20 ms·

Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

105 points by alexandros 17y ago

mcav 17y ago
Steve Jobs: > "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."
- martythemaniak 17y ago
  Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo: > "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."
  - mbreese 17y ago
    I assume you're talking about Nokia (since as an American, I can't be bothered to remember their CEO's name). The Nokia situation is a little more murky than this. With Nokia, Apple tried to license their patents (which I believe are crucial to GSM), but Nokia wanted a broad cross-licensing agreement, to basically use all of the Apple display / mobile device / multitouch patents (what HTC is accused of doing). Patents involved in communication standards are supposed to be licensed on reasonable terms, so Apple cried foul. The predictable lawsuit and counter-suit then commenced. I don't think anyone in this case is saying that HTC bothered to ask Apple to license the patents in question.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- freetard 17y ago
  Steve Jobs: > "innovating is stealing" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
cnlwsu 17y ago
Steve Jobs, visited PARC in 1979 and was impressed and influenced by the Xerox Alto, the first computer ever with a graphical user interface. Jobs designed the new Apple Lisa based on the technology he saw at Xerox.
- tewks 17y ago
  They, Xerox management, gave him a license to do so. People at PARC weren't so enthusiastic, I think.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    The Xerox management thought all of those things were just toys and that computers would never be anything but what they were at that moment. Reminds me of a lot of people who look at the iPad and say "meh."
    - catfish 17y ago
      Fools rush in... FOR DRM.
    - axod 17y ago
      Come on now. Please explain to me what is revolutionary about the iPad. It is 'meh'. It's just a big iPod touch. It's like a netbook or laptop but less useful. There's nothing revolutionary about it at all. It's a slightly slicker version of all the tablet PCs that have failed to capture significant market share for the last 10-20 years. It'd be easy to say "sure but you're a geek, you just don't see how easy to use and useful the iPad is for normal people". But I don't think it is. The form factor is just bad. Watch the video on the Apple store, and you'll see actor after actor carefully pretending that it's comfortable to sit/stand/hold this device without getting an aching hand/sore neck etc. Yes, there are applications, just like there have been for previous tablet PCs, but they're niche. Is it really that much more than the Apple Newton was 20 odd years ago? Did the Apple Newton seem revolutionary at the time? If so, why did it fail? I'd love to hear a concrete reason why the iPad is 'revolutionary'. Like a genuine reason, not just people pointing to the lone person on slashdot who called the iPod 'meh'. That doesn't count. So, please explain to me clearly, why having a laptop without a keyboard/trackpad is revolutionary.
rauljara 17y ago
I love that apple drives innovation in hardware and interface design. I hate that the patent system we have now actively hinders the adoption of apple's innovations. Apple complains that competitors are stealing apple's technology, as though apple's success relies entirely on technology x or y. Not true. Apple's success is based on its polish and attention to detail, something which competitors have an incredibly hard time copying. I for one, love when competitors copy apple, because it forces apple to up its game.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - mbreese 17y ago
    Copyright law alone doesn't incentivize the kind of work Apple does Wasn't this the crux of the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit in the 90s? Apple claiming a copyright to the windows metaphor? So yeah, I'd say that copyright law doesn't quite cover them in this case.
- raganwald 17y ago
  Apple's success is based on its polish and attention to detail If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail? You want to have your cake and eat it too: You want Apple to innovate and you want everyone else to leverage their innovation freely. I understand why that's in your best interests, I can't figure out why Apple would bother if everyone else could "adopt" their innovation wholesale. Where do you want to draw the line? Can others adopt Apple's multi-touch gestures? How about the look and feel of OS X? What about the code, can CherryPC or whatever they were called make PCs that run OS X by writing drivers for it? How about duplicating the OS X copde, can Chinese clone makers simply copy the OS X code and replace Apple's logos with their own?
  - kristiandupont 17y ago
    But it's not like Apple aren't standing on the shoulders of giants as well.
funkdobiest 17y ago
Good artists borrow, Great Artists steal - Pablo Picasso, I think Jobs also quoted that phrase as well
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- glhaynes 17y ago
  Yeah, he totally stole that line from him.
jsmcgd 17y ago
Which particular patents are in question?
- raptrex 17y ago
