
Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement - alexandros
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/apple-sues-htc-for-patent-infringement-85950187.html
======
pg
If this had happened a day earlier I don't think I would have posted that RFS.
Apple is inching ever closer to evil, and I worry that there's no one within
the company who can stand up to Jobs and tell him so.

~~~
CoryMathews
Apple has been evil since the first ipod when you had to use itunes to load
music. They have locked people in with no cheap way out. Pure evil IMO.

~~~
raganwald
Aiding and abetting totalitarian regimes by censoring search results and
turning over email correspondence is evil. Making shiny toys that don't do
exactly what you want is not evil. Let's stop using "evil" as a synonym for
"reprehensible."

~~~
pg
Historically the word "evil" has had a pretty broad meaning. Among tech
companies the word has a new and fairly specific sense that follows from Paul
Buchheit's slogan "Don't be evil." That's the sense I was using. It has a
pretty low bar. It means, roughly, winning by taking advantage of people
instead of by doing good work.

~~~
glhaynes
Maybe Apple succeeds most when they take advantage of people _and_ do good
work. :)

~~~
stcredzero
Which makes them better loved than Microsoft, which for long stretches got
away with taking advantage of people and doing mostly mediocre work.

------
cnlwsu
Steve Jobs, visited PARC in 1979 and was impressed and influenced by the Xerox
Alto, the first computer ever with a graphical user interface. Jobs designed
the new Apple Lisa based on the technology he saw at Xerox.

~~~
tewks
They, Xerox management, gave him a license to do so. People at PARC weren't so
enthusiastic, I think.

~~~
stcredzero
The Xerox management thought all of those things were just toys and that
computers would never be anything but what they were at that moment.

Reminds me of a lot of people who look at the iPad and say "meh."

~~~
axod
Come on now. Please explain to me what is revolutionary about the iPad. It
_is_ 'meh'. It's just a big iPod touch. It's like a netbook or laptop but less
useful. There's nothing revolutionary about it at all. It's a slightly slicker
version of all the tablet PCs that have failed to capture significant market
share for the last 10-20 years.

It'd be easy to say "sure but you're a geek, you just don't see how easy to
use and useful the iPad is for normal people". But I don't think it is. The
form factor is just bad. Watch the video on the Apple store, and you'll see
actor after actor carefully pretending that it's comfortable to sit/stand/hold
this device without getting an aching hand/sore neck etc.

Yes, there are applications, just like there have been for previous tablet
PCs, but they're niche.

Is it really that much more than the Apple Newton was 20 odd years ago? Did
the Apple Newton seem revolutionary at the time? If so, why did it fail?

I'd love to hear a concrete reason why the iPad is 'revolutionary'. Like a
genuine reason, not just people pointing to the lone person on slashdot who
called the iPod 'meh'. That doesn't count.

So, please explain to me clearly, why having a laptop without a
keyboard/trackpad is revolutionary.

~~~
bphogan
The only thing I can say in response to this is that I see that my dad uses
his iPhone to surf the web much more than he uses his computer, and he's
interested in a bigger screen to do so. He's in his 60s, and he's actually not
buying another desktop computer (his is 11 years old) because his iPhone does
what he needs, and more, plus he's tired of viruses and spyware. (Yes, we know
it's not a target yet, but a closed system does help prevent a lot of that.)

I see it as a step towards hurting Dell, who makes a portion of their money
selling laptops and desktops to people who really don't need them, like my
parents, grandparents, other non-technical people. It's also a step towards
hurting the "PC repair" industry that charges these poor folks $150 to install
and run freeware antivirus tools and "double your memory".

I think the lack of Flash support is going to hurt it the most, as the target
market I'm describing are people who tend to use Flash a lot (think Facebook
games and other online games.)

The iPad is aimed at that market of people - the people who use the Internet
as another vehicle for entertainment. I've seen what the iPhone has done for
average people, and I think this is Apple taking that a step further.

I guess I wouldn't say it's "revolutionary" but then again, I said that about
the iPhone. ("it's just another phone, who cares?") And remember, it was
pretty 'meh' before the app store.

I could be wrong, but I think it has the potential to be pretty neat for the
average person. We need a revolution in that space.

~~~
axod
Why wouldn't a netbook+ChromeOS win?

