

Apple deals massive patent blow to HTC, Android in serious trouble - rbanffy
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-deals-massive-patent-blow-to-htc-android-in-serious-trouble/13714

======
noonespecial
You know that annoying old joke where you just add "in bed" to everything. Its
starting to be like this only you add "In America" to every story concerning
patents.

Right now, the US is very fortunate that the rest of the world is kind of
going along with its patent frenzy, mostly because of its prominent position
on the world stage. As American influence wanes, they might not be so willing
to continue.

 _"You should be thankful for what you have, child. Right now, there are poor
children in America who don't even_ have _Android(1) phones. All they get is
one expensive, government-chosen monopoly device."_

(1) Choose Chinese equivalent.

------
nextparadigms
_"HTC claims that is has found ‘alternate solutions‘ to these patents, but
Mueller isn’t optimistic:

But can those patents really be worked around? Standing in front of the Great
Wall of China, you can also vow to walk around it. That doesn’t mean it’s a
viable option."_

The fact that you _can't_ go around those patents, emphasizes how broken the
current patent system is. How are competitors going to be "innovative", which
is what the patent system was supposed to encourage, if they _can't_ actually
take another path in building their product, and basically their only real
options are to either _infringe_ on the patents or _pay_ the licensing fees.

~~~
dpcan
To play devil's advocate here, if this patent really can't be worked around
reasonably, than this may be, finally, an example of a software patent that is
valid and worthy of a patent because it is a true and novel invention.

~~~
foob
If the patents can't be worked around reasonably then it could just as easily
mean that the patents are so broad and superficial that nearly any approach,
whether common sense or not, would violate them. I haven't read the full
patents, so I don't have a real opinion yet, but from what I know about
software patents in general my explanation would surprise me less than yours.

~~~
dpcan
Yes, you are absolutely correct, I was only making a statement from one angle.

It's too late now, but if I could edit my statement, I would like to point out
that the patent could be valid assuming it was very SPECIFIC in its claims,
and not just a broad patent which would mean that the single unique invention
was so brilliant that it was the one and true path to the end product.

------
martythemaniak
Oft-quoted: "Android May Be the Greatest Legal Destruction of Wealth in
History"

It's actually a transfer of wealth from the coffers of Apple, RIM and MS to
mostly developing-nation consumers who can now afford the same advanced phones
as people in developed countries. The trio is doing everything in their power
to kill Android, but I do hope it survives.

~~~
alain94040
Except I don't believe in a free lunch.

Explain to me again, slowly. Apple is spending $1B in R&D to design the
iPhone. Google is spending the same amount to design Android. Where is this
money coming from and is it a sustainable investment from Google?

~~~
Daniel14
Android pays for itself, in lots of different ways, among them and by far most
importantly: Being the default search provider on 550k additional phones/day.
That's worth a billion $ to Google any day.

~~~
fabjan
Isn't Google the default search for iPhones as well?

~~~
jrockway
And not the default on Verizon Android phones.

I don't think it's just about search. I think sometimes Google does things
Because They Can and then try to figure out how to make money later. Android's
most realistic reason for existence, IMHO, is to ensure that Google users can
take their data with them. If there was no Google phone, then the world would
stick with Exchange, and GMail is not Exchange.

~~~
archangel_one
I always thought that Android's raison d'etre was to prevent any other company
from dominating the smartphone business (Apple having apparently the best shot
at this, but would still apply if Microsoft or RIM seemed likely to) because
they would then have a huge opportunity to cut Google out of the loop - they
could use Bing for their default search engine, have a built-in mail app
that's not Gmail, etc.

------
dpatru
Per the claim chart in Florian Mueller's blog post,
[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-
ho...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-how-android-
infringes.html), it seems than any vendor selling a computer with a web
browser on it infringes Apple's patent.

