Apple Suing HTC - and probably the rest of them

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35697425/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/

I know absolutely nothing about law, let alone patent law. How can something like the "pinch-zoom" feature actually be patented? It seems as though something as a gesture could not be patented.

Sounds like Apple is actually scared of the ever increasing competition in the smartphone arena. They are starting to showing just how much control they want.

I don't think this is a smart business move for Apple to go around suing everyone.

 

I'm not "defending" 'em on this one, and I too am no kind of expert, but they, Microsoft et al are pretty much constantly suing each other over patent infringement - IIRC, Apple are not alone in having tens if not hundreds of suits ongoing at any one time.....

Here's a page of pictures that accompanied patent applications that were believed to be related to the iPad: http://www.islate.org/?page_id=59

Is it "right" that you can patent "multi-touch"? I dunno, but if Apple invented and patented it then they have the right to protect said patents, no?

BTW, most of these are settled out of court - Often by the alleged "infringers" agreeing to pay licensing fees - Which seems reasonable to me (?)

I don't think Apple are worried about their market share - At least not yet......

Cheers,
Ian

 

I'll go ahead and support them on this one, though Apple and other companies have had a lot of other frivolous lawsuits like Ian mentioned.

The iPhone was really the first phone with only a virtual keyboard and just a full touch screen, they also created a way for it to work throughout the phone including pinching to zoom. Other companies chose to follow suit and do the same thing so I would say it is infringement.
I think this is hilarious, "Does it plan to sue every company on the planet that has anything to do with a phone that sports any feature outlined in an Apple patent?". That is completely reasonable in my book, Apple patents a technology and another company uses it, isn't that the entire point to a patent?

 

You'll support them based on what?

And "you'll say it's infringement" based on what?

The patent system is utterly and completely broken.

Patent examiners are incompetent and unable to reasonably determine what is patentable and what is not. The patent office has taken the stance that if something does not existing the prior art (existing patents), then they will grant a patent for it and let the private sector battle it our in court and judges will determine what the boundaries of patents are.

Fact is, Apple should never have been granted the patent. There is an existing patent owned by the University of Delaware that covers multi-touch interfaces on capacitative touch screens. That is precisely what Apple's patent covers. And Apple failed to list the pre-existing patent as prior art in their patent application.

Furthermore, one of the researchers at Apple had disclosed his own methods for multi-touch gesture based interfaces in the 1980's.

Apple should never have been granted this patent. They know it, but they went for it anyway and tried to weasel the patent office. Because the patent office is largely comprised of incompetent fools, they granted Apple the patent. And now lots of other companies are going to have to spend a lot of money fighting the patent that should never have been granted in the first place.

Something like 75% of patent suits end up going in favor of the person being accused of infringement. A majority of patents that are challenged are overturned.

In other words, the patent system is totally broken, and Apple are being corporate dicks trying to use legal means to compete. All companies do it, and Apple is no different. But they didn't invent multi-touch, and HTC isn't infringing.

Hopefully the patent will be overturned, and/or UofDE will sue Apple for infringement. Should be worth a pretty good royalty on the millions of iPods and iPhones sold.

 

They still have the patent, right or wrong they have it. If they were issued it wrongly then my comments don't stand, though the fault lies with the Patent Office. If this really is the case we need to abolish the patent system like you say.

 

I would say the fault lies with the patent office as well as companies who take advantage of the idiocy of the patent office for financial gain. And there are a LOT of those companies.

A guy I know had a company making LED lighting for fish tanks. He had a nice little business. One day one of those IP consolidator firms got the patent that covered LEDs for fish tanks and sued this guy, and he closed up shop. The patent was invalid, but he didn't have the $$ to fight it.

I know another guy who has a patent on putting LED's on flexible circuit boards. Flexible circuits have been around for 20+ years, as have LED's. Thousands of engineers have used LEDs on flexible boards for years. Any cell phone or remote control or even car dash panel does this. But this guy got a patent on it in 2004, and started suing people who violated it. One company stood up and fought him, and $100k later his patent was rendered null and void (rightfully so).

