you hadseveral software programmers attempt a solution, many would come up with something the same or similar.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[budgenator]

Secret patents exist on technologies that have military applications... cryptography systems are very commonly granted secret patents, because you don't want any member of the public to see the algorithm your army is using to encrypt its top secret files.

Why not? The algorithm is insignificant to breaking the encryption, the 2048 bit private key is the secret sauce. Depending on the application like radio transmission, it changes daily.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[rjr162]

There's many devices, maybe not tablets, that have had rounded corners in the past. Reason is, it doesn't poke stuff and is "safer" to a sharp ass corner.

The original Palm's had pretty sharp corners, sucked to get out of your pocket. The later Palms (Pilot 5000 had someone rounded top corners and rounded bottom corners except for the stupid kick out parts.. and also the Palm Zire) had rounded corners.

Blackberry Storm? Rounded corners

T-Mobile sidekick? Rounded corners

HP Tablet PC? Rounded corners.

It just bugs me that people focus on that when rounded corners have been around for ages.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? What harm will come to society if we allow Samsung to copy the iPhone?

The harm would be that if Apple knew it might get copied and never bother releasing the phone in the first place. I'd probably still be using some "smart" phone with a screen the size of a postage stamp, no ability to install "apps", a crappy built-in browser that would have been obsolete in 1997, and paying $120+ USD for an EDGE data plan with a cap of 1MB.

I'm no fan of the abuse of these patents, which I believe Apple is guilty of, but the iPhone was a massive leap forward for the industry and for consumers. We just need to figure out a better balance with regards to patents and the power they grant to their holders.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[tgd]

"Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must meet the relevant patentability requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness."'

Because these software patents do not really meet the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness. If you hadseveral software programmers attempt a solution, many would come up with something the same or similar.

/quote

That's true of virtually every patent. A big part of innovation is recognizing a problem prior to solving it. Non-obviousness has always been evaluated in the context of the time before the invention was disclosed, not after. That's one of the harder jobs of a patent examiner. Lots of patents cover "oh duh, why didn't I think of that" things -- and they're patentable precisely because it hadn't been thought of.

(And, to be clear, I'm not passing judgement on the patent system per se -- although there's a substantial amount of evidence that its a greater help than harm -- but rather trying to make a point that there's literally nothing special about these patent cases or the nature or quality of software patents in the context of any other industry today or historically.)

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Hatta]

The harm would be that if Apple knew it might get copied and never bother releasing the phone in the first place.

In what universe is that likely to happen? You have a good idea, and you're going to let someone else use it first because someone might copy you if you went first? No, no one is that stupid.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[VortexCortex]

Yes. as I explained patents would prevent me from using the code I wrote. Since I necessarily used the code I wrote while I developed said code, I would be found as infringing. Opening the sources proves my infringement, if any exists.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[shutdown -p now]

If "obviousness" in IP sense is so diverged from "obviousness" in common sense, then I dare say the former should be fixed to be more in line with the latter.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[farble1670]

in the US, you are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, not the happiness.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain to the general in charge of national security that completely disclosing "the internals of your crypto" to the enemy is not a problem because of some theoretical CS proofs.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[VortexCortex]

When you release the software, don't identify yourself as American. Rent a VPS in Europe or India or somewhere to host the project. Don't let lawyers stop innovation.

That would be fine except for the money trail... I prefer to have laws that don't prevent me from donating to the public domain rather than try to work around the flawed laws and live in fear of them.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[ATMAvatar]

Having a close-up picture of a building's front door (detailed enough to identify the lock type) does not have much bearing on whether or not you can get in. Leaving the key underneath the welcome mat, on the other hand...

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

All those laws and principles were designed foremost to protect the manufacturer, the rewarding of the creator has always been an afterthought.

This! A lot of people fail to realize that copyright rewards copiers, not creators. Distributers in other words. Those who distribute the most, wins. Not those who create the most. Hence the RIAA's (Recording Industry) and MPAA's copyright and distribution fanaticism. Copyright is intrinsically unfair. Patents are also but there the middlemen are the lawyers and patent office. Equally fanatical.

If you are any sort of IP creator you should think hard about that. We need better ways of rewarding creators, not middlemen.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Which is precisely why people are upset that a patent was granted for the "featureless" design. It creates a patent that is way too generic/broad.

Simplicity isn't easy, it just looks easy. That it took apple to wipe away all that cruft is evidence enough of that. If it truly were generic someone would have done it before.

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
  E.F. Schumacher

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Rich0]

Well, imagine if you're some Army general and you just paid somebody $200M to come up with some nifty encryption system. Would you want to publish it so that the Enemy could use it for free?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Clovert Agent]

The evidence is outlined in the freely available "Against Intellectual Monopoly".

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[xenobyte]

Completely correct and accurate.

Almost everything in GUIs are recreations of paradigms know from the real world, and that is for one simple reason: Affordance.

People know how to manipulate real world items - how to push a button, turn a knob or push something aside. In early computing resources didn't allow for mimicry of the real world but as things became possible the GUIs incorporated more and more, thus enabling more people to use the devices more or less out of the box using intuitive guesses based on their real world experience.

Now, stupid patent law has allowed for patents on the mimicry of real world paradigms. So now you have to pay some patent troll (for instance Apple) if you slide things around (aside from the slide-to-unlock they also have a patent on using sliding to flip through images in a photo album for instance) or use something less obvious in their paradigms.

The most stupid patent of all is the one on the square shape with rounded corners. There is no other reasonable shape (the ortogonal pads from some scifi tv-show are just plain silly) and the corners need to be rounded for the device to be practical. Besides, any similar device prior to Apples i-devices were also square, flat with some degree of rounded corners. Think pocket calculators, pen-and-paper notepads and so on. Most were also available in both black and white.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Shagg]

Simplicity isn't easy, it just looks easy. That it took apple to wipe away all that cruft is evidence enough of that. If it truly were generic someone would have done it before.

It took the maturation of touchscreen technology to enable the obvious evolution in design, it had nothing to do with Apple other than they were the first to make use of it. The fact that someone did it first, does not mean that it wasn't obvious. The industry in general was already heading in that direction, they just couldn't get there yet because technology wasn't able to support it.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

So if it's so obvious why hasn't any other company shown off its prototypes, like Apple has going back all the way to a 2002 iPad prototype ? If it's so obvious why nearly all of the tech world scoff at both the iPhone (eg. “The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks." - Bloomberg) and the iPad ("little more than a giant iPhone." - Wired, and "In the end, I think that the iPad will eventually be regarded [as] product that Jobs should have left on the drawing boards." - TechRepublic.) when they were first released ? In the case of the iPhone much of the ridicule was even specifically aimed at the touchscreen interface, the very thing which you now claim was obvious : "it doesn’t have a keyboard which makes it not a very good email machine" - Steve Ballmer. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[niftymitch]

Really the problem is software patents. I think everyone can understand mechanical and chemical innovations being patented but software just doesn't seem to work as well under the patent system. Maybe if they just let copyright cover software it would solve most of the problem.

Copyright as in Micky Mouse +100 years... are you NUTS.

For years it was necessary to build a working model of the invention as
part of the process. That needs to happen for software.

The bit I have been noticing are the large number of method patents
where the patent is little more than a text summary of an early white board
pre-design brainstorming session.

These white board extractions often talk about the internals of a process.
I have watched many white board patents show up as the topic of Texas
litigation.

At best they describe an API yet the litigation is interesting.
To discover if someone is in violation of the process patent
insider knowledge is necessary. Thus litigation forces discovery
of the internals of a company.

Another telling characteristic of these white board patents is they
tend to be litigated in mass. A process patent that triggers five to fifteen
or more actions is most likely not novel but is clear workman like
coding where anyone "knowledgeable in the art" would have
no trouble building one just like another.

Lastly another telling characteristic is that many of these new white board patents
are using a new technology in an old way. i.e. using WiFi when a wired
connection was previously used. The problem is that the new technology
is being used in a way that it was designed to be used. i.e. it is not
novel to use something new in a way that it was intended.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[PortHaven]

And the jury foreman himself has shown he a) did not read the rules on prior art b) had no understanding c) convinced a jury which leaned toward Samsung's case d) that the prior art was invalid e) based on false evidence f) presented by the jury foreman making himself to appear to be an expert g) merely because he was biased by being a patent owner.

Yeah...that whole trial went down the drain yesterday when the Jury Foreman opened his mouth.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

You've got the floor here. Offer any kind of proof or even a plausible argument instead of baseless allegations. I've never seen anyone do that instead of just insinuating things.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[budgenator]

You mean like DES?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days?

[Rich0]

You mean the encryption system that the army invented for EVERYBODY ELSE to use?