Claims Accused HTC Android Products 1\. A computer-based system for detecting
structures in data and performing actions based on detected structures,
comprising:

an input device for receiving data; (a mouse)

an output device for presenting the data; (a screen)

memory storing information including program routines including (computer
memory)

an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data and for linking
actions to the detected structures; (a browser which detects anchor tags
(structures) in html and links actions to them (clicking on a link opens a web
page.))

a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked
action; and (The web browser allows the user to select anchor tags with the
mouse.)

an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected
structure; and (The web browser is also the "action processor" which performs
the "selected action" (opening a web page) linked to the "selected structure"
(anchor tag).)

a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the
memory for controlling the execution of the program routines. (All computers
have a processing unit, CPU, linked to their input and output devices and
memory which "control the execution of the program routines.")

~~~
dpatru
Given how broad these claims are, I think the patent office should reexamine
the patent. If claim 1 stands, Apple could shut down not just the mobile phone
industry, but all vendors of computers with browsers. Note that there is no
limitation in claim 1 to phones or tablets. Indeed, the patent was filed in
1996, long before the invention of the iphone.

Here you can download a copy of the patent:
[http://www.google.com/patents/about/5946647_System_and_metho...](http://www.google.com/patents/about/5946647_System_and_method_for_performing.html?id=aFEWAAAAEBAJ)

Note the figure on the front page: a computer system with a floppy drive and
printer attached. The computer system Apple is referring to in the patent is
any personal computer.

~~~
kenjackson
I believe Apple and MS have a patent cross licensing agreement. Apple and MS
may have created a legal duopoly. Google really needs to treat the legal
situation around Android like a serious threat.

~~~
fpgeek
If this patent is as broad as it seems, Google needs to treat the patent
situation around _Chrome_ as a serious threat.

In fact, depending on how liberally you can interpret things like "input
device" and "output device" I could make an argument that elements of Google
search infringe (e.g. the bits that parse a site's menu structure into a
virtual ToC for faster access).

------
albertsun
Link to a deeper analysis [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-
tables-show-ho...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-
how-android-infringes.html)

Claims using regexes to match patterns in a piece of text is infringing.

    
    
        By way of example, the functionality within the Nexus
        One includes Android's "Linkify" functionality, which
        "take[s] a piece of text and a regular expression and
        turns all of the regex matches in the text into
        clickable links.

~~~
tptacek
That's not what the patent claims. As usual, we are going to burn many tens of
messages here debating patents without truly understanding how patent claim
matching works.

In this case, Florian Mueller is using examples of Android functionality to
illustrate _individual elements_ of the body of a single independent claim.
You've excerpted his example without context, leading a reader here to believe
that Apple is patenting random Perl features.

~~~
codingthebeach
Your comments on this issue strike me as disingenuous.

By my understanding, the patent claims the (obvious, with mountains of prior
art) behavior of auto-generating hyperlinks from text using regular
expressions, so that (for example) when you receive a text message with a
phone number in it, that phone number can be detected with regex and displayed
as a hyperlink. When you click it, it can then say "Call, Save To Contacts"
etc.

That's just one of the supposed infringements. Your comments here make it
sound like this is a legitimate patent, and that HN geeks are simply too
stupid to understand the issues. Well, we may not understand the obscure
details of every patent claim, written as they are in fearsome legalese, but
we understand very well when a company like Apple is trying to make an end-run
around the Patent Office. We grok it. Don't pretend we don't, or that our
understanding is somehow skewed.

~~~
monochromatic
> Well, we may not understand the obscure details of every patent claim . . .
> but we understand very well when a company like Apple is trying to make an
> end-run around the Patent Office.

If you don't understand the patent claims, you do not understand what the
dispute is. End of story.

------
res0nat0r
Isn't this the Florian Muller (who is quoted in the article here) the same one
who was predicting the end of the world related to the Oracle vs. Google
software patent dispute a few months back?

~~~
kragen
The same. I don't think that dispute has been resolved yet, has it?

