Apple Wins Injunction Banning Import of HTC Devices 314
Newly accepted submitter squish18 writes "All Things D reports that Apple has won an injunction banning the import of some HTC phones starting in April 2012. The ruling by the ITC stems from two claims of the '647 patent concerning software used to enter personal data in mobile devices. It is interesting to note that the ITC has also reversed previous rulings regarding regarding infringement of two other '647 claims, as well as patent '263 claims."
It looks like Apple's victory is relatively minor. They lost claims on all patents except for one, and HTC/Google can work on implementing similar functionality in a non-infringing way.
Evil Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is becoming an evil empire!
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
have to
Nope. It's a choice. Apple is choosing to strangle the competition while they have the strong hand. Microsoft chooses to set up a protection racket with companies that infringe on their vaguely-defined Linux patents. In contrast, IBM and Google (generally?) don't pursue patent suits unless they're attacked first. (At least, that's the impression that's been put forth by tech journalism.)
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, companies are choosing to act the way they are, but the current patent system is incentivizing this behavior. The question should be whether there is a system with better incentives, not whether companies should stop doing what they are doing, because some companies will behave responsibly, but others invariably won't and you have to expect that behavior.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, companies are choosing to act the way they are, but the current patent system is incentivizing this behavior. The question should be whether there is a system with better incentives, not whether companies should stop doing what they are doing, because some companies will behave responsibly, but others invariably won't and you have to expect that behavior.
I'm not convinced any companies, even patent trolls, are truly acting irresponsibly. It's impossible to know if a patent is/isn't valid without going to court. And it's impossible to know if a patent is/isn't being infringed without going to court.
This leads to disagreements between patent holders and potential licensors about just how much should be paid in any licensing agreement, or whether any licensing fees should even be paid at all. To make matters worse, the courts are making stupid decisions all the time.
In my mind, this is a clear situation where we need to blame whoever wrote patent law in the first place for failing to predict the mess they created. And blame more recent government(s) for failing to do anything about it.
But how to solve it? That's the trillion dollar question.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be three good rules to start with.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, companies are choosing to act the way they are, but the current patent system is incentivizing this behavior. The question should be whether there is a system with better incentives, not whether companies should stop doing what they are doing, because some companies will behave responsibly, but others invariably won't and you have to expect that behavior.
I'm not convinced any companies, even patent trolls, are truly acting irresponsibly. It's impossible to know if a patent is/isn't valid without going to court. And it's impossible to know if a patent is/isn't being infringed without going to court.
This leads to disagreements between patent holders and potential licensors about just how much should be paid in any licensing agreement, or whether any licensing fees should even be paid at all. To make matters worse, the courts are making stupid decisions all the time.
In my mind, this is a clear situation where we need to blame whoever wrote patent law in the first place for failing to predict the mess they created. And blame more recent government(s) for failing to do anything about it.
But how to solve it? That's the trillion dollar question.
If I figure it out, I'm patenting it!
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, companies are choosing to act the way they are, but the current patent system is incentivizing this behavior.
If you own a shop and someone sets up a similar one across town and takes away some of your business you are incentivized to throw a petrol bomb through their window, but that doesn't make it right. In both cases the incentive is profit, and profit can never justify being evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Before:
Sun sued Microsoft over Java. Netscape sued Microsoft over Java. Apple sued Microsoft over the Windows UI.
Now:
Oracle is suing Google over Java. Apple is suing Google (through HTC) about several UI elements. Apple is suing Samsung over the tabled look and feel.
Who's the Evil? The inventor or the copy?
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Sun and Netscape sued Microsoft for antitrust violations. Oracle and Apple have sued over software patents. And Apple pretty much just sues everybody in the phone book, so that isn't really a bellwether of anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile. Can you spot who is copying and who is innovating?
android an ios, at this point, both have features they copied from the other. whereas win phone is something completely different. and lame, imo.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has to sue them and protect their IP.
What IP? "rectangular with rounded corners" is no IP, it's something that was around for thousands of years. (clay tablets, anyone?)
Putting the screen more or less in the center was there before (just about any TV).