There's a reason Android is popular

[neokushan]

And it's not because they're like "Cheap iPhone knock-offs".

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[ByOhTek]

I have a lot of stuff on my android devices that aren't ad supported. I've had ad supported stuff on an iPhone. Overall, I'd have to say, I like the feel, smoothness and flexibility of an Android device significantly more than the iDevices out there.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[OoberMick]

What is it then? Is it because it's an ad supported way for google to deliver ads to more people? I hope google dies. I do not want to see an ad supported future for the internet.

So what instead? Pay to visit sites? Or are you expecting sites to run on fairy dust?

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[ozmanjusri]

What is it then?

It's a phone and tablet operating system that works better than iOS, and on more devices. That's why more people buy it.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

That's precisely why Android is popular. Very few normal consumers walk into a cell phone store with any clue what they want, and no awareness of any brand other than the iPhone. They might know "Droid" because of the commercials. Their friends have an iPhone, and they want one. But when they see the price, they move to commodity Android phones, because they're "the same thing". I've heard more than a few people say they have an iPhone and pull out a cheap commodity Android device, thinking "iPhone" is synonymous with "smart phone". And salespeople are happy to shift them over to the low- or no-cost Android phones. High-feature, just-released Android phones simply don't sell well except to those who are aware of Android and know what features they want in a phone, and know it isn't an iPhone.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's the entire reason Android is popular. The HTC Dream came out in 2008 @ $129 on T-Mobile, undercutting the $199 iPhone. It was unarguably a "cheap knock-off". It was priced to entice people to join the Android camp instead of Apple. Now you have the tribalism that goes on amongst Android and Apple camps (there are Android fanboys just as much as Apple and they suffer the same "reality distortion"). It's typical human behavior. Now, look up "commitment bias" and "irrational escalation" and see that you are a sheep who bought into a marketing ploy just like the Apple kiddies. Then look up "confirmation bias" just for fun. Are Android handsets cheap knock-offs now? No. They were when no one knew how Android would fare in the market. Was Android OS a cheap knock-off? Yes--it was first a rip-off of BlackBerry and then a poor, buggy rip-off of iOS. Now, it is different, refined, and better/worse than iOS in its own ways. TO EACH THEIR OWN.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[ByOhTek]

Sorry, the iPhone 4S I had felt decently laggy, even with almost no apps on it. Aside from the web browser, the web browser was snappy, but that was about it. Some older Samsuck Android phones I had were pretty bad, but the HTC phones and a Toshiba Tablet that I've used have typically been better.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[fermion]

Actually it is. As much as I hate to admit it, MS actually made the innovative phone. As has been noted the problem with the iPhone is that at the end of they day, it is a $2000 phone. With Android on sale at Virgin and Boost and Cricket, all one needs is $200 to start, and then scrap together $50 every month, if you can. Android also has the inexpensive unlimited data plans and tethering plans which provides cheap internet. I know many people who have android phones because it provides cheap internet to watch movies. MS and Apple does not have this.

Not all Android phones are cheap, but Android is targeting the low end of the market so it can claim high sales volume. It is also clear that, unlike MS, many Android manufacturers are not putting a lot of thought in the UI for the phone. As mentioned, most of the effort is to provide cheap cell service after the sale.

And this cannot be repeated enough. HTC is reportedly paying MS $5 largely because Android is based on Linux and MS thinks it owns Linux, even though all legal battle indicates Linux is free from such infringement. OTOH we now have a legal decision that says Apple owns these patents for about another 15 years, and HTC is now crying fowl that it is unfair they have to pay license fees? WTF!

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Not for the past couple years, really. The Galaxy S3, for example, is no cheaper than an iPhone, and is selling very well. The non-techsavvy customer goes into the store and notices that the iPhone still has a dinky 3.5" screen compared to the S3's 4.8" screen. Then the salesperson points out that the iPhone still doesn't support 4G data.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you haven't tried Jelly Bean yet. It's far smoother than past versions, even more so than ICS. Granted they may have rushed the initial versions, Google has at least continued to innovate and improve with each subsequent version and, probably more of benefit for people who like to tinker with things, doesn't lock the fucking thing down like iOS.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[ozmanjusri]

No, you didn't. You're just being an arse.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[neokushan]

Just because Android devices are, generally, cheaper, doesn't mean they rip-off the high-end devices and appeal solely to the lower-end tier. Android's most popular models are all comparable (in price) to the iPhone - I'm talking about the likes of the Galaxy S III and the HTC One X. Sure, there's always the Apple "premium", but those devices are generally more powerful and more feature-packed than the latest iOS device.
Likewise, those that can't afford an iOS device would just as likely get a different device anyway if Android didn't exist. Going by the above logic, Blackberry and Symbian Nokia is somehow infringing upon Apple because their devices are cheaper. It doesn't make sense.
Android doesn't target one market and this is what people don't get - there's high-end, low-end and midrange Android devices, all targeting different markets from different Manufacturers. Apple targets just one market - the high-end.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[BMOC]

Would this be like someone in the 18th century complaining about newspapers supporting themselves with advertisements because they don't want to see an ad-supported future for mass media?

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's not because they're like "Cheap iPhone knock-offs".

Samsung's Touchwiz UI makes Android into a "Cheap iOS knock-off".
FTFY

A theme or overlay created by a 3rd party does not mean the underlying OS is a knock-off.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget lag, I was thinking of a different kind of smoothness:

Need to go back? Hit the back button. Good luck finding its hiding place on this apple screen, With Android, I can hit it with my eyes closed, which reminds me after staring at a screen for a few seconds that it's time to blink.

Then I need a menu item, same thing. No long-press hiding places needed.

Back, Menu, Links are all common abstractions on the desktop & sensible mobile equivalents make for smooth PC to Android device switches.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[John Bokma]

That and the clueless Apple haters who hate Apple because, well, their geek buddy/son does...

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[thaylin]

So you want to have to have a paid sub for each website you go to, or maybe a 300 basic broadband account or how do you expect companies to pay for all these services that you get "free" now

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Was Android OS a cheap knock-off? Yes--it was first a rip-off of BlackBerry and then a poor, buggy rip-off of iOS. Now, it is different, refined, and better/worse than iOS in its own ways. TO EACH THEIR OWN.

Huh? They use completely different programming languages. Android apps use Java (dvm) and C, IOS uses Objective C and I know nothing about RIM but I can tell you that neither Java or Objective C is a knockoff of the other. Or were you speaking strictly from a users perspective of the UI?

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already had this debate repeatedly on /.

Believe me, he definitely believes in fairy dust

it's the "websites are cheap... they can run 100 on a VM for $10" attitude. It never occurs to them that google, facebook, etc needs entire data centers to handle the traffic.. those things just don't exist.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone wasn't $199 when released. The OG iPhone was unsubsidized; it wasn't subsidized until the iPhone 3G.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Laggy? how about the built in notes application, it takes my ipod about 4 seconds to go from showing the list to you actually being able to click on an item. iOS fakes smoothness, and people like this?

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

cheaper internet for android phones? uhh NOPE, don't think so. Carrier plans do not care what phone you have, only if it's a dumb phone or a smartphone (will it use data...) and that's it. aside from the cost for the phone itself and perhaps insurance if you opt for that the monthly price will be exactly the same assuming you have the same plans for both.

Though many android phones do have the ability now to both tether and act as a wifi hotspot for others to connect to and use your phones data connection to the internet. This ability started with custom roms and now it's stock on quite a few of the phones which are running a certain version of android or higher.

Iphones actually can tether since the start with usb or bluetooth i think. and Looking at their webpage it seems starting from the iphone 3g(s?) and higher can also act as a wifi hotspot though to a lesser degree than android does. It says up to 5 devices on your phone if using it as a mobile wifi hotspot, depending on version. which could mean that only the iphone 4 or iphone 4gs or whatever can go up to 5 and the other models can do 1-3 others or something.

Not sure why you think android phones have this magical unlimited data plan? Verizon used to offer unlimited data before they started to become even more of a greedy f'd up company. I've NEVER seen any smartphone from Microsoft that could have the term "innovative" applied to it and MS has nothing to do with Linux. If HTC is paying them anything it's most likely for something else, like some special function or whatever they use on their phones... perhaps something in SenseUI?

Yeah after reading the rest I'm pretty sure you are crazy or smoking something. Here are some statements in your post that make me /facepalm :
quotes/
-" As much as I hate to admit it, MS actually made the innovative phone." 0_o

-"Android also has the inexpensive unlimited data plans and tethering plans which provides cheap internet." - ugh wtf?

