HTC has filed a new patent-infringement suit against Apple, setting in motion yet another round of patent litigation between Cupertino and the Taiwanese manufacturer of Android-based smartphones and tablets. The suit, which alleges infringment of three patents, follows Apple's four-patent slap at HTC of July 11. Other jolly fun …
All I wanna do is
boom boom boom boom
and a clink ching
and take your money!
A patent lawyer
Lawyer School anyone
Hmm I think I should cast aside my morals and attend law school. The only people winning in the ludicrous patent laws are the amoral lawyers running their cases. They must be laughing all the way to the bank where they have a lunch (with their equally amoral banking buddies) of small taiwanese children dipped in the blood of refugees, washed down with a nice sancere.
OK I admit it, I'm pissed at myself for being only a mildly successful IT contractor who sleeps well and has never screwed a colleague or partner over to make a few more pennies. I've met plenty of them and often wondered why they get where they do.
I would love some of that big cash bonus action - I'm just not prepared to become the kind of arsehole that gets there.
Can I get through law school before these morons burn each other out and make my fortune? Should I even try? I mean telly's are going for free all across the country right? With luck like mine and late entry to the fray, I'd probably be left with an old SCART cable and get 15 years for it!!
I just Patented
Male masturbation techniques:
Including whole of hand, 2 and 3 finger approaches and of course 2 hand should you be gifted enough to require it.
Covering all rythms:- continous slow, 3,4,5..9999999 beats and allowing for variable beat pause
Detailing all lube applications techniques.
I'm rich and laughing all the way to the wank, sorry bank.
Buy iOS, buy Android, buy whatever else, it is still the lawyers getting most of the money.
And the politicians that allow the system to go on are predominantly lawyers. Funny that.
It's worse than a bloody beer, the price of which is approximately 40% taxes here in the US. What would a smartphone cost without these leaches? I'd guess $88.37 unlocked and without a contract.
The portable computer one
Appears to be held by BT PLC so how is Apple suing over an infringement of a patent that appears to belong to another company?
Yet another example that Apple appear to invent much less than they really claim to.
The first portable computer
...was made by Apple, so of course the BT patent is invalid. Previous computers claiming to be portable weren't, of course, because Apple have a patent on "A system of classifying computers according to their relative portability". QED.
If only uncle Clive Sinclair had thought about this, he might have been able to make a fortune from his "first pocket scientific calculator", by patenting the idea of a universal (small) definition of "pocket". The small size of his calculator was only possible because it had no dedicated keys for anything other than the numbers and simple arithmetic. Everything else was accessed by complex key combinations, making it horrible for anyone who actually wanted to use it for maths. But it WOULD fit into a pocket in your Levi's, so that was definitely a first.
Reputedly, uncle Clive himself preferred a circular slide-rule.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the first portable computers appear come 25 years ago or so? And is not the maximum length of a US Design Patent some 25 years? IOW, why are we talking about patents on portable computers when the patents relative to their design should've already expired by now?
bought the patent
didnt Apple just buy the patent ?
Re: Patents expired?
Design patents carry a term of 14 years. They can also be made invalid if the design isn't merely ornamental and has utility, such as putting a rounded corner on a tablet like computing device.
HTC's patents are all low level microelectronics patents for really mundane crap that nobody cares about. Much of them are likely to be patents that should be aimed at the suppliers of components to Apple.
So what you're saying
Is that Apple's patents should be aimed at the GOOG and not all of the makers of tin boxes that run Android, no?
And Apple's Patents . . .
Are all high-level concept patents that nobody can properly patent, or are not their own. Two monkeys; you just hope the cages are adjacent, so no one else gets hit with the flying poop. "All are punished."
Eddy the unwise said
Why do you aim legal actions about trade dress to the make of an operating system? Or have you been tard'ing away too much to even read anything about what you feel you need to comment on. Trade dress is about the phone manufacturers not operating system. Here's a pound, buy yourself a clue.
Maybe he assumed the API for "scrolling operations" which HTC uses was supplied by the OS, or that the "programmable tactile touch screen display" involved software and was also (at least in part) a function of the OS.
Re: Eddy the unwise said
"Why do you aim legal actions about trade dress to the make of an operating system?"
I think you are confused between Apple's suits against HTC as mentioned in _this_ article and those against Samsung. I hardly think throwing a patent titled "Double-sided touch-sensitive panel with shield and drive combined layer" qualifies as "trade dress". Perhaps you can find a mention of "trade dress" in this article or another on the same topic and point it out. Let's see, I find the complaints related to UI and a patent related to an API... nope, not trade dress. How about a complaint on hardware and a patent that refers to a touchscreen that HTC buys? Again, not trade dress. Do I need to mention that "underlying architecture" complaints probably don't amount to trade dress either?