Apple did NOT invent the MP3 plaer.
Apple dit NOT invent the smartphone.
Apple did NOT invent the touch screen device.
Apple itself is only copying.
Mouse? GUI? Design of iAnything?
Apple is not willing to pay for past use of somebody elses IP (current Motorola case in Germany), but everybody is supposed to respect Apples IP.
Apple is evil.
I'm not saying that the other players aren't, too.
But Apple is EVIL, and the worst of the bunch, in my book.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
Clay tablets had sharp, point corners. That was the only anti-piracy they had back then- you'd poke the thieves with the pointy corners saying "Bad Sumerian IP thief!"
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
This claim concerned a design patent [uspto.gov], specifically granted for the "ornamental nonfunctional design" of an object. The prototypical example is the Coke bottle: there's no functional reason it has to be shaped like that.
Alas, there are rather good functional reasons for a tablet to be flat and rectangular with an aluminum body, rounded corners, and a black bezel.
On the other hand, it seemed to many observers inside and outside the courtroom that the Galaxy Tab was not only flat, rectangular, ..., but in fact designed to look like an iPad.
In my eyes, it's just a silly game, really, and most likely intentional on Samsung's part, a calculated risk that, at worst, might lead to iPad-related publicity for the Galaxy Tab, not so much because they're "shameless cloners," but simply because they're trying to sell stuff and the press likes to talk about the iPad.
Apple may be similarly silly, but this hardly arises to the level of "evil," if only because, in the grand scheme of life and death, we're talking about somewhat trivial aspects of somewhat trivial products, and marketing stunts that are mildly entertaining rather than either "soul-sucking" or invasive. Evil is the assholes who want to enjoin medical diagnoses derived from "protected knowledge."
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Apple did NOT invent the MP3 plaer.
In fact they didn't invent the iPod's two main "innovations", the scroll wheel (Synaptics) and the 1.8" HDD (Toshiba).
Apple dit NOT invent the smartphone.
Nor did they invent Siri or the A4/A5 CPUs, they just bought the companies that made them.
Design of iAnything?
Braun should sue. [gizmodo.com]
Apple doesn't innovate technologically very much, they just buy ideas and figure out how to market them as lifestyle accessories.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
More like Apple takes half-baked and poorly executed ideas and executes them excellently.
And call it "lifestyle accessories" if you want, but I can't think of what else you could call a music player or a computer. They accessorize my lifestyle very nicely. It would hard to be a computer geek without a computer, for starters.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Considering what Microsoft was trying to do to Java.. Nothing that Apple or Oracle do can even come close in terms of total evilness (not to diminish their actions, they're just dwarfed in comparison). The truly horrifying thing is that Microsoft basically got away with it scott free.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Except Dalvik VM is free software, MS JVM is not.
Therefore, aliens?
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
"Other than the whole sleeping in a cell and working on a chain gang thing that makes up prison existence, my life is totally in my control!"
There honestly does not have to be a trade-off. You can allow users to install their own apps from external sources, and still lock down your own marketplace - they could go out of their way to get their own, unofficial one! That is actual control, while still keeping the majority of the users within the default walled garden.
Ease of use doesn't have to be at all compr
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The point is that Apple is suing HTC because they are using a map to pinpoint a location. I bet that in the last month, there have been a thousand courses taught in colleges and high schools that tell students how to pinpoint locations on maps. Why isn't Apple suing those community college profs instead of HTC?
Do I really need to answer that?
Who came up with mapping technology first? Was it perhaps Google Maps?
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea is to encourage entities just like Apple to spend billions of dollars researching some new technology, in full confidence they will be able to recover those billions of dollars in future by having a high profit margin on their product.
But then every other person in the country who has a similar idea, cannot recover their research investment simply because they didn't win the race to the patent office. The problem with patents today is the absolute guarantee of unlimited exclusive use of said idea for so many years it might as well be a lifetime. And especially software patents. They don't cover just one implementation. They end up covering every potential implementation of an idea.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Say what you want about Apple, they *do* spend billions researching new technology. And they should be allowed to recover that money.
