Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
dailytech.com
dailytech.com
Once nobody can buy computers or phones in the U.S. anymore THEN, just MAYBE, Congress will decide to fix this Patent mess.
...
Oh.
The big boys have portfolios of patents that they fling at each other until some sort of cross-licensing deal is reached, whilst smaller players just have to cross their fingers and hope that nobody decides to tax them too extravagantly.
I omit the possibility of creating non-infringing products simply because it's virtually impossible to bring any meaningful product to market without infringing on somebody's overly broad patent.
That's like saying, "We can't stop fighting this war, then all our guns would be worthless."
Now if patents were only used defensively (which they're obviously not in this case, since Apple went on the attack) the analogy would then be banning ballistic missiles right after acquiring a ballistic missile defense system, which would be easier to swallow.
Patents are being used aggressively because that's the nature of competition—if anyone is going to use them that way, everyone has to. But it could be in everyone's interest if that option were removed from the table, regardless how much each had previously spent amassing an arsenal simply to remain competitive.
Wait, in the news today: "Google Looks to InterDigital to Strengthen Patent Portfolio". So like everybody else they are buying even more ammo for the gun they keep in the nightstand drawer.
When you have a competitive market in force...
Further proof that hurting the customer is really all that these patents do.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/07/itc-judge-says-mac...
... [Litigating Apple] noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art. Apple can ask the ITC to review the infringement decision in light of the USPTO's invalidation of those patent claims as ipso facto an invalid patent claim cannot be infringed. ...
ars's source: http://www.litigatingapple.com/blog/2011/7/24/why-htcs-court...
And the soap opera continues.
The problem is, as technology advances, previously "genius" ideas become trivial due to more people being able to solve problems.
There was a time in history when things such as spoons were considered an amazing idea, but how utterly fucked would humanity's development have been if stone-age people allowed themselves to be crippled by greed and a the blind seeking of money.
Assuming someone hasn't patented a stick.
(Or come to think about it, the chewing process.)
It appears that's allowable now, since the patent has expired.
Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted.
The solution is not to abolish patents, the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO and/or change the system so that rubber stamping applications with approved is not incentivized.
You could fund it by taxing the patents themselves. Think your patent is worth $10 million? Ok, you owe the USPTO $100K and the legal damages you can claim from violation of that patent are capped at $10 million (this allows the competition to effectively public domain patents by buying them out).
Much less so then the current system. Much of the uncertainty and potential liability for small businesses would disappear. Unless your small business is a patent troll but then that's a feature not a bug.
"the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand."
This is both false (you are bounded by the cash on hand and the value of things you can use as collateral for loans or equity) and no different then the current case where you are bounded in the number of lawyer hours you can afford.
If I find an enormous diamond that is worth $20 million dollars but it costs more to have it properly appraised and marketed then I have cash on hand, trust me I will raise that money and sell it near full market price. I may not get 100% of the proceeds but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the apprisal system is incredibly biased against people that find diamonds.
First, you could defer any taxation for a couple years. That allows time for the inventor to find buyers or acquire (via loans, insurance, etc.) funding to handle the tax.
Second, you can break up the value and taxes into smaller periods. Like 3 or 5 year periods.
Third, the actual % taken of the value of the patent can scale progressively.
et cetera
I think you're missing the strengths of what I'm proposing: (1) it kills the patent troll business model and massively decreases potential liability for small businesses. (2) it fully staffs and funds the understaffed and underfunded USPTO. (3) it legitimately protects and rewards innovation.
Fact: We can't assume we'll ever get an ideal system and must choose among flawed ones. So we must do an analysis at that level and not some sort of comparison among ideals.
Except those laws are what allows the entire software industry(both closed source and FOSS). Without the protections of IP, none of the copyleft licenses(either Apache or GPL) have any power. Neither does any closed source license.
So no, intellectual property by itself isn't bad. It's absolutely required.
EDIT: Not sure why this is downvoted. The GPL itself relies on copyright powers to have any force. Remove copyright, the GPL loses all it's power. Any software license becomes useless, too.
But patents are a different beast. From what I can tell they've become an impediment to progress instead of an aid.
How do movies and tv work without IP? The answer is obvious -- 90% of tv is gone, hope you like community access shows. Movies would be shown in locked down theaters only -- no dvds, no streaming services. Games in locked down arcades only.
This is categorically impossible for software patents.