~~~
nateberkopec
So, the world is still in limbo then? Shit!

------
blahedo
Perhaps someone who understands patents better can explain this quote to me:
_"According to intellectual property activist Florian Mueller, Apple is
unlikely to grant HTC a license for these patents and might make a damages
claim."_

My understanding was that a patent (unlike copyright, but like musical
performances) was something you _could not_ refuse to license, you could only
extract a licensing fee. That being sort of the point of the inherent tradeoff
of a patent—by making the blueprints public so anyone can use them, the gov't
gives you a time-limited right to make money from anyone that uses that.

But the above quote would seem to contradict that. Can anyone explain?

~~~
brk
There is no requirement on what you must charge for a license. So, a
$1,000,000 per handset "license" would be a perfectly valid offer, and
obviously unlikely to be taken up by HTC.

~~~
tsotha
The fee has to be "reasonable", and in fact courts will step in when the
patent holder is being demonstrably unreasonable, even going so far as to put
the patent in the public domain.

I'm not sure exactly how that translates into a dollar figure for license
fees. But the patent holder certainly has an interest in at least appearing to
work with potential licensees.

~~~
brk
Still, "reasonable" can be widely interpreted, and take another many years to
settle if the courts are involved.

Applying a basic sniff test, if all patents _had_ to be licensed for
_reasonable_ fees to competitors, there would be almost no sense in having
patents in the first place. Additionally terms like "blocking patents" in
terms of intellectual property barriers to entry in a marketplace would also
likely not need to exist.

IANAL, but I do believe from my own experience that Apple can effectively
decide to not make their patents available to HTC if they so choose in this
case.

------
chime
It sounds EXACTLY like <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_tag_(Microsoft)> to
me, except on a mobile device. Does anyone know if Pocket IE6 had Smart Tags?

------
ibejoeb
> U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 on a “system and method for performing an action
> on a structure in computer-generated data.”

Looks like I'll be closing my doors, too. Software and I: we had a good run...

~~~
adrianwaj
I think patents are now often unconstitutional as they impinge upon freedom of
expression. Do you feel violated?

------
ig1
I haven't read the patent in detail but from Apple's description my initial
suspicion is that this patent could likely be invalidated by using the prior
art of MUD clients such as Tintin from the early 90s. It was fairly common for
users to set up triggers that detect particular patterns of text that
represented structured information and then initiating an action based upon
them.

Here's Apple description of what the patent in question is:

"The '647 patent generally relates to a computer-based system and method for
detecting structures and performing computer-based actions on the detected
structures. In particular, this invention recognizes that computer data may
contain structures, for example, phone numbers, post-office addresses, and
dates, and performs related actions with that data. The '647 patent
accomplishes this by identifying the structure, associating candidate actions
to the structures, enabling selections of an action, and automatically
performing the selected action on the structure. For instance, the system may
receive data that includes a phone number, highlight it for a user, and then,
in response to a user's interaction with the highlighted text, offer the user
the choice of making a phone call to the number."

Anyone who's read the patent in detail care to comment if they think MUD
clients would be sufficient prior-art to invalidate it ?

------
encoderer
The claim has been made in prior patent-related threads that some fave
companies (Apple, Google, Etc) only play the patent game for defensive
purposes: A kind of MAD doctrine, a patent detente.

This indicates otherwise. This is a shady, shady act by Apple.

~~~
streptomycin
Google generally does that. Most other tech companies, including Apple, are
not so benevolent.

------
dpcan
All I know is that we need GOOGLE to open up about this issue.

What is the future of Android? Should I keep developing apps for Android?
Should I be telling my family to buy Android phones?

I know that the summary of these patents is one thing, but the guts are in the
claims of the patents.

To what degree is something actually "infringing" on a patent? Does it have to
meet EVERY claim? Does it have to just come close? What REALLY constitutes
infringement of a software patent like this?

EDIT:

1 more question if anyone has a deeper understanding of this. Why is HTC being
sued for something the Android OS is doing? Is HTC infringing, or is Android?