I disagree @ iPhone. That _was_ revolutionary. It was the first pocket
webbrowser that actually worked well and rendered websites properly.

>> "And remember, it was pretty 'meh' before the app store."

Again, difference of opinion. I couldn't care less about the app store. Why
would I download software approved by Apple, when I can just use the browser
for most things?

~~~
bphogan
You're stating it's not useful to _you_. You're not the target market for the
iPad. I personally don't have much of an interest in the iPad, but I'm not
willing to go out and say that nobody else will.

You could care less. But you know better than to download malware. Most people
don't, and I'm sure you know that if you've ever had to fix someone's computer
over the holidays.

As for netbooks? Triad them. Screen's too small for the elderly. Apple lets
you zoom up things you can't see. I have horrible vision, and I have an ipod
touch and a netbook. Guess which one I surf on? It ain't the netbook.

I really think they're targeting people who don't _want_ a computer who want
the Internet for entertainment, and nothing more. It's a good sized market.
Time will tell if I'm wrong.

~~~
axod
FWIW, I may buy an iPad to play with. But here's the crutial point - I can't
see it being useful to my kids, or my mum, who are most certainly in the
market you describe.

My mum has a macbook, which serves her fine. My kids have Netbooks with Ubuntu
netbook remix which also is great for browsing the web.

I just don't see how the form factor makes sense. I can just see the write-ups
now - highly irritating to use for long periods, aching hand/neck, too easy to
drop, etc etc

~~~
bphogan
Yeah but that's _your_ family. In my house, Kid #1 slings a macbook and a
netbook with no problem. Kid #2 is 2. She loves looking at pictures on the
iPod. Kid #2 will be hacking soon enough. But that's the environment I
created, and I guess it's just like yours.

Kid #1's friends have computers, but they don't use them like we use them.
They use email and Facebook. (Yes, I know, I already covered Flash games
previously, so we'll need to see on that one.)

They don't know or care how their computer works, they use Internet Explorer
cos it's there, and they don't download software because they've had to pay so
much to have it removed by GeekSquad.

This is a smart move by Apple. It'd be smarter if they'd just make Flash work,
put a couple of USB ports on the thing, and let it be a master for an ipod.

The fact that you need a win or mac box with iTunes to get music on this thing
could very well be the one thing that keeps it out of the reach of the
_everyman_. In that case, you and I are in total agreement.

~~~
axod
Yeah I would be in total agreement if they'd come out with a macbook mini,
slimmed down small macbook. It's just the form factor that I think is a big
mistake. I think we agree on the software side.

------
rauljara
I love that apple drives innovation in hardware and interface design. I hate
that the patent system we have now actively hinders the adoption of apple's
innovations.

Apple complains that competitors are stealing apple's technology, as though
apple's success relies entirely on technology x or y. Not true. Apple's
success is based on its polish and attention to detail, something which
competitors have an incredibly hard time copying. I for one, love when
competitors copy apple, because it forces apple to up its game.

~~~
raganwald
_Apple's success is based on its polish and attention to detail_

If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make
clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail?

You want to have your cake and eat it too: You want Apple to innovate and you
want everyone else to leverage their innovation freely. I understand why
that's in your best interests, I can't figure out why Apple would bother if
everyone else could "adopt" their innovation wholesale.

Where do you want to draw the line? Can others adopt Apple's multi-touch
gestures? How about the look and feel of OS X? What about the code, can
CherryPC or whatever they were called make PCs that run OS X by writing
drivers for it? How about duplicating the OS X copde, can Chinese clone makers
simply copy the OS X code and replace Apple's logos with their own?

~~~
razzmataz
>If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make
clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail?

Because OS X and the iPhone are part of that polish and attention to detail.

~~~
raganwald
It was a rhetorical question!

But responding to your explanation, if competitors are free to "adopt" Apple's
innovations, why can't competitor's "adopt" OS X and iPhone by copying them
feature for feature, polish for polish, detail for detail, simply changing
logos and writing "Hello from Dreary Seattle" on the back?

It is not obvious to me how "polish and attention to detail" are going to be a
competitive advantage in a world where competitors have the unrestricted right
to adopt Apple's innovations.

I suggest that part of why Apple is able to differentiate with polish and
attention to detail is our existing barriers to adopting other people's
innovations.

