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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Shagg]

Have you read the D504889 patent?

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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

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

[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

[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?

Never give in to extortion

[sa666u]

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

Re:Never give in to extortion

[sa666u]

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

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....

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...

[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.

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

[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!

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.

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 ?

[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.

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]

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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?

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.