Bad News For Android: ITC Rules HTC Violated Two Apple Patents | Hacker News Reader

Bad News For Android: ITC Rules HTC Violated Two Apple Patents

allthingsd.com

20 pointsabraham30 comments

>“They are very likely to be infringed by code that is at the core of Android,” says IP expert Florian Mueller.

Now that's what I call a credible, expert source with no history of distorting the issues. Always good to see the balance and perspective that the business media gives to intellectual property issues in software.

Agreed and similarly I've seen Nathan Myhrvold, of Intellectual Ventures, on quite a few Sunday morning talk shows with supposed hardball journalists and not a peep about his patent trolling is mentioned.

Why was he on Sunday morning talk shows? What were they talking about?

Probably his culinary exploits (which tend to involve laboratory equipment...centrifuges being one of his favourite toys).

Fareed Zakaria had him on for some "Innovation" sermon. He's been included on a few discussions about climate change as well and he's usually labeled at ex-CTO of MSFT, without mention of Intellectual Ventures. I just find it dishonest.

I look forward to your analysis of the patents in question to show that Mueller is wrong.

Could you or somebody please provide clarification of Florian Müller's history of distorting issues, to those who don't know anything about that person?

It's been a long-running story. Florian is a stopped clock who proclaims that the sky is falling for free software about every patent and copyright issue. One of the best examples is a recent controversy over Android's use of its Bionic replacement for glibc. Here's a post that tries to sum up the issue and includes Linus' own opinion:

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linus-on-Android-head...

This is just one example of a long-running pattern with Florian's claims.

There's two schools of thought on Florian.

One is more or less how he presents himself - professional blogger about IP issues, a campaigner against software patents and neutral ref who reports on IP disputes. Take a look at the first few pages of his blog, nothing really stands out as overlu biased -- Apple won here, Apple lost here, new patent troll on the scene, etc.

The other view is that he's a paid shill for MS out to SCO Linux. Groklaw dug up something where he no commented when asked about his financing (or perhaps specifically about Microsoft) and some weak link between him and Darl McBride (he was apprently in the wedding party of McBride's brother's wedding party or something). Neither of those is especially damning but it's at least eyebrow raising esp when you combine it with the Android claims he made earlier this year.

I'm not ready to subscribe to the second view but I definitely take any android-geddon analysis from him with a large grain of salt.

That's a pretty poor example. Linus says he hasn't looked at what Google is done and is just assuming they wouldn't want to do anything wrong.

Mueller offered his opinion on whether what Google was doing has a copyright problem. He backed that opinion by citing to legal experts who argued that there might be infringement. Some other people offer a different opinion (without citing to legal experts to at least show plausibility).

Maybe Mueller is wrong on occasion when he offers his opinion. However, when he's reporting on facts rather than opinion (i.e., in most of his writing), he's quite accurate and a very useful source of information.

I'm astonished at how broad the patents in question seem to be: http://www.google.com/patents/about/5946647_System_and_metho... and http://www.google.com/patents?id=nCYJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=f...

The first one especially seems like it could describe any computer system at all. I guess I am just not smart enough to be a patent lawyer, and I say that with a straight, straight face.

The key point of the first one is the popup list with the choices based on the string parsing. I'd guess there would be prior art but it also seems like Android could work around that pretty easily.

So, the pairing of Natural Language Processing with generating a popup?

"Litigation that attacks open-source products limits consumer choice, hurts the economy, and discourages innovation."

I find this interesting, in a world where software patents exist this seems tantamount to saying "software patents ought not to apply to open-source products", does Google really mean this to be read as "[Patent] litigation ... limits consumer choice, hurts the economy, and discourages innovation", if so, given that they are in a better position to influence legislators than I am, what pro-active steps are they taking to change the status of software patents? Or do they really mean "we don't like it when Apple uses patents against us"?

Breaking: company that copied other company's invention in favor of less stringent copying rules.

Do people really want someone with Google's revenue stream and internal R&D getting into the aggressive patent game?

I don't "want" anything, Google should choose and do what they want. I'm just observing that Google is a company with few patents and are in competition in multiple areas with companies with more patents that they very possibly infringe on. It is therefore no surprise that their view on patent law is incredibly in line with this position.

I believe there's a trend in tech circles to conflate "patents badly need some reforms" with much stronger views along the lines of "patents are pure evil". This is just rubbish. The alternative to patents is massive secrecy on a ridiculous scale.

" I'm just observing that Google is a company with few patents and are in competition in multiple areas with companies with more patents that they very possibly infringe on. It is therefore no surprise that their view on patent law is incredibly in line with this position."

It's a given that you can't enter a field without infringing on patents. Therefore the choice is to either not to grow or to infringe on others patents. Every company has to make that choice not just Google. In the current system the best thing Google could do to defend itself would be aggressively patent everything to use as a weapon. For some reason they have chosen not to do that and that hamstrings them.

That gets dangerously close to "patents are pure evil". When a company that chooses not to abuse a government provided weapon is at a major disadvantage and other companies can use the government to damage it.

Yes, "software patents ought not to apply to open-source products", because "software patents" ought not to exist.

I wonder if the headline was so trollish when Apple violated Nokia's patents and settled by paying.

It's actually quite funny to see "media" (blogs included) role in the Mobile Tech reporting - they either troll bait for clicks on both sides or are just supporting their "team" by offense or defense at every opportunity ;)

Speaking of which there was this on Slashdot - http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/15/1331243/The-Scien...