~~~
wvenable
> Why can't competitor's "adopt" OS X and iPhone by copying them feature for
> feature, polish for polish, detail for detail

They can't copy the code for OS X because it's covered by copyright. They also
can't make it look _exactly_ the same because of trademark. What does that
leave? A competitor could then still completely implement their own operating
system, User Interface, related hardware, and put the effort into polish and
attention to detail. And somehow that's a problem that requires legal recourse
to prevent?

~~~
smcq
Were you alive in the 90s? I'm just wondering out loud.

------
frederickcook
Mobile devices is an incredibly patent-heavy landscape, where manufacturers
are used to licensing technology from one-another and have been for years.

Obviously Apple and HTC have been in discussions (lawsuits are incredibly
expensive and always a last resort) and the fact that Apple went ahead and
filed indicates that these discussions failed. This means either HTC was
offering less than 'market' in licensing fees, or Apple was asking for more.
Which do you think is more likely?

~~~
rbanffy
It could be a "you infringe on as many of our patents as we do infringe on
yours" thing too.

I expect a counter-suit.

------
Roridge
If I were paranoid I might think that this was a bit of an attack on Google
rather than HTC.

~~~
blasdel
I think it's far more calculated than that: Google's shipping Android builds
avoid a lot of basic UI features that Apple did first. HTC then adds most of
them through their "TouchSense" modifications, just like they did with WM6
before.

They're trying to keep Google in its place, and prevent HTC from extending it.
They're happy with Android being out there for the dorkwads and ideologues (it
lets them shed their 'worst customers') but they don't want the public to see
a sea of direct clones of their style of multitouch.

~~~
tensor
I enjoy reading hacker news comments because they tend to be mature and
express interesting ideas well. I hope your future comments do not resort to
childish name calling as you do in this one.

As for your point, that you feel patents like the multi-touch patent are
justified, I would point out that many people disagree with trivial patents
such as this, or even software patents in general. It is developers and IT
people that are upset with Apples highly controlled development environment.
Alienating this group of people may eventually backfire.

~~~
blasdel
C'mon now, as a dorkwad and an ideologue myself, I feel free to refer to my
brethren here by those 'childish' names.

I don't feel that the patents are justified -- I'm merely explaining how and
why I think Apple is using them.

------
brucejacob
Swiping to unlock and other similar patented items are all "obvious" design
decisions. All great design is obvious because great design produces things
that are appropriate. Moreover, because great design is so obvious, it must be
easy to design great things; the world must be full of great designs.

Right?

Um, no. The truth is that great design is NOT easy, and it stands out so
prominently because the world is NOT full of great designs. Things like
swiping to unlock are "obvious" only in retrospect. All great design is
obvious -- in retrospect -- because great design produces things that are
appropriate. But it is hard to do (PG has several essays on precisely this
topic). Moreover, because it is hard to do, great designers are rewarded with
some degree of protection for making the details of their innovations public
(thus the legal terminology that patents "teach" a particular topic). I don't
see why we should expect great designers to give up control of their ideas,
willingly or otherwise, simply because those ideas are particularly good. Much
of the logic in these comments amounts to "the iPhone had such a marvelously
simple UI that everyone copied it, and because it became pervasive (by virtue
of the copying), it must remain pervasive via Apple giving up the right to
protect their IP."

I just don't buy that.

Also, people are asking "why now? why not earlier?" According to Gizmodo &
other news sites, the brief is some 700 pages long. I'm sure Apple started
working on this the day the Nexus One details started surfacing and it became
clear it was effectively an iPhone clone. They can't sue Google (remember that
Schmidt sat in Apple's huddles for years, listening to the plays, learning the
playbook by heart, soaking up all insider info he could) because Google is
intentionally disabling contested technology in Android -- they evidently know
quite well what patent infringement means. Google is instead relying upon
their handset manufacturers to enable the contested technology and thus take
the bullet for them. I wonder why nobody is criticizing Google for using HTC
as a "human" shield?

------
kls
I think they should put a cap on the size of a company that can hold and
enforce patents. Apple et. al. do not need the protections afforded by
patents. I know that in reality this would just create a lot of proxy
companies but there has got to be a better way; getting rid of the patent
system is not the solution as it does provide the little guy protection, from
the big guys just stealing, his idea and drowning him out with cheaper copies.

But given the two choices, I am cheering for the patent trolls to just screw
the whole think up to the point that the big guys clamor for it to go away.

------
jsmcgd
Which particular patents are in question?

