

Bad News For Android: ITC Rules HTC Violated Two Apple Patents - abraham
http://allthingsd.com/20110715/itc-rules-htc-violated-two-apple-patents/

======
mycroftiv
>“They are very likely to be infringed by code that is at the core of
Android,” says IP expert Florian Mueller.

Now that's what I call a credible, expert source with no history of distorting
the issues. Always good to see the balance and perspective that the business
media gives to intellectual property issues in software.

~~~
diogenescynic
Agreed and similarly I've seen Nathan Myhrvold, of Intellectual Ventures, on
quite a few Sunday morning talk shows with supposed hardball journalists and
not a peep about his patent trolling is mentioned.

~~~
tzs
Why was he on Sunday morning talk shows? What were they talking about?

~~~
diogenescynic
Fareed Zakaria had him on for some "Innovation" sermon. He's been included on
a few discussions about climate change as well and he's usually labeled at ex-
CTO of MSFT, without mention of Intellectual Ventures. I just find it
dishonest.

------
anigbrowl
I'm astonished at how broad the patents in question seem to be:
[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)
and
[http://www.google.com/patents?id=nCYJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=f...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=nCYJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=6,343,263&hl=en&ei=3rUgTojDCtHXiAKxsaTOAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA)

The first one especially seems like it could describe any computer system at
all. I guess I am just not smart enough to be a patent lawyer, and I say that
with a straight, straight face.

~~~
Steko
The key point of the first one is the popup list with the choices based on the
string parsing. I'd guess there would be prior art but it also seems like
Android could work around that pretty easily.

~~~
sukuriant
So, the pairing of Natural Language Processing with generating a popup?

------
pacaro
"Litigation that attacks open-source products limits consumer choice, hurts
the economy, and discourages innovation."

I find this interesting, in a world where software patents exist this seems
tantamount to saying "software patents ought not to apply to open-source
products", does Google really mean this to be read as "[Patent] litigation ...
limits consumer choice, hurts the economy, and discourages innovation", if so,
given that they are in a better position to influence legislators than I am,
what pro-active steps are they taking to change the status of software
patents? Or do they really mean "we don't like it when Apple uses patents
against us"?

~~~
Steko
Breaking: company that copied other company's invention in favor of less
stringent copying rules.

~~~
blocke
Do people really want someone with Google's revenue stream and internal R&D
getting into the aggressive patent game?

~~~
Steko
I don't "want" anything, Google should choose and do what they want. I'm just
observing that Google is a company with few patents and are in competition in
multiple areas with companies with more patents that they very possibly
infringe on. It is therefore no surprise that their view on patent law is
incredibly in line with this position.

I believe there's a trend in tech circles to conflate "patents badly need some
reforms" with much stronger views along the lines of "patents are pure evil".
This is just rubbish. The alternative to patents is massive secrecy on a
ridiculous scale.

~~~
blocke
" I'm just observing that Google is a company with few patents and are in
competition in multiple areas with companies with more patents that they very
possibly infringe on. It is therefore no surprise that their view on patent
law is incredibly in line with this position."

It's a given that you can't enter a field without infringing on patents.
Therefore the choice is to either not to grow or to infringe on others
patents. Every company has to make that choice not just Google. In the current
system the best thing Google could do to defend itself would be aggressively
patent everything to use as a weapon. For some reason they have chosen not to
do that and that hamstrings them.

That gets dangerously close to "patents are pure evil". When a company that
chooses not to abuse a government provided weapon is at a major disadvantage
and other companies can use the government to damage it.

------
blinkingled
I wonder if the headline was so trollish when Apple violated Nokia's patents
and settled by paying.

It's actually quite funny to see "media" (blogs included) role in the Mobile
Tech reporting - they either troll bait for clicks on both sides or are just
supporting their "team" by offense or defense at every opportunity ;)

Speaking of which there was this on Slashdot -
[http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/15/1331243/The-
Scien...](http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/15/1331243/The-Science-
Behind-Fanboyism)

~~~
Steko
Honestly what's wrong with the headline, is this not 'bad news for Android'?

As for how the media works, I think you'll find that selling news with catchy
headlines has a long history and is hardly exclusive to the Mobile Tech
industry.

~~~
blinkingled
a) Appeal is pending - the news is not yet final.

b) Patent cross licensing deals aren't that uncommon - Apple is paying Nokia
royalties for e.g. without anyone saying it was "bad news" for Apple

c) HTC != Android - I understand the patents are about Android but remember -
HTC is also flush with cash, they are appealing and they just bought S3 and
Apple violates their patents. Other Android vendors may have enough patent
chest of their own to not lose much in the fight.

As far as the media goes - so far those type of media outlets were seeking
sensationalism for its own sake or just for making money's sake - taking one
"side" and seeking sensationalism in everything that goes for it - that's new
as far as I know in tech industry.