You're ignoring the fact that they already have. Apple is about as far from losing money on the iPhone as you can possibly get, and the patent lawsuits have had nothing to do with that.
They were told by their lawyers not to create Dalvik without a licensing agreement with Sun, but they ignored the advice.
You are referring to this email [wsj.com] by Tim Lindholm, who is not a lawyer. Moreover, the context of the email is not 'if we use Dalvik we will need a license to Java,' it is 'I think we should just use Java.'
And now their getting their ass handed to them in court
Any evidence of that?
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is pretty close to the bottom of the barrel [zdnet.com] when it comes to R&D spending by tech companies in recent years. I think this is part of the reason they so irk technology enthusiasts. We don't like having proof that marketing > technology rubbed in our faces.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
$2,398,000,000 (2.2% of est $109,000,000,000) 2011
$1,760,400,000 (2.7% of $65,200,000,000) 2010
$1,329,900,000 (3.1% of $42,900,000,000) 2009
$1,105,000,000 (3.4% of $32,500,000,000) 2008
$792,000,000 (3.3% of $24,000,000,000) 2007
$714,100,000 (3.7% of $19,300,000,000) 2006
$556,000,000 (4% of $13,900,000,000) 2005
$331,200,000 (4% of $8,280,000,000) 2004
$496,000,000 (8% of $6,200,000,000) 2003
$437,600,000 (8% of $5,470,000,000) 2002
$428,800,000 (8% of $5,360,000,000) 2001
$399,000,000 (5% of $7,980,000,000) 2000
(same link) [zdnet.com]
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
If you know anything about game theory you know that the optimal strategy depends on the behavior of the other participants. For example, if there is one company that is offering a high quality product for a low price, competitors must do the same thing or no one will buy from them. However, there is a technique called "conscious parallelism" that allows companies to screw over their customers in concert with each other without actually having any formal agreement (which would violate the antitrust laws), and it works like this: One company raises their prices, or imposes some new restriction, or offers a shorter warranty, etc. As soon as they announce this, every other company in the industry does the same thing, with the expectation that as long as they all do it, customers will have no choice but to go along with it. Then all the companies benefit and all the customers are screwed.
This doesn't work if any one of the companies decides that they would rather compete on the merits by offering a quality product for a low price, because naturally all of the other companies that don't want to compete on the merits will lose customers to them (which is why company that doesn't join the implicit cartel wants to do it). This is why you see everybody trying to fight Google: They're offering decent products basically for free, which screws up the whole cartel dynamic, so they have to be "punished" by all the people who want to use conscious parallelism to line their pockets rather than working hard to earn honest money.
I mean look at what they've done to the whole curated computing scheme: If your only choice was between Apple's app store and Microsoft's, and you could only make that choice once every two years when you get a new device, and they both used all the same terms as one another and slowly made them more onerous... think about all the money those two would be able to extract from customers and software developers once they had them by the short hairs like that. But Google is upsetting the Apple cart, so to speak, because allowing developers to reach users outside of the "official" channels means that the different app stores have to compete with one another on the merits. Apple can't start ratcheting up their own margins because if they do then more users and developers will go to Android, where there are several markets and Apple can't expect everyone to follow their lead on pricing. Hence the litigation.
So I guess what I'm saying is, companies don't inherently have to screw over their customers, but if they choose to buck the trend then they can capture a majority market share... at the cost of having to deal with a bunch of sore losers flinging lawsuits at them.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
So Apple is the bad guy for saying that Andriod needs to recognize the existing laws and patents granted.
No, Apple is the bad guy for expecting everybody to respect Apples patents, but being not willing to do the same for others.
The case Motorola agains Apple in Germany is about Apple not being willing to pay for infringing on Motorolas patents for several years!
It is NOT about Motorolo not being willing to grant Apple a FRAND licence (they are more than willing), bot about Apple not being willing to pay for past infringment of these patents.
What do you call somebody who is not willing tho stick to the rules he expects others to follow?
The word 'hypocrit' comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
HTC, Samsung, Motorola have all used denied Apple licensing for their GSM and related standards based patents they are obligated to under FRAND terms.