~~~
raptrex
Digital Daily has the documents
[http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples-suits-
aga...](http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples-suits-against-htc-
both-documents/)

Gizmodo has a summary of the patents: The ‘331 Patent, entitled "Time-Based,
Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States," was duly
and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office.

The ‘949 Patent, entitled "Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User
Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics," was duly and
legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. A copy of the ‘949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

The ‘849 Patent, entitled "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An
Unlock Image," was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘849 Patent is attached
hereto as Exhibit C.

The ‘381 Patent, entitled "List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling,
And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display," was duly and legally issued on
December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of
the ‘381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

The ‘726 Patent, entitled "System And Method For Managing Power Conditions
Within A Digital Camera Device," was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999
by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘726 Patent is
attached hereto as Exhibit E.

The ‘076 Patent, entitled "Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity
In Portable Devices," was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘076 Patent is
attached hereto as Exhibit F.

The ‘105 Patent, entitled "GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications
Capacity And Quality," was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘105 Patent is
attached hereto as Exhibit G.

The ‘453 Patent, entitled "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An
Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor," was duly and legally issued on
June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the
‘453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

The ‘599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and
legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. A copy of the ‘599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

The ‘354 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Event Notification System With
Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods," was duly and legally
issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
copy of the ‘354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

[http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-
on-...](http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-on-20-iphone-
patents-the-complete-documents?skyline=true&s=i)

~~~
jlgosse
Don't the last two patents basically give them the right to sue ANYONE who has
ever made some sort of GUI application, including vendors in their own app
store and people who write apps for OSX? Aren't these basically design
patterns?

~~~
technomancy
> Don't the last two patents basically give them the right to sue ANYONE who
> has ever made some sort of GUI application, including vendors in their own
> app store and people who write apps for OSX? Aren't these basically design
> patterns?

Welcome to the world of software patents. Many of the other ones are probably
also very basic and widespread, they're just not worded in such a way as to
make it so obvious.

~~~
mbreese
Read the claims, not the titles. The title of a patent means nothing, from a
legal sense. So while a title can be broad, the claims must be very specific.

~~~
milod
The claims merely need to be specific enough to not conflict with other
patents (excluding the so called "obvious" and vague notion of "been there,
done that"). Design patterns in the general sense are patentable,
unfortunately.

------
mcav
Steve Jobs:

> _"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we
> can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think
> competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original
> technology, not steal ours."_

~~~
martythemaniak
Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo:

> _"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we
> can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think
> competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original
> technology, not steal ours."_

~~~
mbreese
I assume you're talking about Nokia (since as an American, I can't be bothered
to remember their CEO's name).

The Nokia situation is a little more murky than this. With Nokia, Apple tried
to license their patents (which I believe are crucial to GSM), but Nokia
wanted a broad cross-licensing agreement, to basically use all of the Apple
display / mobile device / multitouch patents (what HTC is accused of doing).
Patents involved in communication standards are supposed to be licensed on
reasonable terms, so Apple cried foul. The predictable lawsuit and counter-
suit then commenced.

I don't think anyone in this case is saying that HTC bothered to ask Apple to
license the patents in question.

------
dpifke
I love John Gruber's response to this:

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/stand-by-this>

------
nailer
HTC should countersue (if Apple are actually trying to sue HTC over HTC's
technology and not Google's).

HTC pushed pure touch-based phones for years before Apple released the iPhone
in 2007 and should have a reasonable patent portfolio they can use against
trolls like this.

~~~
bitwize
Apple released the iPhone in 2007. They didn't even release the i _Mac_ until
1998.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Same story for those who prefer it on TechCrunch:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161526>

ADDED IN EDIT:

tl;dr - I think cross referencing is a Good Thing(tm).

Clearly some people here think that this comment detracted from the value of
HN. I can accept that, and I don't mind the loss of karma. Let me just explain
that as a programmer I abhor unnecessary duplication. Equally, though, as an
infophile I like to get different angles on each story, to try to see if
there's any extras. So when I see the same story from different sources I like
to read them all, but equally, I prefer that discussion and comments end up in
one place.

So I try to add value to HN in part by making sure these things get cross-
referenced. Mostly I think people find it harmless. Some people actively
dislike it and vote me down, others actively like it and vote me up. Yet
others find it both irritating and useful in equal measure, so no doubt they
are confused and conflicted. That's their problem.

But I'm slowly stopping doing this anyway. I get the occasional comment saying
it's really appreciated, but in general I'm reducing the time I spend here
anyway.

And that's the rationale behind the comment.

ADDED FURTHER IN EDIT: Or perhaps you saw that I'd got the reference wrong and
just down-voted me instead of bothering to tell me. Now I'm really
disappointed in the HN crowd. I've fixed the reference.