I know another guy who took a product *I* invented, and patented it, then came back to me for infringement. He learned about the design from me, and simply wanted to extort money through me not patenting it myself.

The system is totally broken. Apple failed to disclose prior art. The prior art is multi-touch gesture based interfaces for capacitative touch screens. That is exactly what Apples patent is for. It was wrongly granted. Apple knows this. Their lawyers know this. HTC knows this. Apple knew this before they applied for the patent. They took a gamble - don't mention the prior art to the PTO, get the patent and file the lawsuit as quick as you can before your victim can overturn the patent. Same thing happened with RIMM. They were sued over an invalid patent. The patent office had already notified them that the patent was going to be overturned... but the deadline on the lawsuit was before the patent expiration date. What do they do - do they close up the company or pay the hundreds-of-millions extortion fee to the invalid patent holder?

This is all a game, and I cannot supprt Apple in it. They hold an invalid patent and are using it to stymie competition unfairly. We should all be upset by this. It's not much different than Amazon claiming ownership of "buy it now".

I don't think the system needs to be abolished, but patent examiners need to grow brains and actually do some research. If they are incapable of doing that, then they should consult with industry people to determine if an idea is obvious to them (those skilled in the art) or if it already exists or did exist prior. Right now, the PTO leaves that up to the private sector to determine, and they just rubber-stamp most patents.

The sad part is that you could probably patent multi-touch interfaces yourself even now. It would never hold up in court, and Apple has more money for lawyers than any individual does, but the blame would lie with you for trying to get it to use it as a weapon to beat your competition, as well as the PTO for granting it in the first place.

Apple should suck it up and compete on features and ingenuity, not on cretinous patent examiners.

 

I completely see your point on this case, but you HAVE to admit many companies have copied Apple over the years. Before the iPhone there were ZERO phones from at least major manufacturers (maybe none at all) that was a complete touchscreen with no keyboard. 3 years after the iPhone is released and almost every cell company has one or two.

I didn't know about the past uses and patents but I guess I just keep seeing Apple getting copied over and over without and real compensation. They certainly aren't hurting in the profit area but I hate it when they come out with something revolutionary and the next thing you know everyone has one out.

 

Err, IBM beat them by only 15years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon

Multi-touch technology has been around since 1982, the Macintosh had yet to be invented at that stage...

The 1st multitouch screens were out in 84 and mutitouch tablets in 85.

Fingerworks from 1998 http://www.fingerworks.com/index.html which was later acquired by Apple in 2005.

2001 http://www.diamondspace.merl.com/

2004: Touchlight by M$ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/awilson/publications/WilsonICMI2004/WilsonICMI2004.html

2005: Playanywhere http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/awilson/publications/WilsonUIST2005/WilsonUIST2005.html

2005: Toshiba http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/tm_dsp/press/2005/05-09-29.htm

2006: http://www.synaptics.com/about/press/press-releases/synaptics-and-pilotfish-collaborate-develop-next-generation-mobile-phone-

Most of the touch-screen advances come from The University of Toronto.

The iphone wasn't the 1st phone to use multi-touch but it definitely was the 1st one to make it popular, tho the technology is still limited to fingers, things like M$ Surface does fingers hands and objects.


The only patent Apple has is the gesture UI technology, which as others stated shouldn't of been awarded a patent to begin with. Looking at the United States Patent and Trademark Office website I can see why they awarded them the patent, the ****ers are using quicktime! hahaha.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

WHAT!! Did you miss the whole PDA/Fone revolution? While most had styluses they were still touch screens.

 

Touch-screen phones before and after the iPhone:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Really though, would any of these phones exist without the iPhone? There are countless more examples of this, ie Vista, Zune etc.

I guess the copying of Apple isn't a bad thing and if these companies do it legally so be it, but I really hate listening to people complain about Apple and then buy products that would most likely not exist without them.

 

Where has Apple been copied "over and over"??