~~~
blinkingled
I personally don't think anyone should be worried. HTC/Samsung et.al are big
companies with their own patent portfolios and deep pockets. At the worst they
will pay the cartels and move along - business as usual.

If you were to apply the "oh $CORP got sued and lost a patent lawsuit - I
might want to dump $CORP product" uniformly - you will be left with no
products to buy in the mobile space at least!

Why is HTC being sued and not Android - Because HTC is an corporate entity
that makes money off Android - Android isn't a corporate entity on its own -
who would they sue if they wanted to sue Android?

~~~
ben1040
_Why is HTC being sued and not Android - Because HTC is an corporate entity
that makes money off Android - Android isn't a corporate entity on its own -
who would they sue if they wanted to sue Android?_

Google develops Android and markets it, and I would assume that they could be
sued for developing an infringing product. Google most certainly makes money,
and a lot of it, from Android.

But Google makes no phones on its own, unlike HTC and Samsung, so Apple goes
after those companies to keep the devices from being imported into the US. And
Apple can fight Android in a legal proxy war rather than directly suing
Google.

~~~
rryan
> Google most certainly makes money, and a lot of it, from Android.

Could you explain how you are most certain of this? I don't believe they make
any money from Android. If you mean they make a lot of money on ads from
customers accessing their services via a mobile device -- then fair enough but
that's not "from Android" any more than they make tons of money "from the
iPhone".

~~~
MatthewPhillips
They've released figures in the past that Android is profitable on its own;
meaning irregardless to the effect on search profits. They make money on
selling Google Apps, Maps service, etc to manufacturers and carriers.

~~~
shagrath
"They make money on selling Google Apps, Maps service, etc to manufacturers
and carriers."

Would love a source on this... AFAIK Google never publicly said Android
Trademark and Google Apps were not free (apart from the obligation to pass the
CTS test suite)

------
cpeterso
Apple's patent sounds like Microsoft's "Smart Tags" from IE6. They surfaced in
IE6 beta, but were removed from the shipping version because they were so
unpopular.

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smart_tag_(Mi...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smart_tag_\(Microsoft\))

------
kno
It seems to me that given the opportunity Apple would have patented the
structure of an email address (me@mail.com), Apple would have patented Blogs,
Apple would have patented Commenting on an online post. Apple is taking
patenting to an ugly new level.

This is why software patenting is really bad for all.

------
NHQ
I Just read the first patent and find it seriously, ridiculously retarding
that such a generic thing could be patented. If instead of being a software
system, it was a social system, it would equate to a patent on secretarial
duties.

"If I get a phone call, and it's from somebody important, bring it to my
attention, and I will choose from a number of possible appropriate re-actions,
which decision I will then inform you of, and you take appropriate re-re-
action, if there is one."

Is it possible that in 1996, when this patent was issued, that the patent
office clerks rubber stamping these things had no ideas as to what was meant
by the pseudo-technical jargon?

Input device? Output device? Action processor?!

------
martingordon
Tie this back to the stories of iOS developers pulling out of the US due to
patent troubles: it's scary to think that a software company's sole channel
provider has interests that side with an institution that could drive it out
of business.

------
dstein
I'm so utterly disgusted by the whole patent system I care not to read any
further. Basically every software patent that starts off with "a method of..."
is usually bogus. The whole system needs to be scrapped.

------
jterce
It's really depressing that business today is less about innovation and
competition and more about dirty legal practices to destroy other members of
an industry.

This is some incredibly short-sighted zero sum game consideration. I hope we
wake up and fix this before the state of innovation has been set back too many
years.

~~~
petegrif
It isn't. The overwhelming majority of competition is about innovation.

------
vailripper
Article needs more hyperbole.

This is nothing new - companies are constantly going back and forth over
patent infringements.

------
duck
_This is serious stuff._

I tend to not believe this when an author ends their point with it.

------
yason
This is the proof of true disruption by Android.