Honestly what's wrong with the headline, is this not 'bad news for Android'?

As for how the media works, I think you'll find that selling news with catchy headlines has a long history and is hardly exclusive to the Mobile Tech industry.

a) Appeal is pending - the news is not yet final.

b) Patent cross licensing deals aren't that uncommon - Apple is paying Nokia royalties for e.g. without anyone saying it was "bad news" for Apple

c) HTC != Android - I understand the patents are about Android but remember - HTC is also flush with cash, they are appealing and they just bought S3 and Apple violates their patents. Other Android vendors may have enough patent chest of their own to not lose much in the fight.

As far as the media goes - so far those type of media outlets were seeking sensationalism for its own sake or just for making money's sake - taking one "side" and seeking sensationalism in everything that goes for it - that's new as far as I know in tech industry.

a) If you're found guilty of murder that's still bad news regardless if you plan to appeal. Analogy not precise here, it's a preliminary finding not a final verdict, overall logic is the same - one side of a case can have all sorts of bad news.

b) Plenty of people said that was bad for Apple, I'm sure Steve Jobs would prefer not to part with those billions of dollars. {There's a minor difference in that it wasn't "bad news" because it was a negotiated settlement, not a revealed finding and thus not "news" to Apple}. At any rate it was widely reported as a victory for Nokia and a loss for Apple.

c) That is disingenuous. HTC (also mentioned in the headline) is not a household name and it is a huge part of Android. This isn't just bad news for HTC, it's arguably worse news for Android because the patents are reportedly fundamental to the OS. If HTC (et al) can't import Android phones or the fees make the cost of it too high they're just going to switch to WP 7.

Media: the media isn't taking sides here, the ITC did and the media is reporting that. What's your perfect headline?

How does any of that make sense to you - I am too tired atm to restate the obvious but -

a) Hyperbole - murder cases and patent cases don't compare. Convicted of murder doesn't have any negotiation left - plenty of negotiation is possible in this case as I pointed out - HTC can use S3 patents to offset or even make up for what they might end up paying Apple if they lose the appeal.

b) Patents are sad reality for everyone and anyone who wants to make and sell significant mobile product - Apple, Nokia, Microsoft, Google, HTC - all are at risk which they manage by paying up or making cross patent licensing deals. If it's bad news it is bad for everyone - not just Android. And HTC doesn't seem to be in a particularly bad position here - they got the ITC to invalidate some of Apple's claim and they have a favorable ruling in S3 case which they can use against Apple.

c) See b) - You don't seem to fully grasp the patent scene - whatever it is - bad/worst/ugly - it is the same for everyone. Or are you saying Apple is somehow immune to all this?

a) Exchange 'murder' with 'jaywalking' if you like, either way your argument that there can be no bad news because they can appeal is just silly. It doesn't even have to be the verdict -- not getting the juror you wanted, not getting that evidence/testimony/witness in, not getting a continuance, these are all bad news decisions. The fact that you can appeal any of them doesn't change them being bad news.

b) that is your opinion about the overall patent industry but today's specific news is not about general patent industry. It's about this finding by the ITC. It is most certainly good news for Apple and bad news for HTC and Android. Do you think HTC was happy when they heard this? I think they were disappointed to hear this. That is bad news by definition.

c) I think your view is clouded by your Patent Derangement Syndrome. No Apple is not immune to anything, they could benefit or pay horribly like anyone else. When they infringe on people's (valid) patents I believe Apple should pay the appropriate penalty. Conversely when other companies infringe on Apple's (valid) patents I believe they should pay the appropriate penalty. Thirdly patents that should not have been issued (i.e. many of them) should be deemed invalid. What happened today was a preliminary finding that Android maker HTC infringes on several of Apple's patents. There could be worse news but this is unquestionably bad news for HTC and Android.

Let's say court ruled Person X stole ThingA from Person Y.

Let's also say court ruled that Person Y also stole from Person X, they stole ThingB -> You are stopping here - uh oh bad news for Person Y.

We don't know what ThingA values vs. ThingB - You are still saying it's net bad news for Person Y without seeing the full picture - it might not be bad for anyone if it all cancels out for the most part.

So yes patent infringement is bad for the party doing it - only if the party claiming the infringement does not also infringe on their patents. In this case Apple infringes S3 patents.

You're trying to take last month's news and net it out with todays news. This is absurd.

Let's take is as a given that Person Y stole something from Person X and was found guilty of that last month.

Now there's a question about whether Person X also stole something from Person Y.

If the judge today rules for Person X that is bad news for X. If the judge rules for Person Y that is bad news for Y. It's that simple.

If the Cavs beat the Mavricks in game 1, losing Game 2 is bad news for them because they would have been up 2-0 instead of tied 1-1.

this ruling isn’t final, and Apple’s victory isn’t terribly meaningful in the long term.

Source: http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/15/preliminary-ruling-finds-...

PS: that's a real lawyer reporting, so I guess he know what he talking about. Rather than some random reportor

You gotta love how this is one of the most active posts here right now, but it somehow has been relegated to the third page. Fuck Google fanbois and fuck this bullshit that constantly goes on at Hacker News.

> “We are confident the Commission will ultimately agree with the ITC staff’s finding that HTC does not violate any of Apple’s patents. Litigation that attacks open-source products limits consumer choice, hurts the economy, and discourages innovation.”

Just like you were confident you'd win those Nortel patents with those cute bids?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com