  Digital Daily has the documents http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples-suits-against-htc-both-documents/ http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples-suits-aga... Gizmodo has a summary of the patents: The ‘331 Patent, entitled "Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States," was duly and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘949 Patent, entitled "Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics," was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The ‘849 Patent, entitled "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image," was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The ‘381 Patent, entitled "List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display," was duly and legally issued on December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The ‘726 Patent, entitled "System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device," was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘726 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The ‘076 Patent, entitled "Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices," was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘076 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The ‘105 Patent, entitled "GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality," was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘105 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The ‘453 Patent, entitled "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor," was duly and legally issued on June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H. The ‘599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I. The ‘354 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods," was duly and legally issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J. http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-on-20-iphone-patents-the-complete-documents?skyline=true&s=i http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-on-...
kls 17y ago
I think they should put a cap on the size of a company that can hold and enforce patents. Apple et. al. do not need the protections afforded by patents. I know that in reality this would just create a lot of proxy companies but there has got to be a better way; getting rid of the patent system is not the solution as it does provide the little guy protection, from the big guys just stealing, his idea and drowning him out with cheaper copies. But given the two choices, I am cheering for the patent trolls to just screw the whole think up to the point that the big guys clamor for it to go away.
yanw 17y ago
Way to stifle innovation, Apple. incumbents and lawyers getting what they want, fantastic system ...
- alabut 17y ago
  Innovation and theft are two different things. Forget the hardware and architecture patents - I'm sick of design being treated as a commodity that's assumed to be freely copyable, simply because it's a user interface rather than a hardware element. Just as many hours and insights went into making the iPhone UI as it did the physical device.
  - tkahn6 17y ago
    Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image Maybe hindsight is just 20/20, but "slide to unlock" seems to be something pretty obvious.
    - tumult 17y ago
      Not at the time. I remember people chuckling aloud the first time they saw it. "Hah! Clever!" Steve Jobs even repeats it multiple times in the original iPhone keynote to demonstrate. I still don't think they should have a patent for it.
    - evgen 17y ago
      It becomes obvious once you make the leap to "there is no keyboard, the touchscreen is the entirety of the interface", but prior to the iPhone no one had dared to try that particular path of development. It was probably not possible to patent the concept of only using a touchscreen for your UI, so instead Apple patented a lot of the little details that are a consequence of its innovative leap.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        One shouldn't be able to patent something that's a direct consequence of having a specific limitation, This slide to unlock idea is something a reasonably clever designer would figure out in about 5 minutes. And, BTW, is a common feature in many physical devices that employ a lock over a button. It reminds me of the locks I had in my car by the late 80's and the power button I had on a Compaq server in the early 90's.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
  Considering you can't sue a device, they're suing HTC...
  - lutorm 17y ago
    Couldn't they sue all users of Android devices then? The complaint seems to indicated that users are infringing when they use the devices. But maybe that would tip people off to how screwed up the system is...
    - nailer 17y ago
      Until recent updates, Google branded devices didn't enable multitouch by default. That changed shortly after Eric Smidt left the Apple board and all the Nexus One's got multitouch turned on in an update. Perhaps Apple will sue Google now? (just a guess - I personally would prefer AT&T sue Apple for 'stealing' their 1960s multitouch technologies for pinch and zoom)
- inffcs00 17y ago
  Apple is suing the biggest Android phones maker
RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