~~~
rbanffy
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then
you win."

Unless you, of course, agree to license their patents. Then they win by proxy.

~~~
shawndumas
Or if you're Netscape.

------
guelo
Jobs is a seriously greedy vindictive asshole, I'll never spend another penny
on his shitty company.

~~~
guelo
Apple is playing hardball, why isn't Google playing hardball back? Why not
yank Google Maps and Youtube from the iPhone?

------
badclient
Wow, how is this not the modern day version of patenting the hyperlink? Sounds
very close to it.

~~~
grok1fy
Patent 5,946,647 (filed on February 1, 1996) seems to cover automatically
scanning/recognizing data, creating links for identified data and then
providing a way to act on those links. It sounds similar to contemporary
technology that created HTML archives from email which scanned data and
created http and mailto: links which were then acted on by browser and email
clients. Hypermail is one package that did this and was initially released on
July 30, 1994.

Ref: [http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TALK/www-
talk-1994q...](http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TALK/www-
talk-1994q3/0297.html)

------
notatoad
how. what.... i don't even.

these patents are both so obtuse and vague, could they not cover every single
computer program in existence?

------
Aloisius
I don't know. In 1996, I think this would have been pretty novel. The idea of
parsing a random block of text and converting everything that looked like a
phone number certainly didn't exist in any device or software I can think of.
I don't remember any email or IM clients detecting email addresses and making
them links either.

Some software patents are in fact valid inventions. The fact that today, _15
years later_ , it seems obvious, doesn't mean it was at the time.

~~~
Andys
I was 17 at the time, and heavily into computers, programming, and the
Internet as a hobby. Far from being novel I thought this idea falls into the
"bleeding obvious" category.

~~~
Aloisius
I guess how you'd accomplish it is pretty obvious, but the idea of linking
phone numbers in text is not. There was no pressing need to do so at the time.
Once a lot of text messages are happening and people start sending phone
numbers and email addresses to each other, it becomes obvious.

Of course, I'm not sure the idea is patentable, only the implementation.

------
mchusma
If this does become a larger issue, and US sales of Android are temporarily
halted, it could be the high profile patent dispute needed to implement much
needed reform, including limiting or eliminating software patents and process
patents. So in the long run, this could be a fantastic catalyst and make us
better for it. Right now every tech company has the incentive to patent
everything they can, regardless of merit, in order to fight each other.

~~~
fpgeek
If US Android sales are temporarily halted, don't you think Microsoft and
Apple will be more than willing to spend enough money to make sure reform will
never happen?

------
flocial
I think this case illustrates one of those landmark moments when you get to
choose the forest or the trees. There has to be an equitable middle ground
where we don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water but the
direction of these patent lawsuits are troubling.

For me the greatest adverse affect is on open-sourcing software. Open sourcing
software is not free, there is a very real cost to the people who share even
without lawsuits. If the project is interesting enough, sure people will fork
it and contribute but you also get half-brained support requests for people
who can't get your project to compile or what not.

With the possibility of lawsuits it becomes even more tempting to just keep
your code locked away. For a small or medium-sized company it pays to keep any
innovative code locked away internally to avoid patent trolls.

If these claims go through and Android falls on the mercy of Apple to license
the technology at whatever price they name if they are gracious enough to,
then we have to ask ourselves long and hard, will it be worth the wait until
these patents expire? Is there any meaning to having Android perennially over-
priced compared to Apple for the next several decades so that Apple wins big
with any smartphone sale?

------
ajays
From what I can tell, the patent covers converting a piece of text into a
hyperlink using regular expressions. There's a good chance that there might be
prior art (especially, Perl books, because I remember doing HTML parsing using
Perl regexps back in those days).