We will never have enough patent examiners with the necessary expertise much less time to make valid decisions on software patent applications. Look at the backlog. Any one on this board who designs software solutions and has ever read a patent knows this is true.
Thus it doesn't matter whether you like the idea of software patents in theory, in practice it is simply not a viable mechanism, period.
Your argument basically amounts to "well the dog pooped on the carpet, that's what dogs do, what can we do it about it except get rid of the dog?"
Real world: people respond to incentives.
(1) Currently the patent troll model is heavily incentivized.
(2) Currently, there's a huge incentive to file obvious and frivolous patent applications.
(3) Currently the USPTO is underfunded.
Obvious solutions...
(1) Disincentivize the patent troll model. You can do this by limiting the amount they can recoup from litigation or by increasing their costs. I'm suggesting both.
(2) Disincentivize obvious and frivolous patent applications. Obvious solutions are to stop approving these and to have some additional penalties for failed applications (esp. repeat offenders). I'd suggest both.
(3) Increase funding to the USPTO. You could do this with money from income taxes and the general budget (laff) but I'm suggesting using the highly lucrative patents themselves to finance the office.
No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy.
(1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents.
(2) You beg the question.
(3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.
This is one of the biggest problems with the modern patent system.
I wonder if it's actually one of the biggest problems, though? What are the average number of invalidations for other industries? Do other industries also suffer from "The Lodsys Problem" to the same extent as software? I'd also like to see a reference for that number!
My inclination is that, yes, software patents are terrible and should be abolished. Also, regardless of how 90% compares to other industries - it's a strong indicator that the way patents are granted in the first place is very broken.
As NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) is a licensee, units with its GPUs are not in violation.
However, models with graphics by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) or integrated
graphics from Intel Corp.'s (INTC) (such as the newly refreshed MacBook Air
lineup) are in violation.
The original purpose of the patent system was to improve consumers lives by:
a) Incentivizing innovations that would not otherwise be profitable.
b) Incentivizing disclosure of invention details that would otherwise be kept secret.
These are a pretty rare combination of circumstances for most inventions, whether software or hardware. a) is demonstrably rare since patents are constantly infringed, yet Apple (for example) still somehow manages to get by. b) does not apply to any technology that is distributed, since anyone can take it apart and see how it works.
On the other side, patents of any type actively harm consumers:
a) Products from large companies are driven up in cost due to litigation.
b) Potential innovation from small companies is stifled by fear of litigation.
I'm sure there's some use for a patent system, but it is very small. The US would be a far better place with no patent system than with the one we have now.
The latter being illustrated with a picture of Steve Jobs as the Emperor from Star Wars. Classy.
Second, Android clearly went with a strategy of cloning the iPhone, of course Apple struck first. Is Apple the bad guy for also wanting to close the fake Apple stores in China?
The question isn't who struck first, the question is whether each parties patents are valid or not and whether they are infringed or not. Defending poor journalism doesn't get us closer to that.
Android is not "just a clone" but it's clear that they decided to aggressively clone the iphone's features. If you don't think that's obvious, you missed what Android looked like 6 months before the iphone debut and 6 months after.
Now whether those features are protectable as IP or not is another matter but if they are it's no surprise that Apple would want to enforce such protections.
As in completely overhauled the device from a blackberry knock off to an iphone knock off:
http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-l...
"Hate to break it to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those"
I'm not making any claim that (1) iOS was first for any of those or that (2) whatever claims Apple is making are protectable or not or (3) whether google violates those claims or not.
What I'm saying is that: (a) some claims and protections have been granted, (b) it's Apple's right to protect them until/unless these protections are overturned/invalidated, and (c) I have no sympathy for people violating legitimate claims. This whole sub-thread is about "striking first" makes Apple a bully which is total bullshit. They're striking first because they're the person getting copied, that's how the dynamic works.
"the first Android phone (G1) didn't resemble the iPhone more than any other smartphone on the market. Most people that I knew were comparing it to the Sidekick when it first released."
That's rich, every review of the G1 I can find compares it directly with the iphone. Custom time limit a google search.
Plenty of handsets had full touch-screens before the iPhone came out. The only difference being that the iPhone decided to ditch any hardware keyboard option. Oh wait, what's that on the knockoff? A hardware keyboard option, and almost every other button from the pre-release prototype as well.
Please. The arguments are childish now. Every manufacturer takes inspiration from devices on the current market. Apple included. Only they decided to go and start suing everyone left and right.