Same story for those who prefer it on TechCrunch: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161526 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161526 ADDED IN EDIT: tl;dr - I think cross referencing is a Good Thing(tm). Clearly some people here think that this comment detracted from the value of HN. I can accept that, and I don't mind the loss of karma. Let me just explain that as a programmer I abhor unnecessary duplication. Equally, though, as an infophile I like to get different angles on each story, to try to see if there's any extras. So when I see the same story from different sources I like to read them all, but equally, I prefer that discussion and comments end up in one place. So I try to add value to HN in part by making sure these things get cross-referenced. Mostly I think people find it harmless. Some people actively dislike it and vote me down, others actively like it and vote me up. Yet others find it both irritating and useful in equal measure, so no doubt they are confused and conflicted. That's their problem. But I'm slowly stopping doing this anyway. I get the occasional comment saying it's really appreciated, but in general I'm reducing the time I spend here anyway. And that's the rationale behind the comment. ADDED FURTHER IN EDIT: Or perhaps you saw that I'd got the reference wrong and just down-voted me instead of bothering to tell me. Now I'm really disappointed in the HN crowd. I've fixed the reference.
- nailer 17y ago
  I appreciate the need to get different angles, TechCrunch however isn't a credible source of information (they throw great parties though). I'd love to see a Mashable or CodeSketch or whatever perspective though. Someone else contributed John Gruber's post on the topic and was modded up accordingly.
kerringtonx 17y ago
I was wondering how long it would take Apple to start doing this. A good amount of phones have similar tech to their baby.
pg 17y ago
If this had happened a day earlier I don't think I would have posted that RFS. Apple is inching ever closer to evil, and I worry that there's no one within the company who can stand up to Jobs and tell him so.
- CoryMathews 17y ago
  Apple has been evil since the first ipod when you had to use itunes to load music. They have locked people in with no cheap way out. Pure evil IMO.
  - mishmash 17y ago
    Pretty sure DRM started out as an industry idea. Regardless, it all pretty much had to happen the way it did. At the time, none of the major studios would have considered releasing DRM-free music. The had to be shown that it would work first.
    - spanktheuser 17y ago
      Maybe DRM is an idea that comes from anyone who creates content and wants to get paid for it. Yeah, most of the DRM implementations out there are a PITA, but what choice do content creators have anyway? I recently read that 90% of the installed base of World of Goo was pirated. How would you feel if someone stole 90% of your web startup's source code? Oh, you say you lock your source repository that down with tight security at the network and server level? How is that conceptually different from DRM, exactly? I realize that the implementation is very different, of course, but that's not my point. Besides, I don't expect DRM implementations to be so painful in the future. DRM on PCs sucks because it attempts to close the barn door after the livestock has escaped. If you want to see a device where content control was built in from the ground up, consider the xBox, which is basically a special purpose PC that with tightly controlled installation rights and distribution of content. So the DRM can be relatively unobtrusive. Or look at Steam, which has gotten quite a bit better than it was a few years ago. And they've been experimenting heavily with bringing down the price point for games, now that every paying user doesn't have to subsidize 10 thieves.
frederickcook 17y ago
Mobile devices is an incredibly patent-heavy landscape, where manufacturers are used to licensing technology from one-another and have been for years. Obviously Apple and HTC have been in discussions (lawsuits are incredibly expensive and always a last resort) and the fact that Apple went ahead and filed indicates that these discussions failed. This means either HTC was offering less than 'market' in licensing fees, or Apple was asking for more. Which do you think is more likely?
- rbanffy 17y ago
  It could be a "you infringe on as many of our patents as we do infringe on yours" thing too. I expect a counter-suit.
- jcl 17y ago
  Regardless of how patent-heavy mobile devices may be, this represents a major change in Apple's policy. In some discussion thread in the distant past, someone pointed out that Apple has never used its patents offensively. And a quick check through Wikipedia seems to confirm it: The only mention of patents was in cases where Apple had first been sued for violating a competitor's patents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation Up until now -- well into their reign in the mobile device sector -- Apple could claim that they were only amassing patents as a means of defending themselves from other companies with patents. Hence, this preemptive strike is unusual.
mcav 17y ago
Could suing for patents ever be considered a violation of monopoly law? (I know Apple isn't a monopoly.)
- protomyth 17y ago
  By definition, patents give you a monopoly.
Roridge 17y ago
If I were paranoid I might think that this was a bit of an attack on Google rather than HTC.
- thetrumanshow 17y ago
  I agree. It smacks of a proxy war.
  - Roridge 17y ago
    "if" it were an attack on Google rather than HTC, I wonder what it is that has spooked Apple to bring out such a big gun now, rather than earlier?
    - jrockway 17y ago
      The fact that the Nexus One is better, hardware-wise, than the iPhone? (Earlier Android devices were intentionally stripped down for the sake of being inexpensive. The Nexus One is not.)