I can understand Apple's desire to protect its IP. But software doesn't need
protection for more than a few years. 17 years is way too much for software
patents. This lunacy must end.

------
spiffworks
Good god, bring back Groklaw. If the most respectable commenter on this topic
is Florian Mueller, then we're in serious trouble.

------
jchrisa
I'd guess that the first claim of the patent is also infringed by Twitter when
it makes @names and URLs clickable:
<https://dev.twitter.com/docs/anywhere/welcome#features>

------
malkia
It's not completely related, but weren't the Lisp machines (and probably
Smalltalk) printing out "live-objects" on the screen?

It's not related as the objects being printed (and could be clicked on) knew
their identity beforehand, and established rather, rather than being "grepped"
and then using heuristic establish connection to them?

But then what about say simple dictionary that finds words in webpage, and
connect to the local or global terminology web-site (couple of tech-related
sites have that). Or news site, where certain words are automatically
linkified

------
cmontgomeryb
IANAL, and haven't read the patents. But "system and method for performing an
action on a structure in computer-generated data" and "real-time signal
processing system for serially transmitted data" - really? I'm sure people
were doing both of these before Apple even existed, and in the case of the
second one, probably before anyone involved at Apple or HTC was born. Doesn't
sounds very novel or inventive.

Interesting read though, maybe I should start stocking up on Androids ready
for the black market!

~~~
Geee
Just to remind you that the title of the patent isn't the patent itself.
There's many ways to do the same thing, each patent is for a particular method
or model. For example, you could claim patent for 'bicycle', and describe your
model in the patent.

~~~
petegrif
You are 50% right. The title isn't the patent - true. But the description
isn't the patent either. The description serves to demonstrate how the claims
may be implemented and hence underwrites their validity. It is the claims that
have the teeth. (Respecting the fact that in cases of ambiguity the
description will indeed be referenced)

------
vilya
If one of these patents is really about using regexes to extract hyperlinkable
data from text... maybe it will encourage people to use yacc for their parsing
instead?

------
shad0wfax
Anybody else thinks Apple is now being the Lodsys? I know they create products
unlike Lodsys, but c'mmon, if this isn't a cheap shot, I dont know what else
is.

------
more_later
I looked at the patents. Can't Netscape (1994) be quoted as prior art for U.S.
Patent No. 5,946,647?

------
reustle
Boy, I sure do love software patents.

------
canistr
This is why I hate lawyers.

~~~
peterb
In this case the lawyers are an agent for Apple. Apple is the one with the
patent claim and started the lawsuit. The real issue (IMO) is Apple,
Microsoft, RIM, etc. colluding to kill Android. Android is a fundamental
threat to their business model.

~~~
rapind
And Apple, Microsoft, and RIM are agents for investors to make money. If you
really want to blame someone, you need to follow the money trail back to
shareholders, most of whom don't even remotely understand or can interpret the
language of the patents.

You've got complex systems on top of complex systems that really only benefit
a small number of people who understand them and consistently make money off
of them.

Let's say I have both Apple and Google stock (ignore for the moment that it's
only HTC being sued, because this obviously has an impact on Google's ability
to compete with Apple in this market). Should I take the blame that a company
I invest in is taking advantage of a complex system to increase the value of
my shares? Probably, but unfortunately I have no idea where to start.

In a system where everyone has patents and are suing each other, I think the
obvious beneficiaries are the middlemen making money off the process (lawyers
being among them). So ultimately I would agree with the parent that lawyers
are at least partially to blame for these shenanigans.

------
teyc
I had a look at one of the patents and it sounds like Smart Tags to me.

------
chopsueyar
I wonder what the congressperson ownership rate of iphones to android phones
is?

Would cellphone carriers be required to prevent access on their network to
patent infringing phones?

------
beatpanda
Oh, so will this be like when they disabled multitouch on some Android devices
because of some patent bullshit, then developers re-enabled it on hacked ROMs?