-"I know many people who have android phones because it provides cheap internet to watch movies. MS and Apple does not have this." -ugh not even going to try

-"but Android is targeting the low end of the market so it can claim high sales volume. It is also clear that, unlike MS, many Android manufacturers are not putting a lot of thought in the UI for the phone. As mentioned, most of the effort is to provide cheap cell service after the sale." --you do realize that most new android phones probably cost more full retail than apple phones (subsidized price may be higher for apple but that's apples problem). as for this cheaper cell service? yeah you are smoking something. /quote

it gets even stupider but I don't have time for this

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[PortHaven]

iPhones always become "laggy" when iOS update comes out for the new phone. My iPhone 3G became super laggy when I updated to the new 3GS iOS release version. Likewise, my iPhone 4 became laggy when the iPhone 4S came out and I updated to iOS5.

Seeing a pattern here?

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it then?

It's a phone and tablet operating system that works better than iOS, and on more devices. That's why more people buy it.

No Andriod has a larger market share because it is available on cheaper devices that more people can afford. Most people don't care about the operating system, they care if they can do the stuff they want to do on their phone or tablet: text, facebook, call, and play their fruit ninja.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[PortHaven]

Awww...bet you use Kleenex for lots of tissues to cry on, don't you...

No, this isn't flamebait...it's snot bait.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

As has been noted the problem with the iPhone is that at the end of they day, it is a $2000 phone.

Slowdown Nelly! If you believe the iPhone costs $2,000 then I have a deal for you.....

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[jedidiah]

It depends.

If your Android hardware is newer, it is definitely going to feel "smoother". The fact that you've got a "wild west" situation with vendors and limited forced OS upgrades means you could very likely have better hardware available for Android phones and fewer phones being choked by OS upgrades.

I've seen iPhones hampered by OS upgrades. The fact that Apple phones are "better supported" isn't universally positive. Frequent OS updates are a double edged sword. This is especially true for tech that's still immature and evolving rapidly.

Contemplate "frequent OS updates" with an 80s or 90s PC.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[jedidiah]

The "it's cheap" argument.

The problem with that argument is that Apple devices are no less subsidized than Android devices.

Although Android does have some interesting tablet variations.Whether or not they have an advantage of being "different" or "just cheap" is disputable.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[neonmonk]

I don't think there'd be such a fervent gang of Android "fanboys" if Apple weren't trying to annihilate Android.

I love my Android phone. I get the most out of the freedom it allows me as a user & and as a developer. The thought that Apple's bully tactics could destroy the Android ecosystem and leave us with iOS & Windows Phone, both locked down, disturbs me greatly. I'm particularly disturbed by the level of lockdown on iOS, not allowing "competing" apps, taxing competing content stores 30% - I've been a longtime MacBook Pro user and was always grateful there was an ideal Unix-y desktop (I love Linux, but have found Desktop Linux to be mostly frustrating, but sadly the iPhone and its success has given Apple the opportunity to really be the vicious, arrogant, control freaks they really are.

Granted, I think the Android ecosystem's survival is under far less threat now that Google has bought Motorola Mobility, I'm sure that if Samsung, HTC et al. decided to abandon the Android ecosystem - Google would make something more of Motorola. One can hope anyway. I hope they do that anyway.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[rjr162]

"Need to go back? Hit the back button. Good luck finding its hiding place on this apple screen, With Android, I can hit it with my eyes closed, which reminds me after staring at a screen for a few seconds that it's time to blink."

Thank you! I'm not the only one! I can't stand when say you're in an app and click something that opens a browser window.. AND THERE'S NO BACK/EXIT BUTTON! The only thing you can do is hit the home button, re-launch the application you *were* using.. etc. At least on my Android phone I can just hit the back button a few times and get back to the application right where I left it.

(Note: I have both an Android phone running JellyBean via 3rd party ROM and also an iPad 2... hands down I wish the android phone was a tablet as it's much, much more useful to me. The iPad is nice, but for stuff I do it doesn't cut it. Can't transfer files via Bluetooth off the iPad unless it's to another iDevice, and Android has better utilities for say network management (wireless sniffing etc) vs iPad due to I think Apple doesn't allow/iOS doesn't support that...

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

cheaper internet for android phones? uhh NOPE, don't think so. Carrier plans do not care what phone you have, only if it's a dumb phone or a smartphone (will it use data...) and that's it.

Given that you bring up Verizon, you are presumably talking about the US carrier market. In the U.S., you can't get discount pricing if you supply your own device. Plan pricing is very different in other parts of the world where plans are flat rate and phones are usually unsubsidized. In those areas, either you pay the premium on the iPhone up front, or you pay more monthly on your plan/contract to cover the cost of the phone subsidization by the carrier.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

HTC is now crying fowl

Cock-a-doodle-do?

Never give in to extortion

[sa666u]

Of course they won't settle. One should never negotiate with terrorists.

Re:Never give in to extortion

[oh_my_080980980]

So why does the Federal Government settle all the time with Goldman Sachs....

Re:Never give in to extortion

[pr0nbot]

Because, to a large extent, Goldman Sachs is the government?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Alumni

Re:Never give in to extortion

[sa666u]

Because they play for the same team. And you and I are not on that team. :)

Re:Never give in to extortion

[MMC Monster]

Reminds me of the Black Eyed Peas song Where Is The Love:

Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin'
In the USA, the big CIA
The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK

Innovation may be alive, but the individual innovator who does not work for a multinational is dead. Unable to create anything because they are frozen in fear over the threat of litigation.

Re:Never give in to extortion

[AbRASiON]

Wish I could mod you +6, Apple have become everything they pretended they were against.
I have multiple friends who abandoned Microsoft many years ago because they are an evil monopoly and are now vehement, blind Apple supporters. They are blind to see Apple is just as bad at the top as Microsoft was.

I don't want Apple to die, despite how much they deserve it for their disgusting atittudes. We need competition. but good lord do they need to be knocked down a few rungs, I am eager for Google and partners to do so. Although considering how poorly Apple has innovated the last couple of years in the handheld space, I suspect they are about to knock themselves off their own perch.

Re:Never give in to extortion

[aliquis]

They are blind to see Apple is just as bad at the top as Microsoft was.

You mean (I do) that Apple is just as bad as Microsoft was at the top?

Whatever things like application stores handling the DRM and payments and what not and having everything at one place is worth it for the consumer compared to the alternative I don't know. The consumer can vote with their wallet and what they use so I assume it may be.

Linux distributions all used to work that way anyway. Except you didn't _HAD_ to. And of course it's rarely done for profit.

Re:Never give in to extortion

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's rich since they're already paying Microsoft due to IP infringement (only after being sued, of course), as does Samsung and a host of other companies :

"Trefis cites earlier reports in noting that HTC pays Microsoft $10 per Android device and Samsung, which sold as many as 52 million smartphones into distribution channels last quarter, reportedly pays between $12 and $13 per device."

Re:Never give in to extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to say when it is not your life or your family's

Re:Never give in to extortion

[Citizen of Earth]

Because the settlement money helps the government pay its bills.

Apple vs. Samsung not Apple vs. Android

[alphax45]

Of course it doesn't. Apple was after Samsung for the phone (hardware) and touchwiz (interface) components that were "copied". They are not interested in fighting Android (Google); yet....

Re:Apple vs. Samsung not Apple vs. Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww. You're downright adorable, you know that?

I'm waiting for later on, assuming ($DEITY forbid) Apple keeps winning...

"Of course it doesn't mean it's Apple vs. Android. They just sued every Android manufacturer in existence one at a time, sued Google, sued Android users, and sued anyone who says the word 'Android' without permission of one of the High Priests of the Ascended Lord Jobs (hallowed be his name), plus His biography and His own scriptures said He would use all of Apple's riches if need be to destroy Android, to the point of going to 'thermonuclear war' on this, but they're not interested in fighting Android yet! What is WRONG with you people? Why aren't you watching your Apple-approved movies on your iPads and just being complacent already?"

Re:Apple vs. Samsung not Apple vs. Android

[stephanruby]

What are you talking about? Apple has been suing HTC as well, and HTC has been suing Apple. Apple may not be suing Google directly, but I think that's because Google doesn't sell Android phones directly.

Re:Apple vs. Samsung not Apple vs. Android

[shutdown -p now]

If that were true, then why was Galaxy Nexus involved in the case (and no it wasn't about hardware design)?

Or did you miss the part where Google had to remove bouncy overscroll in Android and replace it with the glow effect because of Apple patents?

Or the new slide to unlock in ICS, which is there solely because it's supposed to dodge Apple's "follow the predetermined path" patent? (and which Apple claimed is still infringing, by the way)

Here's the thing...

