Why Apple’s ITC patent victory over HTC Android phones is scary

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 6:48 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #63

cageface wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Apple was in a position to make those investments in the first place because they profited handsomely from copying wholesale the fundamental ideas of the Mac UI. Now that the tables are turned they want to change the rules of the game. Android brings more than enough innovation to the table to justify its existence. If anything Apple is borrowing more from Google now than vice-versa.

This argument is based on repeating an easily debunked falsehood. Apple did not 'copy wholesale the fundamental ideas of the Mac UI'. They paid Xerox for a license to commercialize the technology via a stock deal, and then they spent significant effort refining it to make a consumer product. So Apple really just wants other people to play by the same rules they do.

Post by protomyth » Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 6:53 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #91

sorbus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then, you were entirely correct. I suppose that my search was both fairly cursory and didn't include all of the right search terms. I find it very surprising that this is the first I've heard of it, though; the "apple stole from xerox" meme is really entrenched, to the point that I never really doubted its truth.

I think it's fair to say that Xerox seriously undervalued their IP, but that was a well documented failing of their management who didn't see the potential that Jobs did in personal computing. Arguably we're fortunate that he struck this deal and brought these ideas into production much more effectively than Xerox was doing.

Post by alain94040 » Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 7:51 PM UTC

ww520 wrote: post #78

alain94040 wrote: post #69

I read patent 5,946,647. It's actually a smart patent. It was written in 1996, and it basically describes what the Mail app on my Mac does when it sees a phone number or a date in an email: it automatically detects it and gives me contextual choices, such as move the phone number into my address book (automatically extracting the sender's name), or create an appointement based on a piece of text that says "let's talk…

I seem to remember Lotus Agenda did that long time ago back in the PC era. Should that be a prior art?

  Lotus Agenda is a "free-form" information manager: the information need not be
  structured at all before it is entered into the database. A phrase such as
  "See Wendy on Tuesday 3pm" can be entered as is without any pre-processing.

Post by patrickaljord » Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 8:04 PM UTC

dataminer wrote: post #74

HTC has bought S3 graphics, which has successfully gone after Apple at ITC. ITC has found Apple infringing on two S3 graphics patents (final verdict in November). Now, HTC has been found infringing on two Apple patents (final verdict in December), will it force the two companies into cross licensing.

Post by MaysonL » Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 10:40 PM UTC

adbge wrote: post #47

raganwald wrote: post #32

There are three salient questions: First, is Apple a troll seeking rents or a functioning entity that invests in research and seeks to make money from products? Second, are the patents valid given the current patent system and laws (prior art, obviousness, &c) or not. And third, is the current system broken? I think there's room to debate the second and third points. But with respect to the first point, Apple is usin…

> Apple has been researching personal computing since it was founded, and invests heavily in figuring out exactly what works to make viable products. Apple actually does comparatively little spending on R&D when contrasted with the likes of Microsoft or even Google. [1] When it comes to design, it's well known that Apple is of the mentality that good design is something recognizable and, that being the case, they don…