Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Patents The Courts Apple

Apple Sues HTC Again Over Patents 263

Posted by samzenpus
from the litigation-pie dept.
recoiledsnake writes "Apple is suing HTC again over patent infringement. Apple is adding two new patents to the 20 included in the earlier case while adding additional details to two patents included previously. Although Android is not mentioned in any of the court documents, many of the patent infringement complaints refer to the software rather than the hardware that HTC manufactures, leading to speculation that Google is the real target, especially considering that Android sales are surpassing the iPhone's. With HTC countersuing Apple, Microsoft siding with HTC over Android, and Apple trying to stop import of Nokia phones, it seems like Apple has set off a patent Armageddon in the mobile space."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Sues HTC Again Over Patents

Comments Filter:
  • Re:I hope they win (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zorkon (121860) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @03:08AM (#32674612) Homepage

    Yeah, I gotta agree with this. Of course they're all suing each other - the only people to make money from this are their lawyers and why *wouldn't* they take advantage of the patent system?

    Also: Apple didn't "set off a patent Armageddon in the mobile space", as the original poster suggests. Nokia started it in October 2009 - prior to that, Apple was a sleeping patent-giant.

    http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/nokia-sues-apple-says-iphone-infringes-ten-patents/

  • by Aeternitas827 (1256210) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @03:20AM (#32674666)

    I sincerely hope android destroys the iphone.

    Looks like Cupertino might have given [gizmodo.com] them a hand [gizmodo.com] on that...not enough data yet to pull out the failboat, but it doesn't look promising...

    As an aside, I will admit that the source above might not be the most objective; but I likely wouldn't link it if it were one person, one device, on each item so far...time will tell if we see other sites getting the same reports and all.

  • Re:TT (Score:3, Informative)

    by Aeternitas827 (1256210) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @03:26AM (#32674698)
    I'd venture to say there's enough left in the courts as far as going by the letter of the law that it will continue for quite some time, through various suits, appeals, and whatnot. The folks on the bench are there, ideally, to uphold the law, and unless the law has an obvious conflict with the Constitution--which, as far as I can recall, mentions naught about IP--it'd take Congressional action or SCOTUS making a decision on it.

    Flawed though they may be, IP laws in the US are apparently the controlling factor in how these cases come about. Until these laws are changed or struck down, the enormous lawsuits will continue.
  • Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2010 @03:39AM (#32674770)

    "Nokia started it in October 2009 - prior to that, Apple was a sleeping patent-giant."

    At least Nokia's patents were proper *hardware* patents related to GSM technologies *they developed* (and everyone in the industry licenses them). Nokia really did *invent* that stuff (first on market with those, ever). So hardly the same as Apple suing ppl around with lame software patents.

  • by jmcbain (1233044) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:00AM (#32674870)
    The original posting cites a May report from NPD [engadget.com] that says that Android beat iPhone sales in Q1 of this year. However, that was now found to be erroneous: that survey was only for the consumer market [theregister.co.uk]. When business/enterprise sales were counted and reported in June by Nielsen, then iPhone beat Android by 3-to-1 [engadget.com] and is closing in on RIM. Furthermore, most likely the only reason Android beat out iPhone in Q1 for consumers was because people were already anticipating the newest iPhone 4 released today. Apple sold 600K iPhone 4 during pre-orders [crunchgear.com], which as 10x the sales for the iPhone 3GS.
  • Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)

    by JAlexoi (1085785) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:15AM (#32674936) Homepage
    Nokia did start the battle, but contrary to what Apple did they originally only asked the court to set the price for their patents(read the damn complaint, but this is ./ ...). Apple, however, went for the throat with plain patent violation lawsuit.
  • by debatem1 (1087307) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:21AM (#32674962)

    Did I miss something? I mean, I really haven't read anything about android sales surpassing iPhone sales. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool and everything, but I just don't see it happening.

    Kind of. Here's [slashdot.org] the article, but now that the iPhone4 is out its unclear whether this was a blip or a sign of things to come.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:47AM (#32675078)

    That doesn't make hardware unpatentable, it only makes digital logic unpatentable. If you have a way of making a binary AND gate that isn't patented or prior art, you can patent the way you MADE that AND gate. What you CAN'T do is patent logical AND.

    The genius was never in, it appears.

  • by sznupi (719324) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:48AM (#32675086) Homepage

    Yeah, "inevitable" in 2007...

    Not a surprise really, since it was there in 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710 [wikipedia.org]
    (a bit sooner really via UIQ devices; and many others, really)

    Oh wait, or was it 1993? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon [wikipedia.org]

  • by James_Duncan8181 (588316) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:08AM (#32675206) Homepage
    You are; the whole concept of a patent is to prevent reimplementation of an idea for a limited period in return for documentation of that idea.
  • by sznupi (719324) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:08AM (#32675208) Homepage

    ...think back to what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out...