[sudden.zero]

...it wasn't just the shape of the tablet/phone it was about the overall deliberate copying that Samsung did. The biggest point was that Samsung had internally distributed documents comparing the Galaxy S III to the iPhone 4s, and said documents stated that their device needed to perform more like the iPhone.

Re:Here's the thing...

[the computer guy nex]

Actually there were Cydia hacks for the iPhone 3G for the notification pull-down menu that predate Android. If anything, Apple copied from the developers of jailbroken software.

And OTA updates? Please, don't tell me you think Android invented them.

Re:Here's the thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray for revisionist history!

Re:Here's the thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there were Cydia hacks for the iPhone 3G for the notification pull-down menu that predate Android. If anything, Apple copied from the developers of jailbroken software.

Um... what? The iPhone 3G came out WELL after Android 1.0 did. And the initial version of Android already had the notification pull-down menu. Exactly what are you smoking?

Re:Here's the thing...

[tuppe666]

...it wasn't just the shape of the tablet/phone it was about the overall deliberate copying that Samsung did. The biggest point was that Samsung had internally distributed documents comparing the Galaxy S III to the iPhone 4s, and said documents stated that their device needed to perform more like the iPhone.

No they didn't thats not true. Its a great document you should read it. What it actually is is a stock application vs stock application comparison with its rival, OMG! Its things as exciting as Samsung show temperature as graphic, Apple show temperature as a number and a graphic and stating that both should be shown is the better choice.

I personally think that is a sensible. I'm pretty certain that that is nothing to do with patents, and nothing to do with owned technology, but the bottom line is Samsung were NEVER trying to make it look like Apple, quite the reverse they were trying to improve their own product, you can argue that is wrong if you want.

Re:Here's the thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest point was that Samsung had internally distributed documents comparing the Galaxy S III to the iPhone 4s, and said documents stated that their device needed to perform more like the iPhone.

So freakin' what!? This really gets me, EVERY company looks at other products, decides what they're doing well at and what caused it and learns from it, making their own implementation that they think of as good as or better. Any company that doesn't is bloody ridiculous and likely to fall over fairly soon. It's called market research. So they got too close to their competitor? With a phone that acts in very different ways and cannot be mistaken for each other? Bullshit. Just because someone else does something, shouldn't mean you can lay claim to everything close to it. Copying and building on top of other people's ideas is how innovation and progress happens. If you don't it is literally the opposite, preventing people to make something better yet based on your foundation.

Re:Here's the thing...

[blind biker]

...it wasn't just the shape of the tablet/phone it was about the overall deliberate copying that Samsung did.

Oh yeah? Well then, how come the courts in the UK and in The Netherlands found that Samsung DIDN'T copy Apple? Is it because the jury in the US is the only group of 12 people that "gets it"?

Re:Here's the thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

I suppose you could also say that Android copied that feature from Jailbroken IOS as well (didn't copy from apple, but not their own thing either).

HTC isn't Samsung

[gnasher719]

When you put HTC phones, iPhone, and certain (not all) Samsung phones side by side, the HTC ones are the ones that look different. Which means Apple won't succeed, and won't try to succeed, with charges related to design patents. On the other hand, the different looks may also be the reason or part of the reason why Samsung is selling more phones right now than HTC.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

HTC's radio quality tends to be the worst in the industry, which is a damn shame because I like everything else about their designs better than Samsung, Motorola, Sony, Apple, et. al.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

That and they make the current google phone. Other than the internation (quad core) version of the S3. The Google Nexus is the best phone out there in terms of usability in my opinion. It's a shame Samsung's S3 and Touchwiz are at the centre of this because Touchwiz actually sucks.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung

[shbazjinkens]

On the other hand, the different looks may also be the reason or part of the reason why Samsung is selling more phones right now than HTC.

Well that, at least, is about to change!

Re:HTC isn't Samsung

[clonehappy]

The RF section of my HTC Rezound blows every Samsung I've ever used out of the water. Only Motorolas have been better. In fact, I'm thinking of returning my GS3 that I paid full retail for because the radios suck so bad. And yes, I've already returned it and gotten another one, just to be sure it wasn't a lemon.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung

[Pieroxy]

And yes, I've already returned it and gotten another one, just to be sure it wasn't a lemon.

It doesn't prove anything.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung

[Anonymous Coward]

Most (all?) of HTC's devices are Qualcomm chipset based, and Qualcomm probably has the best radios in the consumer market. Even Apple uses their modems.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung

[Darinbob]

I got an HTC One X recently, and it really is nothing like the iPhones I see my coworkers with, it looks different and it feels different, and it's larger and thinner. It even changes the look of Android a bit. It probably does lose some of the customers who insist on complete conformity.

On the other hand today, despite not very different, someone saw this and asked if it was the new iPhone! I suspect he just assumed that any phone must be an iPhone.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung

[shutdown -p now]

Not all patents that were used against Samsung were design patents. Overscroll, slide to unlock, pinch to zoom and double-tap to zoom are all patents which would apply - at least one of them - to pretty much any existing Android phone.

About Cher Wang

[Compaqt]

I believe that one of the reasons for the lopsided Apple/Samsung verdict was the RDF surrounding St. Steven Jobs. People think of him as an inspirational figure, and they're likely to believe his company's claims.

I just wanted to state that Cher Wang is just as much an inspiration as Jobs, even though she hasn't sought the limelight or appeared in black turtlenecks at worldwide developer conferences.

"Indeed, she rarely makes headlines at all, although she started her own multibillion-dollar company and made her own fortune.

"Ms. Wang is one of the most powerful female executives in technology whom you have never heard of. The company she founded, the HTC Corporation, makes one out of every six smartphones sold in the United States, most of which are marketed under brands like Palm and Verizon."

more

She also founded VIA in 1987.

Re:About Cher Wang

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I am suggesting anything specific about Ms. Wang, but somehow she studied at Berkley after taking college prep school in Oakland, CA, which she went to after leaving school in Taiwan. Consider the expense of that (nowadays this would cost at least $150,000 with the visa fees and whatnot).

The article hints at the already-present richness of her family:

"When she was a young girl, Ms. Wang said, her father would take her on monthly visits to a local hospital he helped finance"

As usual, the rich and powerful got that way by being handed a HUGE head start. It is hard to find anyone in such powerful positions who actually has a real rags-to-riches story.

Nothing wrong with all that, but do consider how much better you would have done in life if your parents were well off financiers.

Re:About Cher Wang

[jrumney]

If I had teenaged daughters, between Cher Wang and Paris Hilton, I know which daughter of the rich and powerful I'd want them to aspire to be like. There's nothing wrong with making the most of your huge head start to produce something wonderful of your own. It certainly beats pissing it away in an attention seeking life devoid of any real value.

Re:About Cher Wang

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly for you if you ever have teenaged daughters one day, they'll aspire to be like the aforementiond attention whore, or whichever talentless Hollywood pop star is currently selling. And sucking dicks to boot. Get over it. :-)

Re:About Cher Wang

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Also for every Cher Wang, there are 100 Paris Hiltons. Hence the saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations"

Re:About Cher Wang

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had teenaged daughters, between Cher Wang and Paris Hilton, I know which daughter of the rich and powerful I'd want them to aspire to be like.

But, but, that goes against derpy class warfare misideals!

Re:About Cher Wang

[Anonymous Coward]

but somehow she studied at Berkley after taking college prep school in Oakland, CA, which she went to after leaving school in Taiwan. Consider the expense of that (nowadays this would cost at least $150,000 with the visa fees and whatnot).

FWIW, in the 90's, I attended the same high school as she did and, after financial aid, my parents paid about $1500/yr. I had to test really well to get in, but I did it. I also went to a UC and, again, received financial aid and a scholarship. All told, between my parents and I, we paid around $40k for everything with much less than that being required up-front.

Yes, she got a good education, but that same education would have been available to her even if she wasn't rich to start.

Etymology of 'Innovation'

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, invented... innovation is the dumb-grunt work, really...

Nah, it's the politician's and businessman's abduction of an old word to mean "generates revenue streams." Has nothing to do with inventions, weak or strong.

Today: "That's innovative!" Translation: "Morons will fucking buy that shit everywhere!"

Pyrrhic victory for Apple ?

[redelm]

Sure, 1B$ looks nice on the surface. But some victories are too costly (sow the seeds of final defeat) if they create and rally your opponents. HTC is one sign.

Thanks to activist shareholders, Apple cannot even settle for something reasonable (~100 M$ & xlicence) and will have the full slog ahead; including most likely losing supply of their high-res (RetinaTM) displays from Samsung. Do they have a second-source? From my PoV hi-res is the only Apple advantage -- software is fungible (but maybe not for the mass-market).

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ?