~~~
nailer
I appreciate the need to get different angles, TechCrunch however isn't a
credible source of information (they throw great parties though).

I'd love to see a Mashable or CodeSketch or whatever perspective though.
Someone else contributed John Gruber's post on the topic and was modded up
accordingly.

------
nopinsight
Why can't Apple continue to out-innovate Nexus One and Android instead of
suing them?

Reading from the overall situation and his quote, Steve Jobs might feel that
the current iPhone UI is 'perfect' as a whole. Apart from nitty-gritty
details, he does not see a way to drastically improve it. (That's why he chose
it for the iPad UI as well.) So he might figure that the only way to stop
competitors from getting too close is to sue them.

------
freetard
I guess that makes Steve Jobs a hypocrite
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU>

------
tsally
My next computer wont be a Macbook. :-/ Which makes me really angry because I
love my current Macbook. And there goes the thought of buying an iPhone as
well.

Unfortunately at this point I feel that I'm obligated not to buy Apple
products. Walk with your feet, as the saying goes. Believing in patent reform
can be damn inconvenient sometimes.

~~~
ronaldj
I'm in the same boat. I think Apple should consider adopting that bullshit
"Don't be evil" mantra.

~~~
nailer
Apple make good laptop hardware though. Here's a better idea: keep your
existing Mac, but buy an HTC Desire as your next phone.

You get a lot of features the iPhone doesn't have (pictures for your contacts,
social network integration, streaming, no sync requirement, a faster CPU) and
stick it to Apple at the same time.

------
zppx
I'm really hating how tech discussions relating to Apple are turning in the
Apple fanboys versus detractors of Apple.

------
acg
It seems to part of a longer game, I think certain companies are not wanting
"Google Voice" to revolutionise phone calls. There is a lot of companies
making a lot of money for not a lot of bandwidth.

------
kerringtonx
I was wondering how long it would take Apple to start doing this. A good
amount of phones have similar tech to their baby.

------
mcav
Could suing for patents ever be considered a violation of monopoly law? (I
know Apple isn't a monopoly.)

~~~
protomyth
By definition, patents give you a monopoly.

------
funkdobiest
Good artists borrow, Great Artists steal - Pablo Picasso, I think Jobs also
quoted that phrase as well

~~~
glhaynes
Yeah, he totally stole that line from him.

------
orblivion
I don't know why, but this just makes me laugh.

------
yanw
Way to stifle innovation, Apple. incumbents and lawyers getting what they
want, fantastic system ...

~~~
alabut
Innovation and theft are two different things. Forget the hardware and
architecture patents - I'm sick of design being treated as a commodity that's
assumed to be freely copyable, simply because it's a user interface rather
than a hardware element. Just as many hours and insights went into making the
iPhone UI as it did the physical device.

~~~
tkahn6
_Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image_

Maybe hindsight is just 20/20, but "slide to unlock" seems to be something
pretty obvious.

~~~
evgen
It becomes obvious once you make the leap to "there is no keyboard, the
touchscreen is the entirety of the interface", but prior to the iPhone no one
had dared to try that particular path of development. It was probably not
possible to patent the concept of only using a touchscreen for your UI, so
instead Apple patented a lot of the little details that are a consequence of
its innovative leap.

~~~
rbanffy
One shouldn't be able to patent something that's a direct consequence of
having a specific limitation, This slide to unlock idea is something a
reasonably clever designer would figure out in about 5 minutes.

And, BTW, is a common feature in many physical devices that employ a lock over
a button. It reminds me of the locks I had in my car by the late 80's and the
power button I had on a Compaq server in the early 90's.

~~~
nailer
Actually a patent already has to be 'not obvious to an engineer sufficiently
skilled in the art' if I remember correctly, although that's almost never
applied.