      - nailer 17y ago
        And that HTC's own-branded Android devices compete and better iPhone in a lot of ways. When I moved from iPhone to hero, my contacts suddenly all had photos from Facebook, I didn't have to open apps to check twitter or stock prices, I could add a shortcut to SMS my girl right onto the home screen, and I didn't have to sync anymore.
- blasdel 17y ago
  I think it's far more calculated than that: Google's shipping Android builds avoid a lot of basic UI features that Apple did first. HTC then adds most of them through their "TouchSense" modifications, just like they did with WM6 before. They're trying to keep Google in its place, and prevent HTC from extending it. They're happy with Android being out there for the dorkwads and ideologues (it lets them shed their 'worst customers') but they don't want the public to see a sea of direct clones of their style of multitouch.
nailer 17y ago
HTC should countersue (if Apple are actually trying to sue HTC over HTC's technology and not Google's). HTC pushed pure touch-based phones for years before Apple released the iPhone in 2007 and should have a reasonable patent portfolio they can use against trolls like this.
- bitwize 17y ago
  Apple released the iPhone in 2007. They didn't even release the iMac until 1998.
freetard 17y ago
I guess that makes Steve Jobs a hypocrite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
zppx 17y ago
I'm really hating how tech discussions relating to Apple are turning in the Apple fanboys versus detractors of Apple.
tsally 17y ago
My next computer wont be a Macbook. :-/ Which makes me really angry because I love my current Macbook. And there goes the thought of buying an iPhone as well. Unfortunately at this point I feel that I'm obligated not to buy Apple products. Walk with your feet, as the saying goes. Believing in patent reform can be damn inconvenient sometimes.
- ronaldj 17y ago
  I'm in the same boat. I think Apple should consider adopting that bullshit "Don't be evil" mantra.
  - nailer 17y ago
    Apple make good laptop hardware though. Here's a better idea: keep your existing Mac, but buy an HTC Desire as your next phone. You get a lot of features the iPhone doesn't have (pictures for your contacts, social network integration, streaming, no sync requirement, a faster CPU) and stick it to Apple at the same time.
orblivion 17y ago
I don't know why, but this just makes me laugh.
dpifke 17y ago
I love John Gruber's response to this: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/stand-by-this http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/stand-by-this
acg 17y ago
It seems to part of a longer game, I think certain companies are not wanting "Google Voice" to revolutionise phone calls. There is a lot of companies making a lot of money for not a lot of bandwidth.
brucejacob 17y ago
Swiping to unlock and other similar patented items are all "obvious" design decisions. All great design is obvious because great design produces things that are appropriate. Moreover, because great design is so obvious, it must be easy to design great things; the world must be full of great designs. Right? Um, no. The truth is that great design is NOT easy, and it stands out so prominently because the world is NOT full of great designs. Things like swiping to unlock are "obvious" only in retrospect. All great design is obvious -- in retrospect -- because great design produces things that are appropriate. But it is hard to do (PG has several essays on precisely this topic). Moreover, because it is hard to do, great designers are rewarded with some degree of protection for making the details of their innovations public (thus the legal terminology that patents "teach" a particular topic). I don't see why we should expect great designers to give up control of their ideas, willingly or otherwise, simply because those ideas are particularly good. Much of the logic in these comments amounts to "the iPhone had such a marvelously simple UI that everyone copied it, and because it became pervasive (by virtue of the copying), it must remain pervasive via Apple giving up the right to protect their IP." I just don't buy that. Also, people are asking "why now? why not earlier?" According to Gizmodo & other news sites, the brief is some 700 pages long. I'm sure Apple started working on this the day the Nexus One details started surfacing and it became clear it was effectively an iPhone clone. They can't sue Google (remember that Schmidt sat in Apple's huddles for years, listening to the plays, learning the playbook by heart, soaking up all insider info he could) because Google is intentionally disabling contested technology in Android -- they evidently know quite well what patent infringement means. Google is instead relying upon their handset manufacturers to enable the contested technology and thus take the bullet for them. I wonder why nobody is criticizing Google for using HTC as a "human" shield?
nopinsight 17y ago
Why can't Apple continue to out-innovate Nexus One and Android instead of suing them? Reading from the overall situation and his quote, Steve Jobs might feel that the current iPhone UI is 'perfect' as a whole. Apart from nitty-gritty details, he does not see a way to drastically improve it. (That's why he chose it for the iPad UI as well.) So he might figure that the only way to stop competitors from getting too close is to sue them.