Perhaps if you had read the post I was replying to you would notice similarly odd logic inasmuch as the OP suggested that HTC's patents should be aimed at Apple's suppliers but Apple's patents are more important and are rightly aimed at HTC and not their (mutual?) parts suppliers.
Oh, keep the pound as you can use it for cab fare while you try to keep up.
Agree 100% with the article writer
Not much to say after the subject line really ....
It's funny how when Microsoft hit HTC with a patentslap HTC paid up without hesitation yet when they get hit by apple it's a no holds barred fight to the bitter end.
I'm just sayin' is all.
Not so strange
That's not so strange. MS was smart enough to leave the cost of licensing the patents, at a point lower than the cost of spending years in court. I suspect something like $0.02 cheaper, but that's just the cynical me.
Apple doesn't want to license. They want all competitors to die a horrible death, so they can have a total monopoly, in which they can _ENFORCE_ their walled-garden-approach (earning them a nice 30%) on all users to ensure their "experience". They want this bad enough to show up in courtrooms with doctored "evidence". That company needs to go away, along with all of their cultists. Period.
I know why you chose Paris...
...it's because she ain't too clever either.
Maybe they settled with the ones who had a reasonable, valid patent which they were in breach of and who did not in turn violate any HTC patents. They're unlikely to want to give away $5 per unit just for fun.
Do tell, which of the other companies are doing this out of the goodness of their heart?
As far as I can see, they all want their competitors to die so they can operate a monopoly. That's the basis of capitalism.
Presumably you haven't heard the term Fandroid before? What about Tifosi?
They're all as bad as each other and so are you if you want platform X to go away just because you bought platform Y.
@ Goat Jam
I get the impression everyone pays Microsoft a license fee because they have completely solid patents that are l;ong established. Apples appear pretty tenuous and whilst its a shame to see money wasted on lawyers, it is nice to see HTC actually having a shot at testing Apples patents - which mostly seem to be about trying to patent utter nonsense that is obvious rather than innovative.
if you invented this ""Point-to-point communication using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing" you probably spent a few years in college followed by years of experience in industry.
If you thought that a menu should scroll when you drag your finger along it (or whatever it might be) you may be a 4 year old.
Can we refer to this period...
... in the mobile industry as the Mobile Cold War, I did think it shouldn't sound so serious but 'slightly chilly war' didn't sound so great.
It seems quite hot to me . . .
..."The patent crusades".
All countries send their lawyers off to fight, where they hopefully slaughter each other with their self-serving patents in an orgy of amoral brutality. In short, nobody wins.
Meanwhile, everyone else back home gets along just fine; inter-country commerce takes off, art and creativity flourish, science advances.
The lawyers have not left their land and ladyfolk (or indeed menfolk) behind.
It seems to me there does not need to be any merit in the case Apple launches. That they sue generates miles of coverage which probably looks to the everyone like Apple is the poor defendant who needs support, garnering sympathy and more sales. How much coverage is there of these cases when they are won or lost?
For big companies with expensive legal teams it probably makes economic sense to use them to support marketing and provide, inch for inch, the cheapest marketing they can buy. Oh, and you might just win once in a while. Meanwhile the taxpayer foots some of the bill in the form of wasted court time. Makes business sense all round.
>>"That they sue generates miles of coverage which probably looks to the everyone like Apple is the poor defendant..."
Or at least, looks that way to the obsessive fraction of Apple fans, and those people who assume that non-US companies can't invent anything.
However, there is a risk that if they lose, they'll also have generated publicity for their opponent, and effectively have ended up publicly claiming that what their opponents are selling is pretty much the same as what they're selling, even if that's the opposite of what they generally want people to believe.
As suggested by the article I took a look at the patent:
6,956,564, "Portable computers"
When I went to view the images it insisted I download Apple Quicktime to view them!
In 25 years...
All this will be forgotten and we'll be talking to our lapels like star trek. I'm sure there's an episode some where in which spock fondles his tablet. God bless prior art, careful scanning of the archives will probably reveal a lack of buttons and he may even have made a gesture our two.
TNG and Enterprise certainly had slim PADD devices - http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD - which very much look prior art to the Apple tablets, apart from their use of grey plastic. TOS has rather larger wedge-shaped ones.
- iPad? More like iFAD: Now we know why Apple ran off to IBM
- Apple orders huge MOUNTAIN of 80 MILLION 'Air' iPhone 6s
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're building ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – on PCs, slabs and mobes