

Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents - d0ne
http://www.dailytech.com/Judge+Finds+Apple+in+Violation+of+HTCs+Newly+Acquired+Patents/article22275.htm

======
dpcan
Let's just stop the import of all computers and phones over Patent rulings.
HTC and Apple should stick to their guns and deny imports of their products.

Once nobody can buy computers or phones in the U.S. anymore THEN, just MAYBE,
Congress will decide to fix this Patent mess.

~~~
Taft
Considering the increasingly vocal outcry of rampant patent abuse, it's also
possible that tech giants begin publicly stating their position towards US
patent law: it needn't exist (or one of the many alternatives that have been
proposed). If the market can metabolize that, patent law reform isn't far
away.

~~~
jxcole
I would agree except that a bunch of companies just bought some patents for
$4.5 billion. If patents become ineffective, the value of that purchase is $0.
Very few companies are going to look on this as a positive thing.

~~~
erydo
They already purchased those patents, though. It's kind of a sunk cost. They
wouldn't be losing $4.5 billion cash if patents became worthless, they'd be
losing ammunition for a type of fight that they wouldn't have to deal with
anymore.

That's like saying, "We can't stop fighting this war, then all our guns would
be worthless."

~~~
wheels
Bad analogy. The war isn't over patents, it's general competition. It's more
like the UN pushing you to sign a treaty pledging not to use nukes just after
you spent a pile acquiring them.

Now if patents were only used defensively (which they're obviously not in this
case, since Apple went on the attack) the analogy would then be banning
ballistic missiles right after acquiring a ballistic missile defense system,
which would be easier to swallow.

~~~
erydo
You're inferring something that wasn't intended. Your peace-treaty example was
exactly the type of situation my analogy was referring to.

Patents are being used aggressively because that's the nature of
competition—if anyone is going to use them that way, everyone has to. But it
could be in everyone's interest if that option were removed from the table,
regardless how much each had previously spent amassing an arsenal simply to
remain competitive.

------
bpd1069
Well isn't this a pickle, according to ars the two patents that the judge have
been found infridged have been ruled invalid...

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/07/itc-judge-says-
mac...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/07/itc-judge-says-macs-
infringe-s3-patents-but-it-may-not-help-htc.ars)

... [Litigating Apple] noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that
Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations
that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to
prior art. Apple can ask the ITC to review the infringement decision in light
of the USPTO's invalidation of those patent claims as ipso facto an invalid
patent claim cannot be infringed. ...

ars's source: [http://www.litigatingapple.com/blog/2011/7/24/why-htcs-
court...](http://www.litigatingapple.com/blog/2011/7/24/why-htcs-courtship-
of-s3-might-be-too-clever-by-half.html)

And the soap opera continues.

------
antihero
It's pretty undeniable that the whole patents thing is now one giant
clusterfuck.

The problem is, as technology advances, previously "genius" ideas become
trivial due to more people being able to solve problems.

There was a time in history when things such as spoons were considered an
amazing idea, but how utterly fucked would humanity's development have been if
stone-age people allowed themselves to be crippled by greed and a the blind
seeking of money.

~~~
alanfalcon
We'd all be eating porridge with a spork.

~~~
lutorm
The spork would undoubtedly have been found infringing and sued out of
existence. We'd be eating it with a fork.

~~~
pyre
Or a paddle/spatula. They might have been able to argue that it wasn't a spoon
because there were no raise edges.

~~~
AndyJPartridge
Or chopsticks.

Assuming someone hasn't patented a stick.

(Or come to think about it, the chewing process.)

~~~
akdetrick
Sticks may be fine, as long as you don't use it to play fetch with your dog
later:
[http://www.google.com/patents?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false)

------
Steko
The level of IP related discourse on HN is reminiscent of talking politics
with people who spend all their time listening to talk radio. I mean of course
Ronald Reagan singlehandedly killed communism and minorities caused the
housing crisis but did you know that the entire patent and copyright system
could be removed tomorrow and everything would be just hunky dory?

Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted.

The solution is not to abolish patents, the solution is to properly staff and
fund the USPTO and/or change the system so that rubber stamping applications
with approved is not incentivized.