105 points by alexandros 17y ago

mcav 17y ago

Steve Jobs: > "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

martythemaniak 17y ago
Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo: > "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."
- mbreese 17y ago
  I assume you're talking about Nokia (since as an American, I can't be bothered to remember their CEO's name). The Nokia situation is a little more murky than this. With Nokia, Apple tried to license their patents (which I believe are crucial to GSM), but Nokia wanted a broad cross-licensing agreement, to basically use all of the Apple display / mobile device / multitouch patents (what HTC is accused of doing). Patents involved in communication standards are supposed to be licensed on reasonable terms, so Apple cried foul. The predictable lawsuit and counter-suit then commenced. I don't think anyone in this case is saying that HTC bothered to ask Apple to license the patents in question.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
freetard 17y ago
Steve Jobs: > "innovating is stealing" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

cnlwsu 17y ago

Steve Jobs, visited PARC in 1979 and was impressed and influenced by the Xerox Alto, the first computer ever with a graphical user interface. Jobs designed the new Apple Lisa based on the technology he saw at Xerox.

tewks 17y ago
They, Xerox management, gave him a license to do so. People at PARC weren't so enthusiastic, I think.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  The Xerox management thought all of those things were just toys and that computers would never be anything but what they were at that moment. Reminds me of a lot of people who look at the iPad and say "meh."
  - catfish 17y ago
    Fools rush in... FOR DRM.
  - axod 17y ago
    Come on now. Please explain to me what is revolutionary about the iPad. It is 'meh'. It's just a big iPod touch. It's like a netbook or laptop but less useful. There's nothing revolutionary about it at all. It's a slightly slicker version of all the tablet PCs that have failed to capture significant market share for the last 10-20 years. It'd be easy to say "sure but you're a geek, you just don't see how easy to use and useful the iPad is for normal people". But I don't think it is. The form factor is just bad. Watch the video on the Apple store, and you'll see actor after actor carefully pretending that it's comfortable to sit/stand/hold this device without getting an aching hand/sore neck etc. Yes, there are applications, just like there have been for previous tablet PCs, but they're niche. Is it really that much more than the Apple Newton was 20 odd years ago? Did the Apple Newton seem revolutionary at the time? If so, why did it fail? I'd love to hear a concrete reason why the iPad is 'revolutionary'. Like a genuine reason, not just people pointing to the lone person on slashdot who called the iPod 'meh'. That doesn't count. So, please explain to me clearly, why having a laptop without a keyboard/trackpad is revolutionary.

rauljara 17y ago

I love that apple drives innovation in hardware and interface design. I hate that the patent system we have now actively hinders the adoption of apple's innovations. Apple complains that competitors are stealing apple's technology, as though apple's success relies entirely on technology x or y. Not true. Apple's success is based on its polish and attention to detail, something which competitors have an incredibly hard time copying. I for one, love when competitors copy apple, because it forces apple to up its game.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- mbreese 17y ago
  Copyright law alone doesn't incentivize the kind of work Apple does Wasn't this the crux of the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit in the 90s? Apple claiming a copyright to the windows metaphor? So yeah, I'd say that copyright law doesn't quite cover them in this case.
raganwald 17y ago
Apple's success is based on its polish and attention to detail If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail? You want to have your cake and eat it too: You want Apple to innovate and you want everyone else to leverage their innovation freely. I understand why that's in your best interests, I can't figure out why Apple would bother if everyone else could "adopt" their innovation wholesale. Where do you want to draw the line? Can others adopt Apple's multi-touch gestures? How about the look and feel of OS X? What about the code, can CherryPC or whatever they were called make PCs that run OS X by writing drivers for it? How about duplicating the OS X copde, can Chinese clone makers simply copy the OS X code and replace Apple's logos with their own?
- kristiandupont 17y ago
  But it's not like Apple aren't standing on the shoulders of giants as well.

funkdobiest 17y ago

Good artists borrow, Great Artists steal - Pablo Picasso, I think Jobs also quoted that phrase as well

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
glhaynes 17y ago
Yeah, he totally stole that line from him.

jsmcgd 17y ago

Which particular patents are in question?

