HTC's patents could lead to an ban on the next iPhone & iPad

For me, it's been fascinating to see what huge companies that are flush with more cash than ever before [1] will do with that cash during a prolonged recession.

The most common argument for continuing to lower taxes on businesses is that it will stimulate the economy because the businesses will spend the money on their employees. It looks like what actually happens is that they spend the money waging legal wars against each-other.

[1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an...

So the patent system would more likely get reworked when a favored company loses money in the lawmakers' home so that they can put their hands on otherwise banned products? Interesting definition of 'HTC succeeding' here. I still hope you're right, though.

I think the most likely outcome of HTC "succeeding" would just be that Apple and HTC agree to "cross-license" between each other.

My guess is that Apple will enter cross-licensing deals with each of the major manufacturers, which is actually much worse because it would effectively block newcomers from entering the market and all you end up with is an oligarchy of incumbents.

> If millions of fanboys are denied their shiny new iPhones

Quite condescending.

I really like how you sickness on the subject leads to the most passive-aggressive and condescending statement in just one sentence. I'd love to see the patent system changed but I think it's about time we stop thinking Apple customers are fanboys (and that there are "millions" of them) or that everyone else's are not.

Regarding Washington, last time I check Apple was not even close to be the company that invest more money in lobbying. I don't know what is your base for "rather well connected" but if you have any evidence on this, it will be great to know.

There is no Android vs iPhone here. At worst for Apple, they let HTC off the hook and continue against others, for as long as they can.

Can Cook turn Apple over to eat humble pie?

Nokia owns loads of patents for GSM which the standards bodies negotiated terms on; I'm sure it will happen here as well.

I thought the LTE patents are covered under FRAND. Isn't Samsung being investigated for FRAND abuse.

Absolutely. And the licensing had better be cheap for new entrants to the market.

The important implication of stories like this is not "Giant Company #1 may be hampered by Giant Company #2's intellectual property."

Rather, it's "somewhere, someone who could make the Next Big Thing has just read this and decided not to bother, since making any device with a screen and menus and network access would probably get you sued."

This is exactly the opposite of what intellectual property (at least in the U.S.) is for: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

Can they? Judges have to go by existing laws, not invent them.

Most markets where money can be made are like that, though...

I feel exactly the same about smartphone UI.

I agree it's weird that the scope of the patents aren't limited to the actual modems and that the modem manufacturers haven't handled the licensing. But, maybe things are too fragmented... the modem chipset doesn't include the antenna or the SIM card. Possibly the patents cover things that are only possible once assembled. Given different antenna designs you couldn't expect the modem manufacturer to provide a blanket license them all. If that makes any sense. Similarly a floppy disk drive manufacturer doesn't provide universal licenses for all possible software that could be stored on a floppy used in the drive.

But your point about UHF/VHF is very interesting and I'd also be interested in learning more. There were at least a few famous big battles over radio (Tesla/Marconi/Edison) and TV (Farnsworth/RCA) but these are inventor vs company (probably more entertaining than bigcorp vs bigcorp). I'm sure the transition to color TV was quite ripe for company vs company battles. There was also the big change in patent law/precident mid last century. In an entrepreneurship course taught by a patent attorney, he described it as patents suddenly having big value while having been nearly worthless previously.

For some sorts of copyright, that is the case, like for music.

A company can legally deny another company a license to a patent or set an unreasonable price for it. Normally it is in a company's best interest to license the patent, but they are not legally required to do it.

But it's not perfectly legal if the patent is valid. The infringement would just be against the original company if said company hadn't been bought. Or are you suggesting that when a company is acquired all it's patents should become null and void?

Creative wasnt US company... Stop watching.