

Apple Sues Nexus One Maker HTC - budu3
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/technology/03patent.html?ref=technology

======
invisible
The problem is Apple didn't really INVENT[1][2][3] the concept and technology
for multi-touch. They just implemented the first realized product (in a
phone). So what if they filed a patent for that product? It doesn't mean it
wasn't an obvious technological concept.

1) <http://www.macworld.com/article/49738/2006/03/interface.html>

2)
[http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html)

2) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface>

------
michaelkeenan
Paul Graham wrote an essay on software patents in 2006. I found it helpful to
get an overview of the wider issue:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html>

I wonder whether this part is relevant:

"When you read of big companies filing patent suits against smaller ones, it's
usually a big company on the way down, grasping at straws. For example,
Unisys's attempts to enforce their patent on LZW compression. When you see a
big company threatening patent suits, sell. When a company starts fighting
over IP, it's a sign they've lost the real battle, for users."

~~~
loganfrederick
Paul's thoughts are in the right direction. To extend his writing (to apply to
this situation), if a company starts fighting over IP, it's a sign they've
lost the battle for users or fear that they will and are attempting to
preemptively kill the competition.

------
kgrin
Among the more absurd patent claims being litigated: "Unlocking A Device By
Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image"

Seriously? I'm not sure if it's a step above or a step below one-click, but it
sure as hell ain't far from it.

~~~
stse
Also Neonode did this back in 2004/2005 with the N1. Apple's patent is a month
old.

Demo @ <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#t=4m00s>

Edit: from question to statement.

~~~
vaporstun
The date Apple received the patent is very different from when they filed the
patent, or even when they first came up with the idea.

So in spite of the fact that it's a bit absurd, it is inaccurate to claim that
anyone who had a lock screen more than a month old constitutes prior art.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
However if you read it (though, IANAL) you'll see that it is a direct
translation of lock screens from standard phones to those with touchscreens.
It's on the same level as a patent for "standard thing X but with a computer",
or "X on the internet", now it's "X with a touchscreen".

------
jsz0
Looks like a straight forward patent money grab. Apple just has to win on a
few of these patents to negotiate a license fee with HTC. With one win under
their belt they can extend it to other handset makers without too much
trouble. All the sudden Apple is making some money off every cell phone sold
as dumb phones disappear and get replaced by SmartPhones (or they just get
smarter and infringe) Obviously Apple would never license iPhone OS to third
parties so this seems like an attempt to simply license some of the
technologies instead. I don't know the math but just based on the huge volume
of cell phone sales alone it's gotta be worth a ton of money. If Apple loses
in court other handset makers just continue to use these technologies and
nothing changes. Unfortunately that's how the system works. Apple share
holders were probably not too happy about the prospect of leaving all that
money on the table.

------
Batsu
My curiosity is who declared war on who in the Google v. Apple nonsense.

Just a little over a months ago, Steve Jobs took some jabs at Google, calling
them out on their motto ("Don't be evil") and saying they want to kill the
iPhone with Android.[1] Now we have Apple suing HTC over Android devices -
glancing over the documents[2] "HTC Android Products" is mentioned over and
over and over, though WinMo phones are cited as well.

In the past, Google has intentionally removed features from Android in respect
to Apple's patents, even at Apple's request[3]. This isn't exactly the case
now, which is why I'm asking the question... did Google start adding in these
patent infringing features first, or did Apple feel threatened first?

I don't think it's a coincidence that HTC is the largest manufacturer of
Android handsets. Is it possible that Apple foresees a significant loss in
market share over the coming years and wants to stem the flow?

[1]: [http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-
evil-...](http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-
is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/)

[2]: [http://documents.nytimes.com/apple-patent-lawsuit-against-
ht...](http://documents.nytimes.com/apple-patent-lawsuit-against-htc#p=1)

[3]: [http://digital.venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-
google...](http://digital.venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-google-not-
to-use-multi-touch-in-android-and-google-complied/)

~~~
jkincaid
I believe that Apple 'declared war' first, when it began rejecting Google's
iPhone applications last summer. First it rejected Latitude, then it rejected
Google Voice, which is when things really started to get nasty.

Google has been slightly more subtle with its shots back. It released
Navigation for Android, which I strongly doubt will be making it to the iPhone
any time soon. It acquired AdMob before Apple could. And then it launched its
own phone (less subtle, that one).

I'm curious how early Jobs found out about Google's plans for the Nexus One.
I'm sure such devices take a long time to make, and if he heard last
spring/summer that Google was making its own phone, that might have sparked
all of this. That's just speculation though.

------
sofal
I don't understand this patent world. From everything I've read, it is obvious
to me that I could get about 5 patents out of every casual conversation I have
with my fellow grad students each day. Is everyone in the judicial system
completely oblivious to this insanity?

~~~
dagw
Accepting patents is a lot less paper work for the patent office than
rejecting a patent. You need to give a good reason to reject a patent, but no
reason to accept a patent. Their basic operating theory seems to be accept
them all and let the lawyers sort it out.

------
Auzy
It seems to be more of an attempt to attract attention.

Synaptic were working on Multitouch sensors before Apple Patented, and
researchers have been for years before Apple too.

And looking at the patents, they are obvious. Hopefully Apple don't win this.

~~~
danudey
The issue is that Apple hasn't patented multitouch; they've patented heuristic
algorithms to determine gestures based on multitouch input (the '949 patent').
That's why all Android phones (and the Palm Pre) shipped with multitouch-
capable screens, but no multitouch-capable software (until the recent Nexus
One update).

------
greenlblue
Nobody wins in these things except the lawyers. Also, at this point Apple is
starting to look like a 5 year old baby throwing a temper tantrum. The
negative publicity with the app store combined with taking jabs at google just
makes them look really bad.

------
ortusdux
Would it be smart of Google to buy HTC? Many people speculated that YouTube
would have been sued to oblivion had Google not bought them.

~~~
rbrcurtis
its funny you say that, because I remember everyone saying that youtube was
going to get sued into oblivion as soon as it was obtained by a company with
deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile.

~~~
romland
The deeper the pocket is, the further away the oblivion is.

------
sofal
Earlier conversation on this topic:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161467>

------
nikils
Reminds of
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation)

~~~
mark_h
That was about copyright though, this is about patents.

------
j23tom
As we see it's not true that corporations buy patents 'just in case'. It's
nice tool to axe the enemy :)