You could fund it by taxing the patents themselves. Think your patent is worth
$10 million? Ok, you owe the USPTO $100K and the legal damages you can claim
from violation of that patent are capped at $10 million (this allows the
competition to effectively public domain patents by buying them out).

~~~
z0r
Taxing a patent directly in the way you suggest is a terrible idea. Then
smaller innovators who might benefit from patent protection are priced out by
larger players directly! The value of the patent becomes proportional to the
wealth of the patent holder, not the value of the innovation being protected.

~~~
dpatru
He's not saying that small inventors couldn't profit. Just that their profits
as a result of monopoly rights should be capped at a dollar amount. Patent
rights are already capped in time: 20 years from the time of filing. After
that, inventors no longer have the monopoly. The problem is that in high-tech
fields, 20 years is too long. We don't want individual inventors to hold back
progress for 20 years. Capping returns seems like a good solution. Inventors
are still compensated, but within reason.

~~~
chc
He isn't saying that, but it would be the result of his suggestion. It would
be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money, since the value of
your invention _to you_ (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your
cash on hand. The cost of getting a patent is already a hardship on non-
corporate inventors. They won't be able to afford a lot on top of that — the
ROI would just not be there. If Joe Inventor patents his technique for
creating geese that lay golden eggs but can only afford to pay $5000 on top of
the filing fees, then I can rip it off and end up having to pay him fractional
pennies out of every dollar I make off my infringement.

~~~
Steko
"It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money"

Much less so then the current system. Much of the uncertainty and potential
liability for small businesses would disappear. Unless your small business is
a patent troll but then that's a feature not a bug.

"the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is
bounded by your cash on hand."

This is both false (you are bounded by the cash on hand and the value of
things you can use as collateral for loans or equity) and no different then
the current case where you are bounded in the number of lawyer hours you can
afford.

If I find an enormous diamond that is worth $20 million dollars but it costs
more to have it properly appraised and marketed then I have cash on hand,
trust me I will raise that money and sell it near full market price. I may not
get 100% of the proceeds but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the
apprisal system is incredibly biased against people that find diamonds.

------
tghw
_This is actually a pretty favorable outcome for HTC, as the reported industry
average for invalidations during IP review is around 90 percent._

This is one of the biggest problems with the modern patent system.

~~~
GrooveStomp
I was just going to comment on this quote. Glad someone beat me to it.

I wonder if it's actually one of the biggest problems, though? What are the
average number of invalidations for other industries? Do other industries also
suffer from "The Lodsys Problem" to the same extent as software? I'd also like
to see a reference for that number!

My inclination is that, yes, software patents are terrible and should be
abolished. Also, regardless of how 90% compares to other industries - it's a
strong indicator that the way patents are granted in the first place is very
broken.

------
cwp
From the article:

    
    
      As NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) is a licensee, units with its GPUs are not in violation.   
      However, models with graphics by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) or integrated 
      graphics from Intel Corp.'s (INTC) (such as the newly refreshed MacBook Air 
      lineup) are in violation.
    

Whoa. So this actually goes way beyond Apple. It'll be interesting to see how
this plays out.

------
kenjackson
Given this is a HW and SW patent, and my superficial reading leads me to
believe that this may infringe on HW -- this isn't your typical SW patent
issue. It's HW too. Are people ready to say that HW patents, such as those
held by Intel and ARM, should also go bye-bye?

~~~
aboodman
It annoys me that the tech community always focuses on software patents, as if
hardware ones are automatically more legitimate.

The original purpose of the patent system was to improve consumers lives by:

a) Incentivizing innovations that would not otherwise be profitable.

b) Incentivizing disclosure of invention details that would otherwise be kept
secret.

These are a pretty rare combination of circumstances for most inventions,
whether software or hardware. a) is demonstrably rare since patents are
constantly infringed, yet Apple (for example) still somehow manages to get by.
b) does not apply to any technology that is distributed, since anyone can take
it apart and see how it works.

On the other side, patents of any type actively harm consumers:

a) Products from large companies are driven up in cost due to litigation.

b) Potential innovation from small companies is stifled by fear of litigation.