------
Havoc
Complete madness. The US patent system needs a serious injection of common
sense. Removing lawyers would also work. Same thing really I suppose.

------
daimyoyo
I highly doubt that Apple will shut Android down. If they do, they'll have the
DOJ all over them trying to break them up.

~~~
petegrif
Highly unlikely. There are many suppliers of phones and even of smartphones.

------
Apocryphon
Is this the first time that Apple has ever attacked something so related to
Linux before? I wonder how that community is responding to this appearance of
a new "evil empire."

------
notlion
this is so broken...

------
algoshift
OK, well, yet another US Patent that virtually any engineer with only two
neurons left in their brain would say: "Yup, been there, done that".

Patent number 5,946,647 describes recognizing text within strings and doing
something with it. That's the basics. OK, well, that has been done since the
very first computers were put to use.

Let's see, yup, my HP41 calculator can do that. It was introduced in 1979.

Let me remember...yup, computers before that date did that sort of thing too.
What do interpreted language processors do? Scan strings for tokens and take
actions based on what they find.

Just check out the History of AI page on WikiPedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intellige...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intelligence)

...my guess is that most anything that this patent covers was probably already
being done in the 1950's in some form. Modernizing the form to take advantage
of, say, touch or the concept of links and new interfaces isn't invention, it
is something that any skilled engineer would simply implement as part of
applying the solution to new hardware.

When are we going to stop granting patents for implementation rather than
invention?

Don't get me wrong. I love Apple. This isn't a jab at them. You have to use
the system as it exists or someone else will plant a useless patent bomb in
your face and stop you cold. They are using the system as they should,
defensively and offensively. No problem with them or any other company,
really.

My problem is with the patent system and how it is granting patents for
implementation rather than invention. Implementation simply requires stating a
problem to someone skilled in the art. That person, in turn, is able to find a
solution promptly. And so could thousands of others equally skilled in the
art. Invention should have a much higher standard of proof or performance.

More importantly, large companies have the financial horse-power to accumulate
thousands and thousands of these "been there done that" patents. What this
means is that those engaged in true innovation have to walk around in fear of
running into this mine-field for the simple act of doing something that anyone
skilled in the art would do as a matter of solving every-day problems.

One of the best examples of how far the idiocy goes are a series of patents
granted for the use of pulse width modulation for the control of the intensity
of an LED light. This is something that is beyond obvious to any student of
electronics.

Yet another example of government incompetence at work? Perhaps the USPTO
process should be privatized. Think about it. You could then file a lawsuit
against the examining firm for approving a questionable application. That
would stop the granting of patents for what amounts to prior art cold on its
tracks.

'nuff said.

------
shareme
One problem:

Despite bias in the media, HTC claims that the ITC lawyer argued that HTC did
not infringe. Which means that HTC has a good shot at the appeal...

Also, one of the Apple patents has prior art..its called BeOS...it had some of
the features/claims and was out in the market commercially in 1995.

------
Hisoka
On the bright side, if Android goes away, iPhone developers now don't have to
worry about learning yet another framework.

~~~
fpgeek
Sure they will. It will just probably be called Windows Phone (or maybe webOS
if HP gets their act together and gets lucky).

------
kno
If Apple were eBay it will now hold patent for online auction.

------
programmerx
Android = iPhone killer

iPhone = 50% of Apple sales

Apple shares = making a top?

------
kno
Watchout! Apple may file to patent "Startup", Lean startup and generally
startup as we know it. These guys are out to destroy software creativity and
invention in general.

~~~
petegrif
Yeah - Apple really has a crummy record on innovation compared with... ... oh
yeah... now that I actually engage my brain for a millisecond... they have
been pretty innovative haven't they?

------
oldpond
Boycott Apple. Simple as that. If you can't compete, litigate? It would be
interesting to see when this claim was started. Right around the time Android
started eating their lunch?