[Anonymous Coward]

LG will be making the screens for the next iPhone and iPad, if the rumors are right.

LG also has a line of Android phones, but they aren't as successful as Samsung's, so Apple doesn't currently feel threatened by them.

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ?

[Xest]

Problem is, Samsung still owns important patents on those modern displays, so if LG makes them for Apple instead, Samsung can just makes sure it increases licensing costs on those patents.

The issue is that even if you find a manufacturer to manufacture alternatives to Samsung that in all likelihood:

- Samsung still produces the core components you need to manufacture the technology

and/or:

- Samsung has patents on the technology you are producing

When you're producing a device that makes use of so many different wireless technologies, modern displays, audio, battery powered, cameras and so on and so forth, it's almost a certainty that you can't write Samsung out of the equation completely.

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ?

[oh_my_080980980]

They're called contracts - Samsung isn't going to stop supplying Apple with parts. FYI Samsung would and have sued people over IP infringement. It happens all the time.

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Sure, 1B$ looks nice on the surface. But some victories are too costly (sow the seeds of final defeat) if they create and rally your opponents. HTC is one sign.

Thanks to activist shareholders, Apple cannot even settle for something reasonable (~100 M$ & xlicence) and will have the full slog ahead; including most likely losing supply of their high-res (RetinaTM) displays from Samsung. Do they have a second-source? From my PoV hi-res is the only Apple advantage -- software is fungible (but maybe not for the mass-market).

Yeah Samsung is going to risk billions in annual revenue and investments. Where do you people come up with this stuff ?

"Apple is said to increase its spend with its partner and archrival Samsung from the estimated current value of $9.7 billion to a staggering $11 billion in 2012 alone."
source

"Samsung announced on Tuesday that it plans to spend about $4 billion to renovate its existing chip plant in Austin, Tex., where the company builds Apple's custom processors for the iPhone and iPad
[...]
The South Korean electronics maker already announced in June that it plans to build a new logic chip plant in its home country to better serve customers like Apple. That project is projected to cost 2.25 trillion won, or $1.98 billion."
source

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ?

[redelm]

hmm .. looks like that might be a hidden settlement.

"Where I get this stuff" is an overview of reality. Please do not politic by omitting key numbers needed for scale and perspective, like Samsungs smartphone sales are currently $40B and rising with high margin. Parts sales are not only smaller, but have lower margin.

Unless Samsung wishes to forgo the consumer market (no indication of this), they need to fight for it, and sacrifice the parts market if need be. Better to use those parts in their own products.

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

hmm .. looks like that might be a hidden settlement.

"Where I get this stuff" is an overview of reality. Please do not politic by omitting key numbers needed for scale and perspective, like Samsungs smartphone sales are currently $40B and rising with high margin. Parts sales are not only smaller, but have lower margin.

Unless Samsung wishes to forgo the consumer market (no indication of this), they need to fight for it, and sacrifice the parts market if need be. Better to use those parts in their own products.

So they are going to destroy a market worth a quarter (or more) of their own in the hopes that iPhone owners are going to buy their phones ? It just doesn't make sense. I'm also sure that destroying a competitor by price fixing or refusing to supply them is A) illegal in most of the western world B) would be frowned upon by all of Samsung's other customers who might start looking at alternative sources.

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ?

[redelm]

Sure, toss away 10 B$ parts sales (100% loss) at 10% margin to get 10 B$ set sales (+25% gain) at 40% margin -- sales flat, profits +3B$. Price fixing takes a conspirator 3rd party. All SSung needs to do is increase prices, Apple might switch or not. LG is rumored in the wings, but watch'em violate SSung patents!

Neat trick--no one in the industry will consider Samsung "unreliable" or guilty of sharp dealing if they go for revenge against Apple.

Getting back to my original comment, Apple is tarred just as Jobs ordered, HTC is one sign, Google/Moto's suit is another.

Blatant Abuse of the Patent System

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty well accepted that the patent system, in its current form, is completely dysfunctional. Apple has been blatantly abusing this system for years. Recently, their reduced innovation and eroding market share have led to increased lawsuits -- they've been holding these cards for a rainy day. There is a real issue in this country where literal interpretation trumps common sense in the eyes of the law and that needs to be rectified. Could you imagine if people actually read and literally interpreted the entire bible? People might actually start to realize what a farce religion is as well. How about people thinking the second amendment should give everybody the right to go to their local sports store and purchase an assault rifle? I'm all for the second amendment, but no document should ever trump common sense - these weapons didn't even exist when the second amendment was written! Why was a jury even involved in this Apple vs Samsung dispute if the decision was solely based on blindly following the rules of a terrible, dated system that should no longer apply in this industry? As long as people in this country continue to ignore common sense, progress and innovation will continue to slow to a crawl. Apple sees the writing on the wall and they're hitting the panic-button. While nobody can blame them for what they're doing, we can blame the patent system and the entire process that goes with it that allows them the ability to bully competition and kill innovation.

Re:Blatant Abuse of the Patent System

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah because nobody sued Apple over IP....oh wait.....

Re:Blatant Abuse of the Patent System

[brojamma]

Who said anything about Apple never being sued? Even bullies can be bullied. The bottom line is that as long as the laws remained unchanged, they're all well within their rights to do what they're doing.

Re:Blatant Abuse of the Patent System

[oh_my_080980980]

That's my point. Apple was within their rights to sue Samsung. Samsung was within their rights to sue Apple. If patents are flawed then they need to change.

But we have had patents since the beginning and to claim that what Apple is doing is outrages intentionally omits the history of patent suits.

Re:Blatant Abuse of the Patent System

[brojamma]

You clearly didn't read the original post: "While nobody can blame them for what they're doing, we can blame the patent system and the entire process that goes with it" The system is the problem - not Apple. The system is what needs to change.

Apple is the bad guy.

[Coolhand2120]

I've been following this since day one, and I gota say, Apple comes out looking like the bad guy every time. Litigate > innovate in Apple's eyes. Always has been. Remember the Apple clones? Every card carrying geek here knows that Apple "borrowed" a vast majority of the iPhone's functionality from smart phones that existed 5-7 years before the first iPhone. That Apple suing because they were "copied" is utterly ridiculous, at least to people who watched the smart phone race from the beginning. Only the uninitiated find any validity to Apple's arguments.

And Apple, you feel people are being deceived into buying non Apple products? You who deceive people into buying Apple products with deceptive ads, demagoguery and appealing to people's ignorance about technology? How long ago was it that you claimed the Power PC was better than the Intel chip you now sport? Where did the in house Apple benchmarks go that supported your wild claims that the Mac was faster than the PC. It wasn't that long ago that you changed the meaning of PC (oh that's a workstation, not a PC) so you could falsely claim that your computers were better than any PC running any OS. Deceived indeed. Your empire is built upon deception, hardware lock-in and lack of freedom for consumers.

Re:Apple is the bad guy.

[GrahamCox]

How long ago was it that you claimed the Power PC was better than the Intel chip you now sport?

Well, it was during the time that the PowerPC was better (by which I assume you mean faster) than Intel. Its architecture was always superior to the x86. That was most of the 90s. It was only after Motorola took it over, repositioned it and stopped trying to keep up that Intel's performance overtook it again with new architectures and technologies. Apple just did the pragmatic thing (unthinkable to some) to keep their products competitive.

Re:Apple is the bad guy.

[oh_my_080980980]

Apple created the clone market jackass.

Really which smartphones did Apple rip off and why didn't anyone sue Apple? You think RiM wouldn't sue Apple if they thought they infringed on their IP?

Apple creates products people want. If people didn't like Apple's products they wouldn't buy them.

The rest of rant is just pure rubbish:

1. Apple switch to Intel processors because IBM could not meet Apple's supply demand. It was a supple issue, that forced Apple to switch. 2. The term "Workstation" predates Personal Computer.

Clueless....

Re:Apple is the bad guy.

[oh_my_080980980]

The change was a supply issue. IBM maintained development and production of the Power processor and PowerPC. It was still better than x86 but the gap closed once Intel adopted AMD's 64 bit architecture.

Re:Apple is the bad guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, this is slashdot. Everything even moderately pro-Linux/anti-Apple gets modded up, and vice-versa.

Re:Apple is the bad guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Supply issue, but more so a power issue. Apple had prototype notebooks (that were scrapped; can only imagine the power traces on those) running dual G4s because the G5s leaked so much power and ran so hot; getting a next generation CPU into their laptops wasn't going to happen without a switch, and I doubt Apple wanted to be late/non-existent to the party of a rapidly growing notebook market.

Re:Apple is the bad guy.