I'm sure there's some use for a patent system, but it is very small. The US
would be a far better place with no patent system than with the one we have
now.

~~~
kenjackson
I think I'd keep drug patents. Not sure if much else. Drugs take a long time
and a lot of money to create. But copying a drug is cheap is quick. But I'm
not sure if anything else meets the bar.

------
GHFigs
It's amusing that when there is a ruling in HTC's favor the headline is:
"Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents"...but when
there was a ruling in Apple's favor it was: "Apple's Plot to Kill Top Android
Maker HTC Nears Fruition With Win"

The latter being illustrated with a picture of Steve Jobs as the Emperor from
Star Wars. Classy.

~~~
Pewpewarrows
As others have noted, it's because Apple decided to get their hands dirty
first claiming intellectual property with ridiculously broad patents. In that
sense HTC is being perceived as defending itself to the bully on the
playground by throwing back punches.

~~~
Steko
First, HTC didn't even have these patents until recently.

Second, Android clearly went with a strategy of cloning the iPhone, of course
Apple struck first. Is Apple the bad guy for also wanting to close the fake
Apple stores in China?

The question isn't who struck first, the question is whether each parties
patents are valid or not and whether they are infringed or not. Defending poor
journalism doesn't get us closer to that.

~~~
Pewpewarrows
If you think that Android devices are just clones of the iPhone, and that it
gives Apple just cause to strike first, I'm not even going to bother writing a
real response.

~~~
Steko
Trust me, you didn't.

Android is not "just a clone" but it's clear that they decided to aggressively
clone the iphone's features. If you don't think that's obvious, you missed
what Android looked like 6 months before the iphone debut and 6 months after.

Now whether those features are protectable as IP or not is another matter but
if they are it's no surprise that Apple would want to enforce such
protections.

~~~
Pewpewarrows
Aggressively clone as in...? A top statusbar? A touchscreen? A virtual
keyboard? A grid layout of applications? Custom applications? Hate to break it
to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those, Android included most of
them before the iPhone announcement (from the little that we know of its
development at Google beginning in 2005), and the first Android phone (G1)
didn't resemble the iPhone more than any other smartphone on the market. Most
people that I knew were comparing it to the Sidekick when it first released.

~~~
Steko
"Aggressively clone as in...? "

As in completely overhauled the device from a blackberry knock off to an
iphone knock off:

[http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-
looked-l...](http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-
before-and-after-the-launch-of-iphone/)

"Hate to break it to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those"

I'm not making any claim that (1) iOS was first for any of those or that (2)
whatever claims Apple is making are protectable or not or (3) whether google
violates those claims or not.

What I'm saying is that: (a) some claims and protections have been granted,
(b) it's Apple's right to protect them until/unless these protections are
overturned/invalidated, and (c) I have no sympathy for people violating
legitimate claims. This whole sub-thread is about "striking first" makes Apple
a bully which is total bullshit. They're striking first because they're the
person getting copied, that's how the dynamic works.

"the first Android phone (G1) didn't resemble the iPhone more than any other
smartphone on the market. Most people that I knew were comparing it to the
Sidekick when it first released."

That's rich, every review of the G1 I can find compares it directly with the
iphone. Custom time limit a google search.

~~~
Pewpewarrows
Misleading image is misleading. This is what the first Android phone looked
like:
[http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2008/10/androi...](http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2008/10/android1a.jpg)

Plenty of handsets had full touch-screens before the iPhone came out. The only
difference being that the iPhone decided to ditch any hardware keyboard
option. Oh wait, what's that on the knockoff? A hardware keyboard option, and
almost every other button from the pre-release prototype as well.

Please. The arguments are childish now. Every manufacturer takes inspiration
from devices on the current market. Apple included. Only they decided to go
and start suing everyone left and right.

~~~
czhiddy
I'm curious why that image is "misleading." Is that not a photo of an early
pre-release Android prototype?

~~~
Pewpewarrows
The second image, not the first.

------
thoughtsimple
Just business as usual. Two giant corporations using the courts (or in this
case the ITC) to set the price of a cross-license patent agreement.

These sorts of cases aren't usually very interesting. They almost always get
settled with no disclosure of the final settlement.

------
lutorm
So if Apple is infringing because they used AMD hardware, aren't everyone who
owns a machine with AMD hardware also infringing?

While the whole patent system is tending toward absurdity, it's _really_
absurd that you can be sued for infringement by using a product that infringes
even if you have no idea or even a way of knowing that...

~~~
andrew1
It might be the reason that Apple are infringing on the patent is that they
are selling, not just using, a product which contains something which
infringes the patent.