    Hm, yeah; I can think of Ericsson R380 [gsmarena.com], from 2000 (not a "true" touchscreen smartphone since one can't install apps; but by that measure iPhone wasn't one either, in 2007). Or similar one [wikipedia.org] from...1993. But if necessarily "true" touchscreen smartphone - SE P800 [gsmarena.com] does fine. Did in 2002, actually. Five years of difference (sort of six, if looking at apps)

    Oh, I get it, you're talking about waiting until absolutelly every piece of "tech surroundings" is firmly in place for some time? Plus nice marketing in a visible, to you, market?

  • Re:TT (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:33AM (#32675368)

    SCOTUS is looking into it (google "in re Bilski"), but no information is yet coming out: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100617102220583 [groklaw.net].

    captcha: vulture :-)

  • Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)

    by sznupi (719324) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @06:21AM (#32675616) Homepage

    I don't really share you observations. Perhaps you really want to look at a very small part of the issue (omitting how the 10+ year old infrastructure is in constant upgrade; or how exorbitant 3G licenses often were)...or apparently you don't realise how cheap mobile services have become here, in the EU, in some places (what, they have "patent moratorium"? Riiight...)

    Yes, the cartel might be the problem. But if patents were behind it, no carrier would be able to get away and start a pricewar. Which does happen.

  • by LingNoi (1066278) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @06:38AM (#32675688)

    In Thailand you can buy an android based WelCom A88 [thaimobilecenter.com] for around $277. That's about a months salary for someone making a really shitty salary here.

    There is definitely a huge amount of variation in android devices from around the world and I bet you've only heard about the ones in the US.

  • I fondly remember the days when products lived and died on their fitness for purpose, not in the courts. So much for free market economics. What shall we call this? SHAckled Market Economics

    Really? 'Cause the first Patent Act in the US was in 1790, only three years after the Constitution was written. And prior to that, individual states had their own Patent Acts under the Articles of Confederation. So, are you sure you're remembering "something", rather than "nothing"?

  • by mdwh2 (535323) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:42AM (#32677000) Journal

    I think that at the high-end price point, the iphone seems to sell a lot more.

    Even at the high end "smartphone" point, Nokia are still number 1 with 40-50% share. It may be that Apple are ahead of Android devices, though they're also still behind RIM I believe.

    But the trick is that, world wide, not that many people have the disposable money. Android OTOH is present both at the high-end and at the mid-range.

    But yes indeed, world wide and out of all phones, Apple are less than 5%. Not sure how Android phones do, but Nokia still lead at 40%.

    Also, I'd say it's not just about disposable income - even if you have a good job, not everyone wants to spend hundreds of pounds/dollars (or equivalent in contract) on a phone just so it has a 1GHz processor and 3D chip. Even bog standard cheap "feature" phones these days run apps and support the Internet (in fact it's been that way for at least five years), and support large touchscreens. Although I get the sad feeling that some people out there are buying expensive Iphones just because they've swallowed the marketing hype that you need an expensive Iphone just to access the Internet on a phone...

  • Re:I hope they win (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cornelius the Great (555189) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @10:47AM (#32677874)
    Lesson #1 on deciphering patents: Ignore the title and abstract- read the claims. Claims are far more specific, and are the only enforceable part of the patent.

    Here is the patent [freepatentsonline.com] you're referring to.

    Here are the claims:

    Claims:

    1-59. (canceled)

    60. In a mobile communication system, a method comprising:adopting a robust header compression (ROHC) scheme;configuring uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information based on the ROHC scheme, wherein the downlink parameter information and the uplink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

    61. The method of claim 60, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

    62. The method of claim 60, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

    63. The method of claim 60 further comprising:receiving mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme from a mobile terminal.

    64. The method of claim 60 further comprising:transmitting mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme to a network.

    65. In a mobile communication system, and apparatus comprising:an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer adapted to perform header compression and/or decompression; andan entity in an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer adapted to configure uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information for the entity in the PDCP layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the asymmetric parameter information comprises at least one of MAX_CID parameter information and Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

    66. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

    67. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

    68. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.

    69. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the entity in the RRC layer is further adapted to transfer the asymmetric parameter information to the PDCP layer.

    70. In a mobile communication system, an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer comprising:a compressor performing header compression based on uplink parameter information transferred from an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer;a decompressor performing header decompression based on downlink parameter information transferred from the RRC layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.

    71. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.

    72. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.

    73. The method of claim 70, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.

    In summary: this is a little less obvious than your analysis of the abstract. Unless there is prior art, this patent has teeth.

  • Re:I hope they win (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lars T. (470328) <Lars.Traeger@goog l e m a i l . com> on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:04PM (#32682706) Journal

    Lesson #1 on deciphering patents: Ignore the title and abstract- read the claims. Claims are far more specific, and are the only enforceable part of the patent. Here is the patent [freepatentsonline.com] you're referring to. Here are the claims:

    Claims: 1-59. (canceled)

    Obvious stuff found in lots of wire-full networks cut. IOW nothing left.

Forty two.

Working...