[Virtucon]

1. Apple switch to Intel processors because IBM could not meet Apple's supply demand. It was a supple issue, that forced Apple to switch. 2. The term "Workstation" predates Personal Computer.

Uhm

Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In particular, he cited the performance per watt projections in the roadmap provided by Intel.[11] This is an especially important consideration in laptop design, which affects the hours of use per battery charge.
In June 2003, Jobs had introduced Macs based on the PowerPC G5 processor and promised that within a year, the clock speed of the part would be up to 3 GHz. Two years later, 3 GHz G5s were still not available, and rumors continued that IBM's low yields on the POWER4-derived chip were to blame. Further, the heat produced by the chip proved an obstacle to deploying it in a laptop computer, which had become the fastest growing segment of the personal computer industry.
Some observers were surprised that Apple had not made a deal with AMD, which had in recent years become a strong competitor to Intel. AMD had recently released its competitive 64-bit Opteron platform,[12][13] and by moving straight to x86-64 Apple would have had one less architecture transition. Analysts have speculated that AMD's lack of low-power designs at the time were behind the decision to go with Intel.[14]

So it wasn't a supply issue it was a development issue constraint meaning that IBM's advances in PowerPC were behind and other factors that led them to going with an X86 based architecture. Having worked on PowerPC architecture for quite a few years, I've found it to be both power efficient and fast compared to Intel chips. Now this was a few years ago but I do have to conceded the high ground in X86 to Intel right now. AMD is a close second but it depends on market space. The G5 Macs were very fast so while Jobs may have publicly stated that it was because of these disappointments it could also be the fact that he IBM was being salesmen.

All I know is that I had a PowerPC Mac G5 running a Linux Distro in 2004 and it screamed.

Re:Apple is the bad guy.

[Coolhand2120]

Apple created the clone market jackass.

Apple has always loathes clones. First they forbade it, then they allowed it in a very limited licensed way, then they reneged on it, and now they don't offer it at all. And Apple still doesn't allow clones, and hasn't for what, like a decade? And I'm the jackass? Apple prevents their OS from being run on other PCs for no reason at all. You went full retard, never go full retard.

From Macintosh_clone

Apple VP Phil Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

Really which smartphones did Apple rip off and why didn't anyone sue Apple?

If you even bothered looking you'd find them. Preexisting functionality? All of it! Absolutely every thing the iPhone does had already been done long before the iPhone came out. I challenge you to name an application that didn't exist before the iPhone. As far as preexisting design goes how about the SPH I300 introduced almost a half dozen years before the iPhone. Has almost every feature the iPhone has. Full screen touch. App market. Scrollable contact list. Full browser with flash support. Replaceable battery. And the big difference? An antenna (year 2001 tech) and it has more buttons, which is arguably better than fewer. And if you didn't notice in your myopic zeal, Samsung has always had more buttons and still does. The SPH i300is the iPhone with year 2001 technology. It even integrated with MS Exchange and Lotus Domino. But back in those days manufactures were all about making new innovative designs that had dozens of form factors, not getting all litigious over ill gotten patents. And I'm not sure you noticed (I am sure you noticed), but virtually every phone ever made has rounded corners to some degree. The size of the radius is the only difference. Only after Apple started litigating did the size of the radius become some sort of legal point. Next you'll tell me Apple invented the rectangular display that every device used since the invention of LCDs. Maybe my TI-83 (1996) stole Apple's IP by having rounded edges and a rectangular screen. Or just maybe, people were putting rounded edges on electronics since the beginning?

1. Apple switch to Intel processors because IBM could not meet Apple's supply demand. It was a supple issue, that forced Apple to switch.

Yeah, false. Too bad for you we have historical fact to get in the way of your little fictitious story.

Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs.

2. The term "Workstation" predates Personal Computer.

Apparently you don't keep up on Apple benchmarking. When Apple ran its internal benchmarks against PCs, it refused to use the most powerful PCs as a comparison by calling them "workstations" and therefore not allowed to compete with Apple computers. Of course there is no distinction as you pointed out. Apple would gladly fire off benchmarks aginst PCs it knew it could beat, while leaving the high end PCs (that still cost less than a Mac!) out of the "Mac is faster than PC" race altogether. The simple fact that Apple ran its own benchmarks inte

This is not new....

[rimcrazy]

I worked in the Semiconductor industry from the mid 70's up to around 2003. In the startup phase all startups were sued by the big guns but there was always a method to the madness. You don't sue a company that has no money unless it is defensive. They would all sit back and wait until you started to get successful. They the suits come in and throw a stack of patents 3' high on the table and say "Today we are running a special, we want 1% per foot on your revenue or we will litigate each and every one of these along with a few hundred more we did not bring today and if you settle right now we will throw in a set of Ginsu Knives" Both companies end up settling for something and a cross license deal and life goes on. It is what it is. A lot of the patents are so basic you could not make a chip without violating them. TI has one around injection molded packages that you could not make a plastic package without violation. It's probably expired by now but I'm sure they have "refreshed" it 10 times over.

Re:This is not new....

[Anonymous Coward]

This is indeed not new, but what you describe is, while bad, tolerable - if you have any profits to begin with, you can afford giving away 3% of them, even to someone who doesn't really deserve it. It still allowed companies to compete on features and quality, and it still allowed end users a choice of various products so that they could find the one that suits them best.

The problem with Apple is that they don't come with a 3' stack of patents and ask for 3%. Rather, they come with a 3' stack of patent and ask you to get the fuck out of their market. That's what's new. It's perfectly legal, but it is against the established rules of the game which has actually allowed meaningful competition. In some sense, this is, perhaps, a good thing, because Apple's stubbornness actually makes the inherent flaws and negative effects of the existing system more obvious, where they were masked by the past arrangements.

HTC benefits more than anyone from this verdict

[the computer guy nex]

HTC was king of Android phones a few years ago. Once Samsung started stealing Apple tech, they took the crown from HTC.

Now that HTC and Samsung should be competing on an even playing field again, I predict HTC will overtake Samsung for good this time.

Re:HTC benefits more than anyone from this verdict

[tuppe666]

HTC was king of Android phones a few years ago. Once Samsung started stealing Apple tech, they took the crown from HTC.

Now that HTC and Samsung should be competing on an even playing field again, I predict HTC will overtake Samsung for good this time.

Ignoring the obvious "stealing comment" [shame on you] I will quote HTC CEO Peter Chou with this thinly veiled reference to Samsung “our competitors can leverage their scale, brand awareness and big marketing budget to do things which HTC could not do. The fast growth from the last two years has slowed us down.”

Innovate outside the U.S.A

[sirlark]

even if it's on a remote system in Europe... and don't sell any products in the U.S.A. directly. Outsource the importation into the U.S.A.

Re:Innovate outside the U.S.A

[sirlark]

It occurs to me, that if enough people actually did this, it would start affecting the US economy negatively. So don't do this quietly. Do it, and advertise why you are doing it. Who knows, maybe someone will listen eventually.

Stop living in fear

[SuperKendall]

Form an LLC (super cheap) and release the software.

You will not be sued, at worse you might get a letter claiming you violate some patent. If so just ignore it.

The WORST that can happen is yes, your company gets sued. So then you close it off and you are done.

But far more likely is nothing with happen and you can just continue to sell your software.

The way things are now it's already like you have already been shut down. Why pre-suppose a very unlikely case?

I'm not saying the software patent situation is not bad. I am saying that it's silly to do nothing because of abstract fear with the end result being the same as if your fears came true.

Re:Stop living in fear

[VortexCortex]

The WORST that can happen is yes, your company gets sued. So then you close it off and you are done.
But far more likely is nothing with happen and you can just continue to sell your software.

Well, that's not really the worst that can happen. I just can't afford to spend the time or money to take that risk to deliver a program that I don't seek to benefit by monetarily. The problem is the patent law, not my ability to make or distribute software.

The way things are now it's already like you have already been shut down. Why pre-suppose a very unlikely case?

The way things are now is that I have a profitable mundane software business, and no one but me and mine can benefit from the past side-work I've done for fun. It irks me, but I'm OK with letting others duke it out in the ridiculous legal realm. You must understand, I place value on more than just time and effort and money -- I also greatly value my mental health; Such is at stake any time I deal with stressful matters of imaginary restriction agents, or artificial scarcity law.

I don't really want to sell software that manages personal data. Monetization seems to be the only way to get money enough for very likely litigation, yet such a barrier to entry would prevent widespread adoption -- widespread adoption being the only goal worth spending the time and money and taking the risks for; it's also the only goal that is assured to bring legal suits, see also: Linux, or Android.