~~~
Steko
a) If you're found guilty of murder that's still bad news regardless if you
plan to appeal. Analogy not precise here, it's a preliminary finding not a
final verdict, overall logic is the same - one side of a case can have all
sorts of bad news.

b) Plenty of people said that was bad for Apple, I'm sure Steve Jobs would
prefer not to part with those billions of dollars. {There's a minor difference
in that it wasn't "bad news" because it was a negotiated settlement, not a
revealed finding and thus not "news" to Apple}. At any rate it was widely
reported as a victory for Nokia and a loss for Apple.

c) That is disingenuous. HTC (also mentioned in the headline) is not a
household name and it is a huge part of Android. This isn't just bad news for
HTC, it's arguably worse news for Android because the patents are reportedly
fundamental to the OS. If HTC (et al) can't import Android phones or the fees
make the cost of it too high they're just going to switch to WP 7.

Media: the media isn't taking sides here, the ITC did and the media is
reporting that. What's your perfect headline?

~~~
blinkingled
How does any of that make sense to you - I am too tired atm to restate the
obvious but -

a) Hyperbole - murder cases and patent cases don't compare. Convicted of
murder doesn't have any negotiation left - plenty of negotiation is possible
in this case as I pointed out - HTC can use S3 patents to offset or even make
up for what they might end up paying Apple if they lose the appeal.

b) Patents are sad reality for everyone and anyone who wants to make and sell
significant mobile product - Apple, Nokia, Microsoft, Google, HTC - all are at
risk which they manage by paying up or making cross patent licensing deals. If
it's bad news it is bad for everyone - not just Android. And HTC doesn't seem
to be in a particularly bad position here - they got the ITC to invalidate
some of Apple's claim and they have a favorable ruling in S3 case which they
can use against Apple.

c) See b) - You don't seem to fully grasp the patent scene - whatever it is -
bad/worst/ugly - it is the same for everyone. Or are you saying Apple is
somehow immune to all this?

~~~
Steko
a) Exchange 'murder' with 'jaywalking' if you like, either way your argument
that there can be no bad news because they can appeal is just silly. It
doesn't even have to be the verdict -- not getting the juror you wanted, not
getting that evidence/testimony/witness in, not getting a continuance, these
are all bad news decisions. The fact that you can appeal any of them doesn't
change them being bad news.

b) that is your opinion about the overall patent industry but today's specific
news is not about general patent industry. It's about this finding by the ITC.
It is most certainly good news for Apple and bad news for HTC and Android. Do
you think HTC was happy when they heard this? I think they were disappointed
to hear this. That is bad news by definition.

c) I think your view is clouded by your Patent Derangement Syndrome. No Apple
is not immune to anything, they could benefit or pay horribly like anyone
else. When they infringe on people's (valid) patents I believe Apple should
pay the appropriate penalty. Conversely when other companies infringe on
Apple's (valid) patents I believe they should pay the appropriate penalty.
Thirdly patents that should not have been issued (i.e. many of them) should be
deemed invalid. What happened today was a preliminary finding that Android
maker HTC infringes on several of Apple's patents. There could be worse news
but this is unquestionably bad news for HTC and Android.

~~~
blinkingled
Let's say court ruled Person X stole ThingA from Person Y.

Let's also say court ruled that Person Y also stole from Person X, they stole
ThingB -> You are stopping here - uh oh bad news for Person Y.

We don't know what ThingA values vs. ThingB - You are still saying it's net
bad news for Person Y without seeing the full picture - it might not be bad
for anyone if it all cancels out for the most part.

So yes patent infringement is bad for the party doing it - only if the party
claiming the infringement does not also infringe on their patents. In this
case Apple infringes S3 patents.

~~~
Steko
You're trying to take last month's news and net it out with todays news. This
is absurd.

Let's take is as a given that Person Y stole something from Person X and was
found guilty of that last month.

Now there's a question about whether Person X also stole something from Person
Y.

If the judge today rules for Person X that is bad news for X. If the judge
rules for Person Y that is bad news for Y. It's that simple.

If the Cavs beat the Mavricks in game 1, losing Game 2 is bad news for them
because they would have been up 2-0 instead of tied 1-1.

------
gary4gar
this ruling isn’t final, and Apple’s victory isn’t terribly meaningful in the
long term.

Source: [http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/15/preliminary-ruling-
finds-...](http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/15/preliminary-ruling-finds-htc-
infringes-apple-patents/)

PS: that's a real lawyer reporting, so I guess he know what he talking about.
Rather than some random reportor

------
EtienneJohnred
You gotta love how this is one of the most active posts here right now, but it
somehow has been relegated to the third page. Fuck Google fanbois and fuck
this bullshit that constantly goes on at Hacker News.

------
Hisoka
> “We are confident the Commission will ultimately agree with the ITC staff’s
> finding that HTC does not violate any of Apple’s patents. Litigation that
> attacks open-source products limits consumer choice, hurts the economy, and
> discourages innovation.”

Just like you were confident you'd win those Nortel patents with those cute
bids?

