Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

dailytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 137 posts

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#91

Post by mcosta »

temp765 wrote: post #74

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 themse…

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?

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#92

Post by 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.

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#93

Post by eevilspock »

Taft wrote: post #61
jxcole wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The reason companies acquire and add to their massive stockpiles of patents is because, like arms races, no one wants to stop playing the game until the game is called off. Unlike arms races, patents are intellectual creations and the "game" can be ended simply by setting precedents in court and reforming existing law.

Exactly correct. And Google has unilaterally disarmed and it ain't turning out so well for them.

Wait, in the news today: "Google Looks to InterDigital to Strengthen Patent Portfolio". So like everybody else they are buying even more ammo for the gun they keep in the nightstand drawer.

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#94

Post by czhiddy »

Pewpewarrows wrote: post #85
Steko wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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... "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…

Misleading image is misleading. This is what the first Android phone looked like: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2008/10/androi... 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-releas…

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

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#95

Post by temp765 »

mcosta wrote: post #91
temp765 wrote: post #74

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 themse…

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?

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.

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#96

Post by Steko »

z0r wrote: post #71
Steko wrote: post #69

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 gr…

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.

Smaller innovators could be protected in several ways.

First, you could defer any taxation for a couple years. That allows time for the inventor to find buyers or acquire (via loans, insurance, etc.) funding to handle the tax.

Second, you can break up the value and taxes into smaller periods. Like 3 or 5 year periods.

Third, the actual % taken of the value of the patent can scale progressively.

et cetera

I think you're missing the strengths of what I'm proposing: (1) it kills the patent troll business model and massively decreases potential liability for small businesses. (2) it fully staffs and funds the understaffed and underfunded USPTO. (3) it legitimately protects and rewards innovation.

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#97

Post by kenjackson »

jxcole wrote: post #47
Taft wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Make the reform law not apply to old patents, only new patents. So when the existing patents expire we only use the new rules. This is a win-win.

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#98

Post by willyt »

jonknee wrote: post #76
willyt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not defensive if they acted in bad faith to begin with. The billboard adds for htc phones looked like ad's for iPhones until you got close enough to read the copy. The implication being 'an iPhone, but cheaper'. I have no problem with someone coming up with something better, but I was surprised that they were able to get away with something so clearly mimicking the look and feel of an iPhone.

Billboard ads have nothing to do with patents. Neither does the look and feel.

Sorry. My original argument wasn't very clear, I didn't mean to argue that the look and feel is patentable. It's not, obvioisly. I suppose what I meant that I could imagine Steve Jobs seeing an advert like that, picking up the phone to the lawyers and saying 'what can we do about this' and these various patent suits are the result. I am not arguing for this use as a justification for software patents, just making an observation that HTC don't have 'clean hands' in the greater scheme of things.

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#99

Post by brlewis »

Taft wrote: post #61
jxcole wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The reason companies acquire and add to their massive stockpiles of patents is because, like arms races, no one wants to stop playing the game until the game is called off. Unlike arms races, patents are intellectual creations and the "game" can be ended simply by setting precedents in court and reforming existing law.

How about following existing precedents? Flook is good precedent, as reiterated in the recent Bilski decision. Just about every software patent we talk about on HN would be invalidated if that precedent were followed.

Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents

#100

Post by Pewpewarrows »

czhiddy wrote: post #94
Pewpewarrows wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misleading image is misleading. This is what the first Android phone looked like: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2008/10/androi... 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-releas…

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

The second image, not the first.
Post reply on HN