raptrex 17y ago
Digital Daily has the documents http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples-suits-against-htc-both-documents/ http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples-suits-aga... Gizmodo has a summary of the patents: The ‘331 Patent, entitled "Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States," was duly and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘949 Patent, entitled "Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics," was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The ‘849 Patent, entitled "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image," was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The ‘381 Patent, entitled "List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display," was duly and legally issued on December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The ‘726 Patent, entitled "System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device," was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘726 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The ‘076 Patent, entitled "Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices," was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘076 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The ‘105 Patent, entitled "GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality," was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘105 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The ‘453 Patent, entitled "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor," was duly and legally issued on June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H. The ‘599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I. The ‘354 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods," was duly and legally issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J. http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-on-20-iphone-patents-the-complete-documents?skyline=true&s=i http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-on-...

kls 17y ago

I think they should put a cap on the size of a company that can hold and enforce patents. Apple et. al. do not need the protections afforded by patents. I know that in reality this would just create a lot of proxy companies but there has got to be a better way; getting rid of the patent system is not the solution as it does provide the little guy protection, from the big guys just stealing, his idea and drowning him out with cheaper copies. But given the two choices, I am cheering for the patent trolls to just screw the whole think up to the point that the big guys clamor for it to go away.

yanw 17y ago

Way to stifle innovation, Apple. incumbents and lawyers getting what they want, fantastic system ...

alabut 17y ago
Innovation and theft are two different things. Forget the hardware and architecture patents - I'm sick of design being treated as a commodity that's assumed to be freely copyable, simply because it's a user interface rather than a hardware element. Just as many hours and insights went into making the iPhone UI as it did the physical device.
- tkahn6 17y ago
  Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image Maybe hindsight is just 20/20, but "slide to unlock" seems to be something pretty obvious.
  - tumult 17y ago
    Not at the time. I remember people chuckling aloud the first time they saw it. "Hah! Clever!" Steve Jobs even repeats it multiple times in the original iPhone keynote to demonstrate. I still don't think they should have a patent for it.
  - evgen 17y ago
    It becomes obvious once you make the leap to "there is no keyboard, the touchscreen is the entirety of the interface", but prior to the iPhone no one had dared to try that particular path of development. It was probably not possible to patent the concept of only using a touchscreen for your UI, so instead Apple patented a lot of the little details that are a consequence of its innovative leap.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      One shouldn't be able to patent something that's a direct consequence of having a specific limitation, This slide to unlock idea is something a reasonably clever designer would figure out in about 5 minutes. And, BTW, is a common feature in many physical devices that employ a lock over a button. It reminds me of the locks I had in my car by the late 80's and the power button I had on a Compaq server in the early 90's.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
Considering you can't sue a device, they're suing HTC...
- lutorm 17y ago
  Couldn't they sue all users of Android devices then? The complaint seems to indicated that users are infringing when they use the devices. But maybe that would tip people off to how screwed up the system is...
  - nailer 17y ago
    Until recent updates, Google branded devices didn't enable multitouch by default. That changed shortly after Eric Smidt left the Apple board and all the Nexus One's got multitouch turned on in an update. Perhaps Apple will sue Google now? (just a guess - I personally would prefer AT&T sue Apple for 'stealing' their 1960s multitouch technologies for pinch and zoom)
inffcs00 17y ago
Apple is suing the biggest Android phones maker

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

Same story for those who prefer it on TechCrunch: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161526 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161526 ADDED IN EDIT: tl;dr - I think cross referencing is a Good Thing(tm). Clearly some people here think that this comment detracted from the value of HN. I can accept that, and I don't mind the loss of karma. Let me just explain that as a programmer I abhor unnecessary duplication. Equally, though, as an infophile I like to get different angles on each story, to try to see if there's any extras. So when I see the same story from different sources I like to read them all, but equally, I prefer that discussion and comments end up in one place. So I try to add value to HN in part by making sure these things get cross-referenced. Mostly I think people find it harmless. Some people actively dislike it and vote me down, others actively like it and vote me up. Yet others find it both irritating and useful in equal measure, so no doubt they are confused and conflicted. That's their problem. But I'm slowly stopping doing this anyway. I get the occasional comment saying it's really appreciated, but in general I'm reducing the time I spend here anyway. And that's the rationale behind the comment. ADDED FURTHER IN EDIT: Or perhaps you saw that I'd got the reference wrong and just down-voted me instead of bothering to tell me. Now I'm really disappointed in the HN crowd. I've fixed the reference.