I call BS.
Motorola IS willing to grant Apple FRAND licences.
But Apple wants to get jack free for past use of these patents, and Motorola says (rightfully so!) 'no'.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just a weird case study but a year ago I could not of said that, and I don't think it bodes well for Apple when nerds are running from their platform. Just read the
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it bodes well for Apple when nerds are running from their platform. Just read the /. comments.
Nerds have never been part of Apple's target demographic since the days of the IIe which shipped with circuit schematics. The vast majority of people are looking for a computer/phone that works like an appliance, and are never going to tinker with or tweak them in any way.
Re: (Score:3)
so long as the case is resolved at some point, the costs are usually paid by the loser.
if a case draws out forever, both parties pay.
taxpayers are relatively protected from all this.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially apple patented a method where an 'analyzer program' checks text for patterns (such as phone numbers and email addresses) and makes them actionable with a click.
The patent goes on to discuss that arbitrary patterns can be searched for using a plugin and that the analyzer software allows for users to select the program that handles the type of link. It seems that Android does indeed violate this patent in every way possible. I wonder if automatic hyperlinking of email addresses count as prior art; although this does not include the user interface element asking which program to use.
Either way; I think this is a sucky patent to have to contend with. It reminds me why I don't like software patents to begin with.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
i believe word processing software does this with spell checkers.
the first example of a realtime spell checker i encountered in 1997 with MS Word.
autofill has been in all browsers since about that time as well.
google does the same as you type into the search box.
Apple are full of the worst kind of shit in this case.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
eh? eh?
Re: (Score:2)
How many times do I have to say it? You can only patent a method of implementing a system, not just the idea of a system itself. Take a moment, click the link in the summary to the actual patent, read the claims section (not just the abstract), and then tell us whether you still think the prior art you list is actually prior art.
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, it isn't an invention, it's just two old and obvious ideas put together. For decades, programs have detected patterns in text and automatically linked them or associated a particular action. For decades, programs have asked users what program to use to handle a particular type of content. The idea of "let's detect patterns in text to de
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, Apple is using a law supposedly about innovation to ruin everybody else's chances in the marketplace. Their time on top is over, and legal protection for bogus patents is the only thing they have left.
Further, this was a horribly expensive "win" for Apple. They lost claims on 4 or 5 patents (these can never be re-asserted) and they won a tiny UI feature, that can easily be programmed around. Apple won't be able to enforce those patent claims against any other phone makers either.
The permanent loss of the patents far outweighs a UI quirk that can be avoided with a minor programming change which will be in place before the ruling takes affect. Its like going to war with 4 entire divisions, getting totally out trounced, but coming home with a mess-hall cook as a POW.
A few more wins like this and Apple will need a whole new patent portfolio.
Re:Evil Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose the only thing left to lament is all the money HTC had to waste to bring this common sense to light. Money that could have been spent on, well, something useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad I can't recall which software that was right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Microsoft Word 97 certainly did it. I'm not sure if anything predates that, but that is fourteen years old.
Re: (Score:2)
Like this?
http://adult.engrish.com/2005/09/20/think-really-different/ [engrish.com]
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/debian-cd/ [kernel.org]
Hmm. Seems ALL browsers and OSs can be configured via to allow arbitrary:// protocols to be opened with a specific program, indeed the latter can do so with plugins... Even when echoed to my xterm, that FTP line creates a link that opens my FTP program.
Who cares when the patent was granted. It's iterative and obvious, and it has been such since the late 80s wherein I played MUDs that had this
Re: (Score:3)
Monopoly?
I'm not sure you understand what that word means. At least, if you believe that they really are a monopoly then those market share figures for Android must be made up. I mean, I know it's hard to imagine anyone buying an Android phone, but I suspect the figures are accurate ;)
DISCLAIMER: The last sentence is A JOKE (except the part about the numbers not lying).
Sorry to be pedantic (Score:2, Offtopic)
Call them an evil empire all you want, I'm not doing to argue. That's the point you are trying to make. But don't call them an evil monopoly. They aren't a monopoly by any definition. I'm tired of people using that word and not understanding what it properly means.