As it stands, I must spend additional time and money and take legal risk merely for the public benefit from my free release of software? Doesn't that seem wrong to you? If the public wants to make it easy for me to publish my software by removing/reforming patent law then risking to share my hobby (which competes with entrenched products like Skype (MS), Go To Meeting, Facebook, Dropbox and others) may become worth my time -- Not many projects would piss off so many proprietary companies.

If a hobby causes tons of stress then it's not worth doing. This is just one of those many cases where patent law harms the society as a whole. That patents don't absolutely prevent the possibility of innovation does not diminish the fact that they do seriously limit works intended to directly benefit the public domain. I choose to focus on the solution, not the problem: Reform or abolish software patents.

Re:Stop living in fear

[SuperKendall]

Well, that's not really the worst that can happen

Sure it is. Describe something worse.

The problem is the patent law,

Your problem is your FEAR of the patent law.

It's in a bad way, sure, but there's no reason for you to be afraid of it if you simply shield yourself in the same laws that protect other corporations.

I don't really want to sell software that manages personal data. Monetization seems to be the only way to get money enough for very likely litigation,

WHY would you even deal with litigation? Remember the end game is you fold at the first hint of legal issues. Being a corporation you personally would not be affected.

Some idiot sent me a letter claiming an iOS app I had wrote violated his patent. I ignored it. You know what happened? Absolutely nothing. Remember it costs the other people money to litigate also. Lots of patent trolls just want to shake out easy money, they can't even be bothered to pay for the stamp on a followup letter.

When the thicket gets dense enough, it entangles everyone equally.. that's when you go over the top.

If a hobby causes tons of stress then it's not worth doing.

Which is why YOU should stop imposing said stress. The USPTO is not the source of stress, you are.

The trial was botched

[sl4shd0rk]

The jury did not seem to think objectively [1] and also appear swayed by the foreman who seems to have gotten away with throwing out the biggest piece of evidence in Samsung's defense[2]. I was surprised that the trial went as it did, handled by a judge with very little experience[3], considering the future of the mobile industry was riding on it. "Rounded corners and Rectangular design"? Righ, Apple, you might as well be suing everyone in the industry becuase I can't find a device that _doesn't_ infringe on that. Apple went after Samsung because it's their biggest competitor.

[1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
[3] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57497096-37/apple-v-samsung-why-is-judge-koh-so-angry/

Re:The trial was botched

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first groklaw reference takes a lot of what the jury said out of context - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3073169&cid=41131171

I really can't take anything coming out of groklaw seriously when they resort to that type of reporting.

Re:The trial was botched

[Anonymous Coward]

Look: everyone can see that Samsung phones look suspiciously like iPhones. More so than other vendors' phones.
I'm sorry you are butt-hurt that your team lost.

Re:The trial was botched

[Virtucon]

Which will probably all come up on appeal.

Re:The trial was botched

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not cite groklaw on this - they have shown that their biases are so strong on this issue that they have become the fox news of tech reporting. (Just take any of their recent 'outrages' and decide if they would be outraged if the 2 sides were switched.) The site is useless for anyone who is trying to get an honest understanding of the case.

Re:The trial was botched

[CharlyFoxtrot]

If you're going to put an iPhone and one of Samsung phones in front of regular non-technical people with no horse in the race they are going to notice that they look suspiciously alike. Samsung would have to build a pretty strong, nearly airtight case to overcome a hurdle like that. Clearly they didn't. That's a jury trial, you're dealing with people not law evaluating robots.

Re:Writing on the wall...

[Nadaka]

Apple does not make keyboard phones.

I am not going to buy a smartphone without a keyboard.

I love my Samsung Epic 4g, except for sprints terrible data speeds.

Time to beef up your Dutch...

[knarf]

The term 'going Dutch' are usually applied to situations where you are supposed to take care of yourself in a group situation. Now those Dutch are pretty crafty folk, and do they have some good ideas every now and then. One of those ideas has been inscribed on a wall to remind people of what happens when you give in to tyrants. The monument was made to commemorate 30 resistance fighters who fought in a struggle which makes this patent business pale beyond recognition, but the inspiration given by these lines works for all struggles against tyrants of any sort:

Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht,
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen,
dan dooft het licht...

This translates to

'a people who give in to tyrants,
will lose more than body and property,
the flame (literally 'light') will be extinguished'

Of course there is no reason to give in to these silly demands of a commercial entity which has grown beyond its capacities for reason. Of course the CEO of said entity should think different from the way he currently does, and steer his ship around for fear of running it into the minefield of his own ordination.

And of course the way the patent system is abused - not only in the USA but worldwide - undermines the stated concepts which form the grounds for implementing those laws. Anyone who tries to explain this away should read those lines again. If you don't understand Dutch or English, feed them to your favourite translation program or service.

Now that I think of it there is a saying in the USA which applies to this as well:

The price of freedom (or liberty) is eternal vigilance

Re:Time to beef up your Dutch...

[CharlyFoxtrot]

These are the same dutch that managed to kill of the most jews of any of the occupied countries (75% vs 40% in other countries) and was a bloody tyrant for centuries in their colonies like Indonesia. Here's a dutch quote for you : "Als de vos de passie preekt, boer pas op je kippen" ("When the fox is preaching, take care of your chickens.")

Re:Time to beef up your Dutch...

[knarf]

Was that an attempt at the Wookie defense?

Sure, the Dutch are no saints, and never did I imply they were or that they have a patent on being non-saints, to keep this somewhat on-topic.... It does not take away anything from those lines of verse though. It also helps that the writer of these lines did not exactly agree to the behaviour of the Dutch in their (former) colonies, and that those misdeeds mostly took place before these lines were placed on that wall for all to see - and for me to quote.

If only those free of sin would be allowed to participate in the discussion this forum would be empty...

Re:Time to beef up your Dutch...

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Nah I just thought that quote was so ridiculously out of proportion I'd inject some reality. After all we're talking about a company winning a court case before a jury of its peers in what is still a democratic nation. To turn that into "a people who give in to tyrants" is more than a little hyperbolic. That I got to rag on the dutch was just a happy coincidence, though as you rightfully point out my people sure aren't any better.

What does HTC have TO settle?

[DrXym]

HTC has been making smart phones and PDAs for longer than the iPhone existed and those post iPhone have very little in common. They certainly don't ape the "trade dress" of the iPhone or iPad which is what got Samsung in trouble. Neither the shape of their phones, nor with HTC "Sense" user interface looks remotely like anything from Apple except in superficial ways. Indeed Sense has appeared over the top of several smart phone operating systems, not just Android and doesn't resemble iOS either.

So I think HTC have good reason to tell Apple to go fuck themselves. They probably also benefit from Samsung's misfortune given that the two of them are the leading smart phone vendors on Android and therefore in direct competition even if they share the same ecosystem.

Re:What does HTC have TO settle?

[the computer guy nex]

Um, OK? That was the entire point of this article. Samsung made specific choices to create hardware and modify Android that violated Apple patents. HTC hasn't made those same choices. Hence the entire Android ecosystem is still safe as long as you aren't as dumb as Samsung.

Jobs vs Android

[Frankie70]

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs told his biographer. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Re:Jobs vs Android

[Type44Q]

...I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank...

What was he going to do, take it with him? :p

Re:Jobs vs Android

[clonehappy]

"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

"We've always been shameless about stealing great ideas" --Steve Jobs "Good artists copy, great artists steal" --Steve Jobs

Re:Jobs vs Android

[Pieroxy]

Your second quote is not from Jobs. He said it while Citing Picasso, but that is all.

Re:Jobs vs Android

[CharlyFoxtrot]

They did steal, Android just copied. The quote you refer to was a quote by Pablo Picasso by the way, an artist who did steal (read: was influenced by) ideas but also managed to turn those ideas into something that was uniquely his and different. That's the kind of "stealing" Jobs was referring to and it's of the level that Android, and certainly the likes of Samsung and HTC, have not attained.

Do you think Android would be as popular

[Quila]

If Android had retained the Blackberry knockoff form factor and function of the initial prototypes?

Re:Do you think Android would be as popular

[neokushan]

So you're saying that the iPhone was the first phone design to use a keypadless interface?

Re:Do you think Android would be as popular

[Quila]

There were a couple, but not smart phones like the LG Prada, which was a feature phone. Of course, Apple already had this design solidified for a smart phone back in 2005, before the LG Prada was unveiled.

Re:Do you think Android would be as popular

[PortHaven]

And what you just proved is that "multiple" parties were simultaneously, secretly, and separately designing similar phones and moving toward this form factor.

And that's the point all of us have, Apple may have been the first to unveil (and even that can be argued to belong to Prada). But they were in no way the only one on this path.

