Live data from Hacker News

Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

prnewswire.com

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#121

Mobile devices is an incredibly patent-heavy landscape, where manufacturers are used to licensing technology from one-another and have been for years. Obviously Apple and HTC have been in discussions (lawsuits are incredibly expensive and always a last resort) and the fact that Apple went ahead and filed indicates that these discussions failed. This means either HTC was offering less than 'market' in licensing fees,…

Regardless of how patent-heavy mobile devices may be, this represents a major change in Apple's policy.

In some discussion thread in the distant past, someone pointed out that Apple has never used its patents offensively. And a quick check through Wikipedia seems to confirm it: The only mention of patents was in cases where Apple had first been sued for violating a competitor's patents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

Up until now -- well into their reign in the mobile device sector -- Apple could claim that they were only amassing patents as a means of defending themselves from other companies with patents. Hence, this preemptive strike is unusual.

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#122
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netbooks suck to use, I know because I'm using one right now. Small, cramped, hot, ugly.

And you're thinking removing the keyboard will make it suck less?

Yes. I can type faster on my iPod touch or my friend's iPhone then I can on his netbook that he uses in class.

With the iPhone (and likely iPad), you'll know what to expect from the device soon enough. With the netbook, I can never quite shake the "This isn't quite a computer, even if its pretending to be one" feeling and get used to the keys being 10% smaller.

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#123
post #39
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing I can say in response to this is that I see that my dad uses his iPhone to surf the web much more than he uses his computer, and he's interested in a bigger screen to do so. He's in his 60s, and he's actually not buying another desktop computer (his is 11 years old) because his iPhone does what he needs, and more, plus he's tired of viruses and spyware. (Yes, we know it's not a target yet, but a closed…

Why wouldn't a netbook+ChromeOS win? I disagree @ iPhone. That was revolutionary. It was the first pocket webbrowser that actually worked well and rendered websites properly. >> "And remember, it was pretty 'meh' before the app store." Again, difference of opinion. I couldn't care less about the app store. Why would I download software approved by Apple, when I can just use the browser for most things?

Why wouldn't a netbook+ChromeOS win?

A netbook is more of the same, its what we already have. The iPad is something new and different.

And, I've never even seen a video of a device using ChromeOS. I can't seem to bring myself to have a positive opinion of a device that's been announced for 9-10 months without so much as a screenshot or picture of a device running it.

I've made this point before, but, its worth repeating: I don't even know what market Google is targeting with ChromeOS. I've looked into it, but, I honestly have no idea.

Why would I download software approved by Apple, when I can just use the browser for most things?

Better experience. Sure, if you never use native apps, you won't know what you're missing. But, having used them and then going back, its not quite the same. There's something slightly off about the scrolling, about how everything behaves when pressed, etc.

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is forcing you to be in the iTunes store and write iPhone apps. As for all personal PCs having only software approved by a central authority -- all electrical appliances are approved by UL. I don't see that as having resulted in much evil. To get to drive in the US, everyone is approved by their State. I don't see that as being very evil. The former is opt-in and arranged by insurance interests. The latter is…

That's like saying 10 years ago, no one is forcing you to use Windows. Right now there is no credible alternative to iPod/iPhone/iTunes. Guys like Google and Microsoft are trying to make a better product. If Apple continues to win by making the better product, that's good for consumers, that's how the free market is supposed to work. If Apple decides to focus their time instead on PREVENTING other people from making…

That's like saying 10 years ago, no one is forcing you to use Windows.

But, no one was forcing you to use windows 10 years ago; I was using Mac OS 9 almost daily, in addition to Windows 2000.

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#125
post #31

If this had happened a day earlier I don't think I would have posted that RFS. Apple is inching ever closer to evil, and I worry that there's no one within the company who can stand up to Jobs and tell him so.

To play devil's advocate:

Apple does own these patents. Why is it evil for them to enforce them?

If Android was a Microsoft project, would people still think this legal action was evil?

If the iPhone OS was "open source" and there were other means of selling apps other than the app store, would people still think this legal action was evil?

If Google (the "underdog" (?)) owned these patents through the purchase of Android and was suing Apple, would people think Google was evil? Or would it be a David vs. Goliath story? (goliath vs. goliath?)

If I make BLOOPT.com which does the same thing as loopt.com, is it evil for Sam Altman to sue me, when he gets his patent?

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#126
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's like a netbook or laptop but less useful." To us less useful means less depth. To the general market less useful means less confusing. Less confusing in consumer devices = win.

As I say, I disagree. It's less useful for consumers, because you can't type on it properly, you can't rest it on your lap, you can't view any flash websites, etc etc. It's the geeks that are hailing it as useful. I can't see how my kids would use an iPad, and I can't see how my mum would use an iPad.

No offense axod, but you have a big anti-tablet bias, and I think it undermines your objectivity, the point that you keep repeating your anecdotal evaluation of your immediate family members not being likely adopters as if they were the median. You seem to be reasoning from an n of 3 or 4 people.