The idea that Apple was the first person to sue anyone in mobile is laughable.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9ucqq8ZMD1qa34geo1_r3_500...
And hell, it's not like Android has been playing catch-up to iOS in the years since. There are some pretty awesome things in the base Android system that you still can't do on iOS (accounts manager, overriding the default app for just about any stock Android app, removable storage, etc.), or things that Android had first (multitasking), or things that aren't even in a stable iOS release yet (proper notifications) that Android has had for quite a while.
Now whether those features are protectable as IP or not is another matter but if they are it's no surprise that Apple would want to enforce such protections.
I just don't buy that world view. Yes, Apple is required to do whatever it takes to legally increase shareholder value. But in this case, it just amounts to an attempt at stifling competition. It's bad for the other companies, and it's bad for the end customers. Hell, it could be bad for Apple, too, if there's an import ban.
Zero. I'm very thankful that Android exists and webOS and WP7, competition is good.
"But in this case, it just amounts to an attempt at stifling competition."
I think it's a bit myopic to look at only this. You have to ask yourself the very important question of whether the iphone would even exist to be copied if there were no protections to keep people from copying too closely. If not, then there's a good argument that we'd all be much worse off.
It turns out it is hard to successfully clone Apple products. And even with a perfect clone, you still have to compete with their incredible brand and consumer loyalty.
Apple does not need our protection. Small businesses do. Unfortunately they are the real victim of the patent system.
These sorts of cases aren't usually very interesting. They almost always get settled with no disclosure of the final settlement.
While the whole patent system is tending toward absurdity, it's really absurd that you can be sued for infringement by using a product that infringes even if you have no idea or even a way of knowing that...
So now we can't have a PC with the best GPU and CPU because Intel and nVidia are suing each other over IP, and we can't have a cheap PC because Intel is infringing on S3 patents, and we can't even give up and get a top-of-the-line AMD/ATI CPU.
Argh.
Shakes magic 8-ball Signs point to yes.
"the reported industry average for invalidations during IP review is around 90 percent."
It would be very interesting to have a look at stats on patent invalidation reviews. If there's solid data showing that the invalidation rate is around 90% this might be useful as evidence that the USPTO is not doing their job by issuing patents that should never have been issued.
A number like 90% should embarrass anyone who might wish to argue that the system is not broken.
There doesn't seem to be anything inherently absurd about patenting an image compression system. I mean, imagine it was a small company that invented a new compression system that was 20% better then all the competition. Would they too be chastised if they tried to protect themselves from large corporations that ignore intellectual property law?
Patent are supposed to incentivize innovation and give the patent holder an edge against the competition as a sort of prize for his work. This "edge" was sold to HTC, and now HTC has every right to protect it. Seems like Apple should just either suck it up and pay a licensing fee, or change their hardware/software to get around using this technology.
The problem with the patent system is the disgusting legal harassment done by patent trolls - where smallish companies are sued over absurd patent and because they don't have the financial means to legally defend themselves they're pressured into settling; this case doesn't seem to exhibit any of those problems.
Of course for this to be effective a huge number of patents is needed, but there are probably a lot of big companies willing to give big bucks to avoid the patent menace, and they can raise enough money to acquire a huge number of patents. Plus each company will come with its own patents.
I guess others have already thought of this and found it impractical, which makes me wonder why it is so.
Of course, that doesn't stop patent trolls (terrorist rent seekers) with no skin in the game, but at least this drama would end.
When even companies that stand to benefit from the current patent system start complaining about the patent system, that's when we'll see some radical change.
I suspect all the big manufacturers realize that. They just don't have an option - someone is going to sue, so everyone feels they have to.
"Litigating Apple noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art."
Everyone wins except the new upstart company without eight billion dollars worth of bullshit patents. We don't need any new computer companies, though, there are enough already. The system works!
[1] - yes, I've just read "Black Oceans" by Dukaj ;).
I believe all patents should come with a required provision that lists a fair market value for licensing it which anyone can use, thus IF !STOLEN THEN PAID. In turn, this forces the USPTO to actually quantify (to some degree of error) the "useful" requirement of a patent and, by small extension, if it is "statutory" (product or productizable) and "nonobvious" (existing competition?). I think it also forces the requestor to give some detail on the intention of the patent rather than making an arbitrary claim to an underlying concept.
It's all about the money; they need to stop pretending and judge it that way. As it reads now, the current patent system was a premature optimization which planned for a society out of Star Trek instead of, well, lets not go there today.