nailer 17y ago
I appreciate the need to get different angles, TechCrunch however isn't a credible source of information (they throw great parties though). I'd love to see a Mashable or CodeSketch or whatever perspective though. Someone else contributed John Gruber's post on the topic and was modded up accordingly.

kerringtonx 17y ago

I was wondering how long it would take Apple to start doing this. A good amount of phones have similar tech to their baby.

pg 17y ago

If this had happened a day earlier I don't think I would have posted that RFS. Apple is inching ever closer to evil, and I worry that there's no one within the company who can stand up to Jobs and tell him so.

CoryMathews 17y ago
Apple has been evil since the first ipod when you had to use itunes to load music. They have locked people in with no cheap way out. Pure evil IMO.
- mishmash 17y ago
  Pretty sure DRM started out as an industry idea. Regardless, it all pretty much had to happen the way it did. At the time, none of the major studios would have considered releasing DRM-free music. The had to be shown that it would work first.
  - spanktheuser 17y ago
    Maybe DRM is an idea that comes from anyone who creates content and wants to get paid for it. Yeah, most of the DRM implementations out there are a PITA, but what choice do content creators have anyway? I recently read that 90% of the installed base of World of Goo was pirated. How would you feel if someone stole 90% of your web startup's source code? Oh, you say you lock your source repository that down with tight security at the network and server level? How is that conceptually different from DRM, exactly? I realize that the implementation is very different, of course, but that's not my point. Besides, I don't expect DRM implementations to be so painful in the future. DRM on PCs sucks because it attempts to close the barn door after the livestock has escaped. If you want to see a device where content control was built in from the ground up, consider the xBox, which is basically a special purpose PC that with tightly controlled installation rights and distribution of content. So the DRM can be relatively unobtrusive. Or look at Steam, which has gotten quite a bit better than it was a few years ago. And they've been experimenting heavily with bringing down the price point for games, now that every paying user doesn't have to subsidize 10 thieves.

frederickcook 17y ago

Mobile devices is an incredibly patent-heavy landscape, where manufacturers are used to licensing technology from one-another and have been for years. Obviously Apple and HTC have been in discussions (lawsuits are incredibly expensive and always a last resort) and the fact that Apple went ahead and filed indicates that these discussions failed. This means either HTC was offering less than 'market' in licensing fees, or Apple was asking for more. Which do you think is more likely?

rbanffy 17y ago
It could be a "you infringe on as many of our patents as we do infringe on yours" thing too. I expect a counter-suit.
jcl 17y ago
Regardless of how patent-heavy mobile devices may be, this represents a major change in Apple's policy. In some discussion thread in the distant past, someone pointed out that Apple has never used its patents offensively. And a quick check through Wikipedia seems to confirm it: The only mention of patents was in cases where Apple had first been sued for violating a competitor's patents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation Up until now -- well into their reign in the mobile device sector -- Apple could claim that they were only amassing patents as a means of defending themselves from other companies with patents. Hence, this preemptive strike is unusual.

mcav 17y ago

Could suing for patents ever be considered a violation of monopoly law? (I know Apple isn't a monopoly.)

protomyth 17y ago
By definition, patents give you a monopoly.

Roridge 17y ago

If I were paranoid I might think that this was a bit of an attack on Google rather than HTC.

thetrumanshow 17y ago
I agree. It smacks of a proxy war.
- Roridge 17y ago
  "if" it were an attack on Google rather than HTC, I wonder what it is that has spooked Apple to bring out such a big gun now, rather than earlier?
  - jrockway 17y ago
    The fact that the Nexus One is better, hardware-wise, than the iPhone? (Earlier Android devices were intentionally stripped down for the sake of being inexpensive. The Nexus One is not.)
    - nailer 17y ago
      And that HTC's own-branded Android devices compete and better iPhone in a lot of ways. When I moved from iPhone to hero, my contacts suddenly all had photos from Facebook, I didn't have to open apps to check twitter or stock prices, I could add a shortcut to SMS my girl right onto the home screen, and I didn't have to sync anymore.
blasdel 17y ago
I think it's far more calculated than that: Google's shipping Android builds avoid a lot of basic UI features that Apple did first. HTC then adds most of them through their "TouchSense" modifications, just like they did with WM6 before. They're trying to keep Google in its place, and prevent HTC from extending it. They're happy with Android being out there for the dorkwads and ideologues (it lets them shed their 'worst customers') but they don't want the public to see a sea of direct clones of their style of multitouch.