I find it easy to see why Apple expects it to be popular. I may be wrong, but the (apparent) fact that lots of people are interested in buying an iPad suggests they can think of ways to use it, and seriously doubt that Apple would be investing lots of money in launching one without assuring themselves of likely demand first.

Me, I would rather not buy an iPad - even though it looks like a very good product, technically - because I am increasingly put off by Apple's aggressive vertical integration and business tactics (like this patent lawsuit). But however I feel about that, I can't deny their expertise in engineering and marketing. Even if I buy a competitor's product, the price and specifications will have been influenced by Apple's offering.

I feel like we (computer users) have already gone through this 'utility' barrier many times - did average consumers 'need' the mouse, the GUI, videogame consoles, color graphics, dedicated monitors (vs a TV adapter) etc.. etc.? Well, no, not as such, but it seems that people's desire for a technology often forms prior to the availability of tools that properly exploit it, even though their use cases may be inchoate.

I'll give you two examples of non-computer geeks who nevertheless have use cases for a tablet, with the understanding that these too are anecdotal.

One is down the street from me: the people who work at the 7-11 use an oldish Panasonic tablet computer for inventory management. they probably don't need multitouch and the software looks a bit primitive, but they seem well comfortable treating it as a digital clipboard that they can hold with one hand and operate with the other. Now, you don't need a degree to work at 7-11 or even to get your own store, just a willingness to work at a small 24-hour retail outlet. 7-11 is a mature franchise business so I don't imagine that they rolled out the use of tablets to their employees on a whim - more likely, such devices hit a sweet spot between usability and capability which proved beneficial for limiting the cost of inventory control.

Another area is for creatives in a studio. I work with audio and video for a living, and for some tasks using a mouse is royal pain in the ass. There is a thriving industry in hardware control surfaces for musicians, and many of them are repurposed by 3d animators, compositors, and other video professionals because the cost of dedicated hardware for the latter is stratospheric. A general purpose device with multitouch is already a winner in this market. Cheaper ones will sell like hotcakes.

Add enough of these market segments together, and you're looking at some real money.

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#127
post #31

If this had happened a day earlier I don't think I would have posted that RFS. Apple is inching ever closer to evil, and I worry that there's no one within the company who can stand up to Jobs and tell him so.

To play devil's advocate: Apple does own these patents. Why is it evil for them to enforce them? If Android was a Microsoft project, would people still think this legal action was evil? If the iPhone OS was "open source" and there were other means of selling apps other than the app store, would people still think this legal action was evil? If Google (the "underdog" (?)) owned these patents through the purchase of An…

All patent suits are evil. If all software patents were enforced, no new software could be written without licensing thousands or tens of thousands of patents from hundreds of holders. And no free software could be written at all. So the answers to all your your questions is "yes".

Except the last, which is kinda dumb. "BLOOPT" would no doubt be a trademark violation, you can't patent a name. But yeah, if Loopt filed a patent suit against someone simply for competing with them, then it would be evil too.

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#128
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's like a netbook or laptop but less useful." To us less useful means less depth. To the general market less useful means less confusing. Less confusing in consumer devices = win.

As I say, I disagree. It's less useful for consumers, because you can't type on it properly, you can't rest it on your lap, you can't view any flash websites, etc etc. It's the geeks that are hailing it as useful. I can't see how my kids would use an iPad, and I can't see how my mum would use an iPad.

The only reason I have a computer resting on my lap is because it has a keyboard that needs resting there.

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#129
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if" it were an attack on Google rather than HTC, I wonder what it is that has spooked Apple to bring out such a big gun now, rather than earlier?

The fact that the Nexus One is better, hardware-wise, than the iPhone? (Earlier Android devices were intentionally stripped down for the sake of being inexpensive. The Nexus One is not.)

And that HTC's own-branded Android devices compete and better iPhone in a lot of ways. When I moved from iPhone to hero, my contacts suddenly all had photos from Facebook, I didn't have to open apps to check twitter or stock prices, I could add a shortcut to SMS my girl right onto the home screen, and I didn't have to sync anymore.

Re: Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

#130
post #79
post #45

If I were paranoid I might think that this was a bit of an attack on Google rather than HTC.

I think it's far more calculated than that: Google's shipping Android builds avoid a lot of basic UI features that Apple did first. HTC then adds most of them through their "TouchSense" modifications, just like they did with WM6 before. They're trying to keep Google in its place, and prevent HTC from extending it. They're happy with Android being out there for the dorkwads and ideologues (it lets them shed their 'wor…

Apple's 'style of multitouch' is the same multitouch Bell invented in the 60s. Pinch to zoom has been around for decades, Apple's genius is in bringing that to smartphones - unfortunately that's not patentable, so they have to resort to 'using a gesture to unlock a device' and other such specific (and obvious) applications of the concept.
Post reply on HN