It's like calling Sarah Palin a stupid man.
Re: (Score:2)
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/16/does-apple-have-a-monopoly/ [cnn.com]
cheers :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Screwed up Patent System (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Screwed up Patent System (Score:5, Insightful)
i think you, like the USPTO, have confused "invented" with "implemented".
it's the implementation of a blindingly obvious idea. it's not (or should not be) patentable in any way.
even if it's minor, pretty ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
So the non-frivolous claim on which Apple actually prevailed was essentially a regex to find things that look like phone numbers in unstructured text documents, which then link to a dialer app?
Re:even if it's minor, pretty ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
So the non-frivolous claim on which Apple actually prevailed was essentially a regex to find things that look like phone numbers in unstructured text documents, which then link to a dialer app?
It's slightly more complicated than that IIRC, but pretty much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>
So the non-frivolous claim on which Apple actually prevailed was essentially a regex to find things that look like phone numbers in unstructured text documents, which then link to a dialer app?
And even worse, there was a phone Zimlet available prior to the release of the iPhone that did exactly the same thing, minus the touchscreen equivalent of a click. This is a poor decision at best.
Re:even if it's minor, pretty ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you didn't read the date on the patent. It was filed in 1996 and granted in 1999. This patent isn't an iPhone patent. It's a Newton patent.
More to the point, the patent application was filed before Google, HTC, or Zimbra were even founded—back in the day when Palm was just starting to take off. You're going to have to look a lot farther back than the Zimlet for prior art.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, correction, on further searching, Data Detectors were initially a Copland UI feature (though it might have appeared in Newton at some point as well). My bad.
Re:even if it's minor, pretty ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand this fixation many Slashdot readers have on prior art, especially when examples brought in are much more generic than patent in question (and hence can only do what the patent describes if explicitly set up / programmed that way). I guess it's an attempt to game the existing system, but I very much doubt a non-lawyer's prior art claims would be of much use here.
Instead, we should be focusing on the real problem, which is how ridiculously broad and over-reaching these patents are. I mean, seriously? a patent on highlighting phone numbers in the text? even if no-one implemented that by 1996, most certainly a lot of people have done it independently since then, when devices where this feature is actually useful have appeared - and that's because the idea is extremely obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure it's a Newton patent? I didn't 2k35hl any spelling errands in 453k;jk15k . . . :)
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Awk isn't prior art. It might be possible to implement a small portion of this using Awk (though it would be a royal pain in the backside—Perl would do a much better job given that we're talking about detecting data in free-form text, not formatted records), but that doesn't make it prior art. Prior art has to do everything that the patent covers, not just one little piece.
Prior art for this would be a graphical (or text-GUI) application that, as part of its normal operation, detected email addresse
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Apple patented this in the mid 1990's.
Re:even if it's minor, pretty ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Skype did that before apple every launched an iPhone (obviously, not on a phone, but using phone numbers).
Whoever allowed them to get a patent like that is an idiot. It's not just the system that is wrong, is the ones controlling it and that should be evaluating patents for things like prior art and actual invention that are failing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but Apple did it and patented it seven years before Skype was even founded. Everything seems obvious fifteen years after its invention....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But some things are also obvious before their invention...like the thing Apple is suing over.
"New" should not mean the same thing as "Invention" as far as patent law is concerned.
It quite obviously doesn't promote innovation, and is tying up our legal system with stupid lawsuits that do nothing but harm the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Email links are explicitly marked. This patent is about detecting things that look like email addresses that are not marked with links in the HTML.
Also, all of your "prior art" examples were invented more than a decade after this patent was filed. Google didn't exist when this was filed, and neither did Microsoft Outlook. Netscape Navigator was still the most popular web browser—Netscape Communicator hadn't scared everyone over to IE yet. JavaScript had just been invented.