Re:Do you think Android would be as popular

[blackest_k]

HTC made a few, my Old HTC Universal while having a keyboard doesn't need a keyboard it has a flip screen so you can use it like a mini laptop or closed like any other touch screen device (640x480 resistive). There were others without the keyboard. MDAIII springs to mind

If you loaded open Moko on to the sd card you also had slide to unlock you dragged a key to a lock. The focus at XDA developers used to be pretty much putting Linux on smart phones running Windows Mobile and hard work it was too, HTC had no interest in helping the Dev's getting the hardware working.

 

Re:Do you think Android would be as popular

[Quila]

This is about Android, and Android was on the path to being a Blackberry clone, and suddenly switched after the iPhone came out.

Re:Do you think Android would be as popular

[PortHaven]

And became a Prada clone?

What do you put forth is the main difference between a Blackberry and an iPhone. Particularly the 1st gen iPhone that didn't support 3rd party apps.

Lost ?

[eulernet]

The recent lost

Shouldn't that be "loss" ?

Re:Lost ?

[Lorens]

The recent lost

Shouldn't that be "loss" ?

Unless we're talking about a kind of lawsuit called a "recent" . . .

Ha always been the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't fucking know what you're talking about, do you?

One single of those software patents these days has a comparable complexity to the whole IP fuzzball of the "good old times" you're citing.

no company should settle over this

[rob5150]

it would be insane to settle over such a sham of a verdict. this judge and jury reminds me of the older movies that portrayed justice down south back in the 50's and 60's. like in those movies their minds were made up already at the beginning of the trial just because it was a "good ole local boy against someone else of a different race. not being allowed to show that samsung had already had a smart phone in a open and legally unpatentable rectangular shape before the iphone release is crazy. i had an ipaq 4155 back in 2002. pretty much rectangular. touchscreen. internet browser. mp3 capabilities of playback. bluetooth. wifi. and had skype calling in 2004. so, you cant patent obvious.... the obvious part for apple is to incorporate a cellphone antenna inside. but too bad cellphone antennas were already inside cellphones. so cellphone antennas weren't something new. my cellphone back then (before iphones) had a button on it with the shape of a handset cut into it with a green background. so, taking a phone without any calling buttons on it , and then putting a shape of a handset on a green field.... ? how is that considered new and innovative? that is just an obvious use. (remember, obvious means un-patentable)

Re:no company should settle over this

[rob5150]

dec 2006. 2 weeks before steve jobs even unveiled the iphone.. take a look at this picture on the following website http://www.slipperybrick.com/2006/12/lg-ke850-touch-screen-mobile-phone/ this following is from... june 2006 6 months before iphone unveiled. http://mobileanalystwatch.blogspot.com/2006/06/strategy-analytics-touch-screen-phones_30.html "Stuart Robinson at Strategy Analytics said, "The touch screen market in cellphones is nearly ready to take off, but before it can do so certain conditions must be met. First, the cost of touch screen technology must shrink from $5-10 dollars to under $3. Second, revenue-generating applications must be developed to differentiate touch screen devices from menu or icon driven phones. Finally the market requires a catalyst, such as the presence of an iconic touch screen phone in a Hollywood blockbuster, to generate demand." Strategy Analytics forecasts that "touch screen interfaces for mobile phones will remain at under 2 percent of total devices until such a catalytic event occurs, predicted to be at the end of 2007, at which point rapid growth will ignite interest in touch screen phones, growing the market to around 40 percent by 2012." Stephen Entwistle at Strategy Analytics added, "We expect most demand to come from finger-sensitive technology built into high-end feature phones. This will be a significant shift from today's wireless PDA segment, where most stylus-driven touch screen devices can be found." not only apple thought about making touchscreens finger tip sensitive. where then you need areas of design (think icons on your desktop) to know where to press your finger. so how are icons new and innovative?

HTC can't afford to settle.

[Anonymous Coward]

HTC and Samsung are already paying $500M to Microsoft every quarter to license their patents.
Where were the smug Android whiners when HTC agreed to that?

Well duh.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

According to a comment I read yesterday, while Apple won in the US, they lost in the Netherlands, the UK, and Korea.
So apple is 1/4, why would HTC give up after http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/08/29/1230232/in-wake-of-samsung-verdict-htc-does-not-intend-to-settle#seeing a single loss when Apple didn't give up after 3?

Re:Well duh.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

...I'm not really sure why it decided to throw a link in there. I just typed the word "seeing".

no shit sherlock

[milkmage]

"does not mean the failure of the entire Google Android ecosystem"
I have no idea how people come to the conclusion that Apple's win dooms the rest of the OEMs.

don't fucking copy and you're good to go.

and before you mod me down as a troll..
copying to this degree is what put 1B of Samsung's dollars in Apple's coffers
http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

download the pdf and look at it yourself (it's evidence submitted at trial).
i had no idea it was this bad.

getting your panties in a bunch over a handful of standard essential patents is one thing and needs to stop.
that PDF is embarrassing.. it's like Samsung is a shady Chinese replica maker with big bucks, and a brand name.

then they turn around and do shit like this?
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/08/21/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-review-an-embarrassing-lazy-arrogant-money-grab/

Re:no shit sherlock

[shutdown -p now]

"does not mean the failure of the entire Google Android ecosystem"
I have no idea how people come to the conclusion that Apple's win dooms the rest of the OEMs.
don't fucking copy and you're good to go.

Please show an Android phone that does not violate any single one of the following Apple's patents:

1. Pinch to zoom.
2. Double tap to zoom.
3. Slide to unlock.
4. Visual indication of overscroll.

Because these are the patents that Samsung devices have been found to infringe.

Re:no shit sherlock

[milkmage]

#3 and #4 are beat.

you don't slide to unlock (that pattern thing)
and they have a blue tint that indicates overscroll.

and if 1 & 2 were at issue, why were certain Samsung phones excluded from the injunction?

if you look at the section "Back in April 2011, Apple's trade dress infringement claims against Samsung went like this"
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/04/the-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-the-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/

it's all about hardware. "Like a trademark offers protection to the use of a word or the look of a logo, trade dress offers protection on design."

furthermore, that section sates "That is basically a list of things you aren't allowed to do. Now, individually, those traits aren't worthy of a lawsuit. It's the combination of those things that will send Apple Legal over to kick down your door."
the operative word is combination.
you said:

"single one of the following Apple's patents"

a single violation hasn't gotten anyone in trouble (yet)

Re:no shit sherlock

[shutdown -p now]

you don't slide to unlock (that pattern thing)

You still do slide to unlock on ICS, it's just no longer in a single direction - you need to drag it into the target circle, taking whatever path you want. Google thought that this is enough to defeat the "along the predetermined path" part of Apple's patent, but Apple still sued over it.

and they have a blue tint that indicates overscroll.

Which Apple claims still infringes, as it's a visual indication of overscroll. That was one of the patents they've used to ban Galaxy Nexus for sale in Korea.

I don't know why 1 & 2 weren't claimed on all phones, but I'd imagine it's more procedural than anything else - perhaps Apple's lawyers had more specific evidence for those devices, and they knew that others were already covered by something else?

furthermore, that section sates "That is basically a list of things you aren't allowed to do. Now, individually, those traits aren't worthy of a lawsuit. It's the combination of those things that will send Apple Legal over to kick down your door."

This only applies to design patents - i.e. there's no separate patent for rounded corners, another one for flat screen etc. Apple holds a single patent that includes a combination of all those things.

For regular patents, however, this is not the case. They actually do have a separate patent on slide to unlock, another one on overscroll etc. All those patents and their claims are independent, and therefore it only takes one to infringe to be sued.

Here's the thing. Samsung Galaxy Nexus, a phone that runs stock Android 4.x, is part of the second lawsuit that Apple has filed against Samsung (and which is still ongoing). What further proof do you need?

It's probably always happened in tech

[grahamsz]

I've had some exposure to the hard disk industry and the same sort of thing happened there.

What ends up happening is that all the large players effectively collude to cross-license each other's portfolios and then the fact that someone has a patent on making the disk round and 3.5" doesn't really cause problems for the rest.

Of course what that does is makes it very hard for anyone new to break into the industry. I'd really love to see google do the right thing here and crush a bunch of the "obvious" patents (both on their side and apple's) and leave the licensing to things that are genuine innovation.

I have one word for this

[dave87656]

"Appeal"

First of all, there was clear prior art which the Jury ignored or misunderstood.

Second of all, the Jury was clear that the amount of the damages was "to send a signal". Patent damages cannot be punitive.

Thirdly, since there are estimated to tbe 250,000 patents involved in the making of a smart phone, the value of 7 cannot be 1 billion dollars, even if they are of higher value that others.

Finally, a patent for a rectangle with rounded corners? Really? That won't hold up in appeal. Sorry.