nailer 17y ago

HTC should countersue (if Apple are actually trying to sue HTC over HTC's technology and not Google's). HTC pushed pure touch-based phones for years before Apple released the iPhone in 2007 and should have a reasonable patent portfolio they can use against trolls like this.

bitwize 17y ago
Apple released the iPhone in 2007. They didn't even release the iMac until 1998.

freetard 17y ago

I guess that makes Steve Jobs a hypocrite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

zppx 17y ago

I'm really hating how tech discussions relating to Apple are turning in the Apple fanboys versus detractors of Apple.

tsally 17y ago

My next computer wont be a Macbook. :-/ Which makes me really angry because I love my current Macbook. And there goes the thought of buying an iPhone as well. Unfortunately at this point I feel that I'm obligated not to buy Apple products. Walk with your feet, as the saying goes. Believing in patent reform can be damn inconvenient sometimes.

ronaldj 17y ago
I'm in the same boat. I think Apple should consider adopting that bullshit "Don't be evil" mantra.
- nailer 17y ago
  Apple make good laptop hardware though. Here's a better idea: keep your existing Mac, but buy an HTC Desire as your next phone. You get a lot of features the iPhone doesn't have (pictures for your contacts, social network integration, streaming, no sync requirement, a faster CPU) and stick it to Apple at the same time.

orblivion 17y ago

I don't know why, but this just makes me laugh.

dpifke 17y ago

I love John Gruber's response to this: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/stand-by-this http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/stand-by-this

acg 17y ago

It seems to part of a longer game, I think certain companies are not wanting "Google Voice" to revolutionise phone calls. There is a lot of companies making a lot of money for not a lot of bandwidth.

brucejacob 17y ago

Swiping to unlock and other similar patented items are all "obvious" design decisions. All great design is obvious because great design produces things that are appropriate. Moreover, because great design is so obvious, it must be easy to design great things; the world must be full of great designs. Right? Um, no. The truth is that great design is NOT easy, and it stands out so prominently because the world is NOT full of great designs. Things like swiping to unlock are "obvious" only in retrospect. All great design is obvious -- in retrospect -- because great design produces things that are appropriate. But it is hard to do (PG has several essays on precisely this topic). Moreover, because it is hard to do, great designers are rewarded with some degree of protection for making the details of their innovations public (thus the legal terminology that patents "teach" a particular topic). I don't see why we should expect great designers to give up control of their ideas, willingly or otherwise, simply because those ideas are particularly good. Much of the logic in these comments amounts to "the iPhone had such a marvelously simple UI that everyone copied it, and because it became pervasive (by virtue of the copying), it must remain pervasive via Apple giving up the right to protect their IP." I just don't buy that. Also, people are asking "why now? why not earlier?" According to Gizmodo & other news sites, the brief is some 700 pages long. I'm sure Apple started working on this the day the Nexus One details started surfacing and it became clear it was effectively an iPhone clone. They can't sue Google (remember that Schmidt sat in Apple's huddles for years, listening to the plays, learning the playbook by heart, soaking up all insider info he could) because Google is intentionally disabling contested technology in Android -- they evidently know quite well what patent infringement means. Google is instead relying upon their handset manufacturers to enable the contested technology and thus take the bullet for them. I wonder why nobody is criticizing Google for using HTC as a "human" shield?

nopinsight 17y ago

Why can't Apple continue to out-innovate Nexus One and Android instead of suing them? Reading from the overall situation and his quote, Steve Jobs might feel that the current iPhone UI is 'perfect' as a whole. Apart from nitty-gritty details, he does not see a way to drastically improve it. (That's why he chose it for the iPad UI as well.) So he might figure that the only way to stop competitors from getting too close is to sue them.