Remember, what's obvious
More details (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.itc337update.com/tags/337ta710/
2012 Elections - Any Hope? (Score:5, Funny)
Can we elect people who will terminate software patents, please?
has it always been like this? (Score:4, Interesting)
The flurry of international tablet lawsuits seems much more rigorous than I remember for any past technology. Was it always this bad?
Smart phones didn't sue each other this badly. Nor did DVD manufacturers. AMD & Intel went at it hard during the 80's & early 90's. Sony & Betamax sorta duked it out. But the tablet wars seem to be nutso.
At least the economy for lawyers is booming...
Re: (Score:2)
At least the economy for lawyers is booming...
Eventually people will just stop bothering to make things.
Re:has it always been like this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Smart phones didn't sue each other this badly.
Smartphones are STILL suing each other, including involvement by Apple. DVD was handled by a consortium and there's no money in going after unlicensed players, although the low-hanging fruit is picked just to keep the people making such things on their toes. Intel totally boned AMD. Betamax was a Sony technology, ITYM Betamax and VHS, but putting onerous licensing terms on a technology and killing it is actually called "Betamaxing".
Re:has it always been like this? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it wasn't. Apple's terrified of Android--not necessarily what it is, but what it may become, which is another Windows against their MacOS. That's history they don't want to see repeated on the smartphone and tablet. Except, they're a little too late, so they're scrambling around desparately throwing out whatever they can against Android hardware manufacturers in hopes it'll be enough to cripple Android and Android's ecosystem for the near future.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is just stalling while they try to get their house in order and put out a decent smartphone and tablet OS. This is why they're compelling other companies to pay royalty instead of outright taking them to court over the supposed infringed patents. They want these same companies to make Windows Mobile phones, not to go out of business.
when a win is barely a win (Score:5, Informative)
And maybe that is a win! (Score:3)
Not having this 'feature' may be a win for HTC. I find it really annoying when I touch a date and have my phone set itself up to dial '2011'. It also doesn't work, because when I try to use this feature, it only recognizes part of the number : usually just the '1800' of '1300' part, which is completely useless.
Legal costs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the patent system is to increase costs to consumers by reducing competition. There'd be no reason to have it otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to know what fraction of total expenditure for some of these companies is spent on legal tangles.
Hey! You don't think lawyers have to eat too?
Fuck Apple (Score:2, Funny)
or does Apple have that patented too.
USPTO in bed with Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It "just" embeds a tiff file. Maybe your browser is fooling you.
Re: (Score:3)
Patents need infringment time limits (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall my pocket pc doing something like this. I bought it in 2002.
wtf @ this patent (Score:2)
Re:Minor victory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?
Who's going to be able to innovate if they're being forced to waste their time looking for ways to work around stupid patents instead?
Such as inventing Ogg Vorbis, which is better than (Score:2)
MP3?
I agree that the patent system is broken because patents are granted for frivolous claims such as XOR cursors.
But to the extent that inventions really are novel and unobvious, and the claims non frivolous, continuously reinventing the wheel is really what we want. if we never reinvented wheels, we would still be rolling things around on the trunks of fallen trees.
Further I do not agree that software should be exempt from patents for the reason that the patent office gave, that software is an inherently
Re: (Score:3)
That's not reinventing the wheel, thats improving the wheel... Something you couldn't do if the wheel was patented because your improved version would still infringe on the original.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but anyone who things that software is just as mechanical as an automobile engine has never rebuilt an engine.
Spoken as someone with a math degree who earns a living coding....
Patentable inventions must be novel and unobvoius (Score:3, Insightful)
I would hardly say that turning phone numbers into hyperlinks qualifies as novel and unobvoius.
A real problem is that fiendishly expensive lawsuits are required to overturn patents. we would be much better off if just anyone could point out prior art that would get the patent office to overturn patents that aren't really novelmor unobvious.
the patent examiner who decides the unobvious part really should be an expert in the given technology. had some examiner ever studied the most elementary graphics, they
Re: (Score:3)
I would hardly say that turning phone numbers into hyperlinks qualifies as novel and unobvoius.
In 1996, it kind of was. The issue is that the duration of a patent is too long and what was once novel has become obvious.