~~~
cma
Using something with unlicensed patented technology exposes you to liability
as well. Otherwise you could just make shell companies to add the final
software piece to a product and cleanse the liability from all the other
players.

------
nkassis
HTC has some leverage but I have a feeling, after seeing OS 10.7, that Apple
cares less about the Mac then their iOS devices. Would they sacrifice the Macs
for the chance to block Android?

~~~
podperson
More importantly, the same problem applies to anything not using nVidia GPUs,
which is most low-end desktop PCs (Intel integrated GPUs) and a lot of high-
end desktop PCs (anything with AMD).

So now we can't have a PC with the best GPU and CPU because Intel and nVidia
are suing each other over IP, and we can't have a cheap PC because Intel is
infringing on S3 patents, and we can't even give up and get a top-of-the-line
AMD/ATI CPU.

Argh.

~~~
redthrowaway
Not to nitpick, but while Intel owns the high end CPU market, the current
ATI/AMD top end GPUs are much better than nVidia's offering. Unless, that is,
I missed a major nVidia release lately...

~~~
podperson
You're right, modulo whether your favorite GPGPU API is supported.

------
iamdave
Is it still a sign of a broken system even if it means the guy I wanted to
lose actually loses?

 _Shakes magic 8-ball_ Signs point to yes.

------
algoshift
I find this comment in the article to be very interesting:

"the reported industry average for invalidations during IP review is around 90
percent."

It would be very interesting to have a look at stats on patent invalidation
reviews. If there's solid data showing that the invalidation rate is around
90% this might be useful as evidence that the USPTO is not doing their job by
issuing patents that should never have been issued.

A number like 90% should embarrass anyone who might wish to argue that the
system is not broken.

------
temp765
Nothing in the article suggests HTC's patent is ridiculous like what was
portrayed recently in the TAL program about Intellectual Ventures.

There doesn't seem to be anything inherently absurd about patenting an image
compression system. I mean, imagine it was a small company that invented a new
compression system that was 20% better then all the competition. Would they
too be chastised if they tried to protect themselves from large corporations
that ignore intellectual property law?

Patent are supposed to incentivize innovation and give the patent holder an
edge against the competition as a sort of prize for his work. This "edge" was
sold to HTC, and now HTC has every right to protect it. Seems like Apple
should just either suck it up and pay a licensing fee, or change their
hardware/software to get around using this technology.

The problem with the patent system is the disgusting legal harassment done by
patent trolls - where smallish companies are sued over absurd patent and
because they don't have the financial means to legally defend themselves
they're pressured into settling; this case doesn't seem to exhibit any of
those problems.

~~~
mcosta
In the real world this small company would be counter sued with any random
patent eg pattern matching. With reason or not the costs skyrockets... Guess
who loses?

~~~
temp765
Yes, that would be the problem I described in my last paragraph, but that has
no bearing on the facts of this case. Just because they could be counter sued
(though I'm not completely convinced it's that east), doesn't mean the
original law suit has no merit. Large companies routinely ignore the
intellectual property rights of others (in part due to so many of them being
bogus), but that doesn't make it okay. HTC is completely within it's right to
demand compensation for technology they own, if their claim is legitimate.
There is nothing in this article that suggests their claim is absurd or
unjustified. Maybe the patent is on some amazing piece of compression
technology that took years to develop. People are just jumping to the
conclusion that it's yet another "toast" or "pop-up text" patent.

------
Hawramani
Wouldn't creating a patent alliance render the evils of this system
ineffective? Members of the alliance would work together to acquire patents,
and these patents will be used as patent lawsuit deterrents. Any non-member
company who sues a member of the alliance will have to face a dozen lawsuits
from other alliance members. (Alliance members should sign a legal agreement
not to sue other members on patent-based issues.)

Of course for this to be effective a huge number of patents is needed, but
there are probably a lot of big companies willing to give big bucks to avoid
the patent menace, and they can raise enough money to acquire a huge number of
patents. Plus each company will come with its own patents.

I guess others have already thought of this and found it impractical, which
makes me wonder why it is so.

