

HTC disagrees with Apple's actions and will fully defend itself - darshan
http://www.htc.com/us/press/htc-disagrees-with-apples-actions/10

======
thewileyone
Good. HTC must challenge Apple's actions because Apple's really getting out of
hand in their assertions of ownership.

~~~
GHFigs
_Apple's really getting out of hand in their assertions of ownership._

Could you be more specific?

~~~
kloncks
Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something (when it, itself,
was inspired by another product) and believing they own it 100%

A good example is Keynote. Sun/Lighthouse developed a great presentation app
called Concurrence that ran on NeXT's set of computers. When Steve sold NeXT
to Apple and they went on to develop Keynote, he thought that was his
invention, when really it's rather obvious where he got his inspiration from.

Plenty of other stories like these with Apple (and for that matter, all the
other giants)

~~~
nailer
Another example is their patent on unlocking a device with a gesture. Asides
from Windows Mobile already using gestures for unlocks prior to iPhone beind
released, achieving tasks with gestures has been around for years and adding a
particular task 'unlocking a phone' doesn't make that novel.

~~~
GHFigs
Apple has no patent on the general _concept_ of "unlocking a device with a
gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a
concept.

This would be clearer if patent titles were prefixed with "A", as in "A
method...", etc. Most people seem to read them as "The method...", which when
combined with the linear format (even though claims are dependent), makes
almost all of them sound much more broad than they actually are.

You might might get a better idea of what the patent is intended to cover by
noting the _differences_ between implementations, rather than the
similarities. I won't speak to that myself, as I have never seen the Windows
Mobile implementation.

~~~
borism
you got it totally backwards

concept is exactly what you apply a patent for, implementation is application
of concept

~~~
GHFigs
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You cannot patent a concept, only inventions.
You don't have to actually build the invention, but it does have to be a
concrete thing and and not a wholly abstract idea. This is why patents have
specific claims, descriptions, and diagrams associated with them, and not just
titles.

For instance, you can obtain a patent on a self-cleaning cat box by describing
one and how it works[1], but if someone comes along and invents another self-
cleaning cat box that works via some totally different method[2], your patent
does not apply. You do not own the patent on the _concept_ of a self-cleaning
cat box, only the subset of all possible self-cleaning cat boxes that work
more or less the way yours does.

[1]: <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801> [2]:
<http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868>

~~~
lutorm
That's how it _should_ be. It seems to me that some of the software patents
have crossed that line, as have the "business method" patents.

------
Roridge
HTC [spent a week checking that Google had it's back and then] disagrees with
Apple's actions and will defend itself.

At the moment I can only see this battle doing 2 things: A: free press
coverage [read "advertising"] for both Apple and HTC regardless of outcome. B:
driving a wedge between die hard fans of both Apple and Google/HTC

------
kloncks
It's really a giant game of Chess, here. Apple can't possibly expect to win
this lawsuit.

Jonathan Swartz, former CEO of Sun, had an excellent blog post on the subject:
[http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-
artis...](http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-
great-artists-steal/)

~~~
protomyth
Wasn't he CEO at the time of the Kodak suit. That was probably not handled
well.

------
37prime
Seriously, I wouldn't expect it any other way.

Definitely HTC would not agree with Apple's actions and would not defend
itself.

This won't happen: Apple: HTC, I'm suing you for blah blah blah...... HTC: OK,
I give up.

~~~
michaelneale
Well obviously not "OK I give up" but it could (and often end up) as an out of
court settlement before anything happens.

------
jackowayed
This press release didn't say anything. It could have been one line long. "We
feel Apple's case has no merit, and we will fight it" or something of the
like. That's the only interesting thing it said. Then it just went into "HTC
is awesome", which has nothing to do with the case.

~~~
nailer
It made the point that HTC has been doing touch based mobile phones for longer
than Apple has.

Apple tried to portray HTC as imitators in their announcement. This is a good
damn good counter to that.

~~~
bruceboughton
Isn't the case about multi-touch though? Or am I mistaken?

~~~
nailer
The case is about using gestures to unlock phones, bouncing when a menu is
scrolled too far, and other items. If Apple managed to get patents on
multitouch (which was close 40 years old by the time iPhone came out) they're
not involved here.

------
Tycho
I can sympathisize with newcomers being frustrated by patents for technologies
which seem like 2nd nature to them.

But what patents does HTC itself hold and enforce? I'd like to find that out,
cause you know, 'live by the sword, die by the sword...'

~~~
technomancy
Considering this: HTC is a Taiwanese company. Taiwan has sane patent laws,
unlike the US. So they're unlikely to have a large arsenal of frivolous
patents.

~~~
Tycho
Well, that doesn't stop them from filing with the US patent office. Here's one
they did file, citing an earlier 2008 patent in Taiwan,
<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0264157.html>.

It appears to be a patent for a mobile phone touch-screen 'slide-to-lock'
interface. Hmmm.

------
latch
Dreamy I know, but you'd hope that a coalition would form to defend HTC from
this, unless they rather be next:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came..>.

------
EsquireCats
It's petty to take sides in either end of this - I doubt anyone is well read
enough on the patent portfolios of either company to pass a legitimately
informed comment.

~~~
pkulak
Then I guess I'm petty, because my next phone is going to be made by HTC.

~~~
EsquireCats
I'm not suggesting that at all - you should always buy whatever is best for
you regardless of politics. (Loyalty is for suckers.)

However I hope there is a total blood shed and all out patent war. I don't
personally agree to the current method in which patents are used. It's a
system desperately needing an overhaul. (Which is simply not going to happen.)

------
bobbyi
So does this mean anything? Or is this what they would say even if they were
really hoping to settle?

~~~
protomyth
I think the telling part is that don't have anything to hit back with. Apple
came at them with 20 patents and only has to make 1 stick. Apple and Nokia
will probably settle (it seems more about price and licensing then winning),
but HTC needs to win and that is extremely difficult with these patents. Check
the Sun/Kodak history for an example.

------
weppes
Can someone explain to me why is this a top story on HN, and why should i
care?

This sounds exactly just like celebrity gossip, just substitute people with
big companies. I just can't grasp why is this interesting and why people are
upvoting this?

~~~
rbanffy
I care deeply about it because we have to live in a world where companies can
say they own your product because it looks like theirs. They will make broad
claims and see what sticks. If the company attacking you is big enough, that
usually means doom for you.

~~~
GHFigs
_companies can say they own your product because it looks like theirs_

What are you referring to specifically? Is there a specific one of the patents
in the Apple/HTC case that you feel is purely cosmetic, or are you referring
to something else?

~~~
rbanffy
The most basic one is the "one-click" Amazon patent. Most of Apple's patents
on forms of interaction with touchscreens or other touch-sensitive devices are
little more than reflections of physical interaction with objects.

~~~
bruceboughton
So simple anyone could have done it, right?

~~~
danudey
This is the key point. Many inventions are 'obvious in retrospect'. The Amazon
1-click patent is one of those annoying things where it seems obvious, but no
one had ever done it and it's a huge boon to businesses (it makes impulse
buying almost automatic).

For many of these patents, people will say it's obvious, but it's only obvious
now that we've seen it all. No one else had ever done it before, so what's
obvious about it?

~~~
rbanffy
Nobody could have done that much earlier because the pieces were not in place.
No web technology was invented before the web.

1-click appeared pretty much at the same time someone had the idea of storing
credit card information on a web server.