Re:Patentable inventions must be novel and unobvoi (Score:4, Interesting)
meh it wasn't. I think you're forgetting how 1996 was. you could select email addresses back then in some sw and send email. even 1993 you could find prior art.
when was lynx made? because what it actually does if there's an email tag is analyze the input and make it clickable and give you a choice to send email, no? the patent is so broadly worded that it's rather irrelevant if there's the tags around it or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple went through the trouble coming up with it in the first place. What's so wrong with expecting others to do the same?
I'm inclined to believe that others who implemented this have also came up with the idea themselves, without reading Apple's patent. It's a rather obvious thing. The reason why Apple was there first was simply because they were the first ones trying to make a portable device for which this feature made sense (i.e. Newton). The device itself was too early for the market, though. But when the time for such devices came, everyone came up with that same idea - which just goes to show how obvious the thing is.
Or
Re:Minor victory? (Score:4, Interesting)
This should also be want Slashdot wants.
I like diversity in Slashdot opinions. If all Slashdot readers were Apple fanboys like you, it would be boring around here.
Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?
It's ironic that you chose the word "competition" to describe forcing people out of a space via an effective monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
Not if the "innovation" involves coming up with a non-obvious way to perform a task due to the fact that some company has patented the obvious way of performing that task.
Re: (Score:2)
Why reinvent the wheel? Take what already exists as a base, and innovate beyond it... That's how progress works!
Or would you prefer that the wheel was patented and every vehicle manufacturer but one had to waste huge resources creating an "innovative" replacement for it?
While a company is expending resources to create an inferior replacement for something that already exists, they can't be using those resources to create something truly new and innovative....
You'd end up with a situation where company A has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
umm, what? try read what the patent covers and see if your point stands up to the stupidity of the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Steve Jobs said fairly clearly that he simply wants Android to die, and I somehow doubt that sentiment was isolated to him alone, especially considering he personally groomed Tim Cook.
Considering the majority of the patents were invalidated, it isn't driving innovation they were after. If it were, they would limit their claims to those that are copying their innovative ideas. Rather, they are trying to impede the success of their competitors.
Re: (Score:3)
Being forced to reinvent the wheel isn't innovating, it's time and money wasting.
Humanity will get nowhere if it's forced to invent the same things over and over, rather than focus on inventing new things.
Re:I'm getting sick of these news stories... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Inevitable "Apple Sucks" Comments (Score:5, Informative)
Did you actually read the article you linked to?
Apple has accused HTC of patent infringement through its smartphones, and filed several patent lawsuits against the Taiwan-based company in Delaware in the last two years.
So Apple sued HTC and two years later HTC sued Apple, and HTC are the bad guy?
Re:Inevitable "Apple Sucks" Comments (Score:4, Informative)
HTC ONLY sued Apple in retaliation, Apple were the first to go after every Android manufacturer claiming Android copied their 'inventions'. Apple have never denied that and are completely unapologetic about the fact that they started the war. HTC are NOT doing the same thing. If they were doing the same thing as Apple, HTC would be launching lawsuits against other Android manufacturers like Samsung based on the same patents they are trying to use defensively against Apple, and even against other companies like Nokia, RIM etc.
Re: (Score:3)
it's OK for HTC to use frivolous patent lawsuits and injunction requests to try and destroy another company.
Who said anything about destroy Apple? Some dude called Steve Jobs did say something about destroying Android..
HTC didn't start the war and they are still willing to negotiate and settle the legal issues, hell they even paid off Microsoft's extortion racket, I bet they would even pay Apple for their ridiculous patents.
So if Apple were to assert that HTC attacked first by blatantly ripping off Apple's inventions, and that Apple was merely "retaliating" against HTC by asserting their legal property rights, you would defend Apple?
No I wouldn't, because Apple's 'inventions' are mostly trivial and/or have tonnes of prior art e.g. slide to unlock, multi touch
It's not for you to decide whether a patent is trivial or ridiculous. From reading other comments, most Slashbots don't even know the details of the patent, let alone the subtleties of patent law.
That's the biggest load of crap I ever read. When the words of p