~~~
streptomycin
That sounds kind of like the [Open Invention
Network](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network>).

~~~
nkassis
or the mpegla? not sure we want more of those.

------
buddylw
Maybe we can get to the "mutually assured destruction" phase of patents where
everyone has so many ridiculous patents that any lawsuit is sure to ruin
everyone?

Of course, that doesn't stop patent trolls (terrorist rent seekers) with no
skin in the game, but at least this drama would end.

~~~
politician
There's an idea, start calling patent trolls "patent terrorism" to leverage
the current climate of fear for our own purposes.

~~~
buddylw
I think the Patriot Act could actually help us here.

------
nextparadigms
Maybe even Apple will realize that the current patent system isn't really
doing them any favors, either, overall.

When even companies that stand to benefit from the current patent system start
complaining about the patent system, _that's_ when we'll see some radical
change.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Maybe even Apple will realize that the current patent system isn't really
> doing them any favors, either, overall.

I suspect all the big manufacturers realize that. They just don't have an
option - _someone_ is going to sue, so everyone feels they have to.

~~~
nextparadigms
Then I assume all the big companies have no problem supporting Google to push
for an overhaul (or dare I say the abolishing?) of the patent system.

~~~
ceejayoz
Good luck. There's more than just the US patent system at play here.

------
erikb
One of the few articles who recognises these patent law suits as what they
are: means of gaining leverage and cutting into the winnings of other
companies in the same market. Also a lot of references to further reading.
Great article!

------
ConstantineXVI
Curious, it happens that Apple just recently phased out their last Macs that
still used nVidia chips (and thus their only non-infringing models). Anyone
know the reasoning for the switch?

~~~
sjs
Long story short it was to reduce the number of chips and thus cost, area, and
heat (which leads to noise). There are good articles on this on AnandTech or
Ars Technica but I can't find them.

------
deepGem
Well Appe will just use Nvidia chips in the new set of mac airs. I think the
author overstates the damage by saying the ruling will impact the entire mac
line up.

------
ashishgandhi
ITC judge says Macs infringe on S3 patents, but it may not help HTC.

"Litigating Apple noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple
infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the
relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior
art."

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2815852>

------
CaveTech
Sadly it looks like there's an arms race brewing. Hopefully some sanity is
restored before these companies start destroying each other.

------
Zachhack
Awaiting the day when 'Patent Law 101' becomes a pre-req for Computer Science
degree..

~~~
younata
already there at my uni.

------
barrkel
Paradoxically, the ideal result seems to be only the lawyers coming out ahead.

------
emehrkay
Could Apple do anything about this? It seems to be an AMD and Intel problem

~~~
jrockway
Of course. They can license all their patents to HTC in exchange for a license
to all of HTC's patents.

Everyone wins except the new upstart company without eight billion dollars
worth of bullshit patents. We don't need any new computer companies, though,
there are enough already. The system works!

~~~
iqster
You're not taking patent trolls into account.

------
TeMPOraL
I expected to see Economic Wars soon[1], but so far it seems we're getting
Patent War. Anyway, is getting interesting.

[1] - yes, I've just read "Black Oceans" by Dukaj ;).

------
emilis_info
Somehow this old tale from 1992 springs to mind:
[http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/humour/Computer_Au...](http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/humour/Computer_Audience/A%20Legend%20For%20Our%20Time.html)

------
billmcneale
Mutually Assured Destruction.

------
netmau5
We live in a capitalistic society. I'd like to think that means IF !STOLEN
THEN PAID and its contrapositive IF !PAID THEN STOLEN. Patents say IF USED
THEN STOLEN. Companies tend to license these patents into their capitalistic
form for many reasons, but the fact that they have a decision in the matter
allows for monopolistic behavior.

I believe all patents should come with a required provision that lists a fair
market value for licensing it which anyone can use, thus IF !STOLEN THEN PAID.
In turn, this forces the USPTO to actually quantify (to some degree of error)
the "useful" requirement of a patent and, by small extension, if it is
"statutory" (product or productizable) and "nonobvious" (existing
competition?). I think it also forces the requestor to give some detail on the
intention of the patent rather than making an arbitrary claim to an underlying
concept.

It's all about the money; they need to stop pretending and judge it that way.
As it reads now, the current patent system was a premature optimization which
planned for a society out of Star Trek instead of, well, lets not go there
today.