You are mistaken that "before the iPhone there was ZERO phones from major manufacturers that was a complete touchscreen with no keyboard".

IBM made the Simon back in 1993. Compaq had a GSM attachment for the iPaq 8 years ago that was almost identical to what the iPhone is - no buttons, no keys - virtual keyboard, ran apps, got on the internet, calendar, meeting planner, contact list, email, etc.

So, as with many things, Apple took what was out there and repackaged it into something else. Apple is often credited with inventing a lot of things and others are labeled copiers, but Apple copies stuff just like everyone else. The iPhone was not new, it was simply a copy of stuff that had been out for years before.

You said Apple has been copied over and over - what else were they copied on? What have they come out with that is revolutionary?

Apple's biggest asset is a massive network of buyers who don't really know all that much about the product they are buying, but consider it the best thing since sliced bread

 

Really though, would the iPhone exist without the iPaq GSM Phone? There are countless more examples of this, ie Simon, P800, Pogo.

I guess the copying of Compaq isn't a bad thing and if Apple do it legally so be it, but I really hate listening to people complain about Apple being copied and then buy products from Apple that are copies of things that existed years earlier. There would most likely not be an iPhone today without them.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Didn't know about that one so you have me there, didn't know about all those. Theres a reason the iPhone has sold considerably better than an iPaq or the Simon etc etc. Mindless drones, sure theres tons of them, but they still make Apple's profits rise, and they would not have had the drones had they not made a decent product to begin with.

Though I totally see your point about people buying it only because its Apple, that is becoming clear to me with the iPad which I think is the stupidest thing they have ever made. Usually stupid Apple products get cut rather quickly, ie the iPod boombox thing, the Cube etc, but I think the iPad is going to sell well.

 

Apple is good at taking many of the important features of a device and making them very good. For most users, this makes for a very usable device. Apple "got it right" with the iPhone interface as well as the size and look/feel of it. Using a glass screen was a great move. And because people saw the phone and thought it looked cool, they bought it... and when they used it, they found it easy to use. It was and is a great seller because it does a good job of filling the needs of the majority of average users. Power users usually get frustrated by the lack of features of Apple products, but they are products made for the masses looking for an appliance, not for the power users looking for the most powerful or best performing. And that's fine, and that's why they sell well.

Although the iPhone isn't the biggest success of the mobile phone world, it's in 19th place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_mobile_phones

Each of those phones touched a nerve and filled a niche very well. Some of them because they were cheap and functional (Nokie 1100). Some because they were really cool looking for their time (Motorola RAZR). Some because they hit a good combination of features at an attractive price.

I just wouldn't want to give Apple TOO much credit for inventing something they didn't invent, or starting a trend they didn't start, or being the best selling when they're not

Apple has had plenty of flops. All companies do. Microsoft had Bob, which still haunts them to this day. So do the Powermac G4, eWorld, Mac Mini and Newton haunt apple. I am pretty sure the iPad will follow the Newton and will go nowhere. But we shall see.


On the topic of this thread, I get frustrated when bogus patents are granted, and it's become a laughable sham from the PTO. They pretty much acknowledge it as a sham and are happy to let companies spend metric tons of cash hashing it out, which sucks for the consumer and for anyone other than a giant company with tons of $$ to spend on legal matters.

my .02

 

Also (not to beat a dead horse here) but you posted the HTC phone at the end as "after the iPhone".

If you look back at HTC's product line, they have been selling touch-screen-only phones for several years before the iPhone was even a twinkle in Steve Jobs' eye.

These pics are all HTC phones that were out and being sold well before the iPhone (some as early as 2002, in the case of the first pic, the Wallaby).

So on a neanderthal-to-human chart of cell phones, the iPhone definitely wouldn't be at the beginning where it all started
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I really do hate to nitpick but those figures are pretty out of date, the 6 mil figure just seemed really off, 2009 numbers show 25mil.

