How Palm Designed Around Apple's iPhone Patents for the Pre | Hacker News Reader

How Palm Designed Around Apple's iPhone Patents for the Pre

palmaddict.typepad.com

35 pointsdominik12 comments

Engadget had a really great analysis of both companies' patent portfolio... their conclusion was Apple has a handful that may put a squeeze on Palm, but with a bare minimum of research into Palm's portfolio they came up with four that the iPhone is a near-direct rip-off of, with hundreds more they hadn't even delved into.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=454118 (News.YC) http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-dept... (direct link)

Workarounds are much easier than people expect. I was once pushed by a patent troll who wanted me to pay for some patent that I was violating. My lawyers told me that I had to pay and advised me to negotiate. (Lawyers seem to always look for the easy way out.)

But my brother, who developed our site, spent some time looking at the patent and figured out a way to do what we needed without violating the patent.

You can't give up because someone has a patent. Cleverness always wins.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. That section he is referring to in Apple's patent is just the part where Apple describes possible ways their invention might be used. In fact, if you read the intro to that section in the patent, it says "However, it will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details." The patent claims are what's important and most of them don't hinge on whether or not the gesture area displays a visual output.

You're correct that the claims are what matter.

The article, unfortunately, sensationalizes a bit and looks to the specifications to show how Palm designed around Apple's patents. But Palm didn't need to design around the specification. Palm only needed to design around the claims. They did this as well, it turns out, but the article doesn't highlight that.

Yes -- it is a common rookie mistake to confuse the specification with the claims. The claims define the invention and the scope of the patent; the specification helps interpret the claims.

Saying this, I have no opinion on whether Palm might be infringing this patent or not. From Palm's public statements--that they are just practicing the prior art, and multitouch has been around for decades--they are probably going to argue Apple's patent claims are invalid.

Am I missing something? Apple never actually said that Apple are looking sue Palm for any infringement. I remember it being a general statement about competitors blatantly ripping them off. It wasn't directed at Palm.

And I tell you one 'hell of an organization to beat' is the company that on their first attempt at a phone, came up with a device that everyone else are now following as the way forward. Apple have nothing to worry about.

//And I tell you one 'hell of an organization to beat' is the company that on their first attempt at a phone, came up with a device that everyone else are now following as the way forward. Apple have nothing to worry about.

I totally agree

I was reading the other day about how companies use patents like countries use nuclear weapons: As a deterrent.

Palm probably has a few patents on mobile internet-enabled devices or some such, which it could then use as a bargaining chip against Apple if need be. They all carry around these patent portfolios and agree to play nice. At least thats the way I see it working out.

The real loser in this scenario is the small disruptive company which wants to break into the big leagues. They don't have the nukes so they don't get to play.

Unless they happen to get a patent on their small, disruptive idea...

Caveat: And don't infringe on any of the nuclear arsenal the big leagues have. And don't get bogged down in litigation to defend against infringement. Fortunately it's usually much cheaper for the big leagues to license a patent or buy a start-up outright than it is to try to bury them through litigation.

It does make sense, so long as Palm (or any other company for that matter) holds enough patents against its lead competitor it can blatantly rip their opponent off, so long as their counter-suit has a higher value than the initial lawsuit.

It's precisely the kind of MAD theory that worked throughout the cold war. It works extremely well when things don't happen instantaneously. Missile launches between the USA and USSR were so delayed by physics that you could shoot your opponent back before they'd even killed you, it was like a masochistic Mexican standoff. Because lawsuits can take on the order of years it's effect is more profound, especially as any delay tactic in court can make the end result even more devastating.

I mean I've heard of judges suspending patent use to try and hurry the case through court; I'm guessing his justification was he didn't want to die before it was resolved. I mean imagine how fast Apple would settle a patent case if a judge said "Until this case is resolved, both parties have to suspend the sale of their products using a touch screen."

If their engineers and patent attorneys are really that well integrated, it's a sign that Palm, Inc will be one hell of an organization to beat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com