I remember you talking about how Apple doesn't support the programs you need and that is as valid a point as it gets as to why you shouldn't use one, though isn't much of that the 3rd party software companies? Apple just seems to be ahead of the game on many things, Windows 7 is just now coming upon the ease of use that OS X has had for 10 years.

Interesting how this lawsuit will turn out. Apple does actually cite the UoD patent in their patent so not sure how you could claim no prior art. The guys who invented it started a company called Fingerworks and was bought out by Apple, the inventor even says on his website that it is used on the iPhone, iPod touch, Macbook etc.

Apple Patent: 7619618
UoD Patent: 6323846

I see how UoD owning the original patent would be a very large problem, though how would the inventors be able to sell it if UoD still owned the rights?

 

Don't you mean PDF's? IMHO, a truly great standard for this type of work as anyone viewing the document sees exactly the same version - There's no questions about "bits being chopped off because margins were different" etc etc.

Returning to the OP, I do agree with Mike that the Patent Office process is completely broken. That isn't however a reason to slam Apple - They're all guilty of trying to "take advantage" of the system for their own benefit. It's certainly completely wrong to not disclose prior art about which you know, but in this case it seems they do have the rights to the UoD patent(s)?

I was a little involved with a "Free open source software" project a while back wherein the developers had their work stolen and patented by a third party [Very briefly]. The case dragged on for years (it's just last month been settled at huge expense) and became something of a "cause celebre" in the OSS world - Articles appeared in the NYT & WSJ in addition to the "geek" press. They have a pretty interesting web site documenting the whole sorry tale if anyone's interested:

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/Recent.shtml#2009-12-10

Cheers,
Ian

 

Still pales in comparison to the 200 million benchmark that the #1 selling phone set.

Yes, 3rd party companies are the ones who make the software. Macs are oriented to the home user, not the high-end market. So software companies that make high-end software don't bother with Apple because it's a home and light business oriented computer. Just like they don't make snow plow attachments for BMW's - different tools for different jobs

I don't know what you mean RE: ease of use. Windows 7 is pretty much identical to Vista, and OSX has changed a LOT in 10 years. I've been using Apple as well as PC since around 1991-1992 - there have been tons of changes. Apple and Microsoft both do what any company does - take the best of what is out there and incorproate into their product. Just like apple didn't invent multi-touch, but it's used in the iPhone.

I was unclear.... Apple does not cite the work of Westerman at UoD where he discussed multi touch interfaces. It also did not cite other prior art, including Microsoft's disclosure in the mid-80's and other disclosures in the 90's. The issue with UofD's patent is that there is some belief that the Apple patent infringes on the UoD patent.

The inventors didn't sell the patent to Apple, it is still owned by UoD. Where this would be an issue is that HTC is going to claim the Apple patent is invalid for numerous reasons. They are going to say that multi-touch devices had already been disclosed (and they had - numerous times), and that an existing patent covers the same technology. UofD may not choose to pursue infringement or they may pursue it against Apple and HTC or any number of other options.

Bottom line is that Apple didn't invent multi-touch interfaces, nor did they invent the keyboardless cell phone. They took ideas that existed int he marketplace, made a few changes, and deployed them as their own product.

Nothing wrong with that - companies do it every day, including Apple. Where I take issue is what I feel is the absurdity of the patent they were issued. It is very broad, it is covered by other patents, it failed to disclose prior art, and IMO they are being predatory with it.

I hope they lose the suit. It would be bad for the consumer if they didn't, because that would mean other companies could be prohibited from adding features to their phone because Apple has the rights to something that they didn't even invent, and that is wrong.

 

I thought Vista was complete trash and having spent a few hours on 7 I feel its a HUGE upgrade.

Again, honestly not trying to be a smarta** but what does Apple not cite of Westerman? I guess I don't understand why they wouldn't cite something that they already own after they bought his company? And how can he sell a company who uses his technology from a patent he doesn't own? I also thought that Apple was suing HTC over the way they use multi-touch, ie pinch to zoom, not because they are using multi-touch.