7 ms·

HTC disagrees with Apple's actions and will fully defend itself

66 points by darshan 17y ago

thewileyone 17y ago
Good. HTC must challenge Apple's actions because Apple's really getting out of hand in their assertions of ownership.
- nailer 17y ago
  I'm looking forward to this. I want to see Apple try and claim they invented touch phones in court against a company that's been doing them for longer than it has. And I wanted to see them smacked down by a judge for doing it.
- Auzy 17y ago
  If you read their press release, to me, it suggests to me, that they might try to bring anti-trust into it against Apple too. But yeah, this was obvious
  - thewileyone 17y ago
    Yes, it did seem that they might come after Apple, not only on anti-trust but also on precedence, using Apple's case against itself.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Apple's really getting out of hand in their assertions of ownership. Could you be more specific?
  - kloncks 17y ago
    Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something (when it, itself, was inspired by another product) and believing they own it 100% A good example is Keynote. Sun/Lighthouse developed a great presentation app called Concurrence that ran on NeXT's set of computers. When Steve sold NeXT to Apple and they went on to develop Keynote, he thought that was his invention, when really it's rather obvious where he got his inspiration from. Plenty of other stories like these with Apple (and for that matter, all the other giants)
    - nailer 17y ago
      Another example is their patent on unlocking a device with a gesture. Asides from Windows Mobile already using gestures for unlocks prior to iPhone beind released, achieving tasks with gestures has been around for years and adding a particular task 'unlocking a phone' doesn't make that novel.
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        Apple has no patent on the general concept of "unlocking a device with a gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a concept. This would be clearer if patent titles were prefixed with "A", as in "A method...", etc. Most people seem to read them as "The method...", which when combined with the linear format (even though claims are dependent), makes almost all of them sound much more broad than they actually are. You might might get a better idea of what the patent is intended to cover by noting the differences between implementations, rather than the similarities. I won't speak to that myself, as I have never seen the Windows Mobile implementation.
        borism 17y ago
        you got it totally backwards concept is exactly what you apply a patent for, implementation is application of concept
        GHFigs 17y ago
        I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You cannot patent a concept, only inventions. You don't have to actually build the invention, but it does have to be a concrete thing and and not a wholly abstract idea. This is why patents have specific claims, descriptions, and diagrams associated with them, and not just titles. For instance, you can obtain a patent on a self-cleaning cat box by describing one and how it works[1], but if someone comes along and invents another self-cleaning cat box that works via some totally different method[2], your patent does not apply. You do not own the patent on the concept of a self-cleaning cat box, only the subset of all possible self-cleaning cat boxes that work more or less the way yours does. [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801 [2]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868
  - thewileyone 17y ago
    Read the news much? Apple's been doing this all over the place. It's not only technology. Apple has gone after companies that used the letter "i" in their name, like DOPi, which is a iPod case maker. That case was just thrown out by the courts.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Read the news much? Are you trying to insult me for asking you to be more specific? I'm sorry if I offended you, but I did not think it was an unreasonable question. Apple's been doing this all over the place. I'm sure you would agree that "all over the place" is not very specific, just as "getting out of hand" is. I'm asking what exactly you mean by this, not trying to debate you on points that you haven't even made. DOPi That's was a trademark case. The HTC suit is patent case. Trademarks have very different rules than patents, most relevant among them they can be lost if not enforced by the owner. Surely you realize that "DOPi" does not simply have an "i" in the name, but is in fact "iPOD" in reverse. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it's entirely "out of hand" for that to be the basis of a trademark infringement claim, especially in the context of iPod accessories. Perhaps not as clear-cut as something like "iPob" or "iDop" or "Apel", but not frivolous, either. It certainly isn't, as you characterize it, a case against the use of the letter "i" (which Apple does not hold a trademark on), and indeed there are many companies that use prefixed "i" in names without such claims being made on them. Again: Apple could literally lose the "iPod" trademark if it could be shown they were too lax in asserting it. It is obvious where the name came from, but not obvious that it is infringing. Hence, filing a trademark infringement claim and letting the court decide. This seems reasonable to me. To come full circle: this is why I ask people to be specific. Now that I know what you were referring to as "out of hand", I know that I disagree with you and have the opportunity to explain why. Before, it was unclear, which makes it difficult to have an intelligent discussion. Had I commented on the patent situation right off, without asking for clarification, we would simply be talking past each other, with little chance for insight.
      - thewileyone 17y ago
        sigh no, i wasn't trying to insult you. i was just wondering how you could have missed all the Apple news in the past year. it wasn't an unreasonable question, i just didn't feel inclined nor did i have the time to list everything that you could found through google.
- grellas 17y ago
  It is highly significant to me that Apple switched its general counsel this past September by bringing in Intel's general counsel, Bruce Sewell, to fill the role. Intel has been notoriously aggressive over the years in using its patent portfolio as a hammer against rivals, including AMD, to keep its competitive advantage, and Mr. Sewell is, among other things, a leading patent litigator by background, training, and experience. His fit for the role of leading protector of Apple's treasure chest of patents is, to me, an obvious one, and it is a fit precisely because Mr. Sewell has lots of experience in fighting patent fights on both sides of a case. For a pretty good write-up discussing Mr. Sewell's appointment as Apple's GC and some of these implications, see http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-snaps-up-bruce-sewell-intels-top-lawyer-20090916/ http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-snaps-up-bruce-sewe.... Another point to note here: Mr. Sewell replaced Dan Cooperman in the GC role. I worked with Dan years ago at a prominent San Francisco law firm and he is a splendid lawyer but he is not a litigator and never has been. He is said to have "retired" in stepping down from the Apple GC role but he in fact moved back to his old firm, where is once again doing corporate work (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446350729&rss=newswire http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446350729&rss=...). Now, a switch in general counsel can happen for many reasons but the circumstances here would suggest that one very important reason for the switch that occurred last September with Mr. Sewell's appointment is that Apple intends to be very aggressive about patent enforcement. While we can't know this for sure from the outside, we can know that it has certainly armed itself well to pursue that goal should it need or desire to do so.
Roridge 17y ago
HTC [spent a week checking that Google had it's back and then] disagrees with Apple's actions and will defend itself. At the moment I can only see this battle doing 2 things: A: free press coverage [read "advertising"] for both Apple and HTC regardless of outcome. B: driving a wedge between die hard fans of both Apple and Google/HTC
37prime 17y ago
Seriously, I wouldn't expect it any other way. Definitely HTC would not agree with Apple's actions and would not defend itself. This won't happen: Apple: HTC, I'm suing you for blah blah blah...... HTC: OK, I give up.
- michaelneale 17y ago
  Well obviously not "OK I give up" but it could (and often end up) as an out of court settlement before anything happens.
kloncks 17y ago
It's really a giant game of Chess, here. Apple can't possibly expect to win this lawsuit. Jonathan Swartz, former CEO of Sun, had an excellent blog post on the subject: http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/ http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artis...
- protomyth 17y ago
  Wasn't he CEO at the time of the Kodak suit. That was probably not handled well.
weppes 17y ago
Can someone explain to me why is this a top story on HN, and why should i care? This sounds exactly just like celebrity gossip, just substitute people with big companies. I just can't grasp why is this interesting and why people are upvoting this?
- nailer 17y ago
  I disagree with you for the reasons the other poster did, but could new people stop voting stuff they don't like below 1? Your post was polite, there was no reason to mod you to oblivion.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  I care deeply about it because we have to live in a world where companies can say they own your product because it looks like theirs. They will make broad claims and see what sticks. If the company attacking you is big enough, that usually means doom for you.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    companies can say they own your product because it looks like theirs What are you referring to specifically? Is there a specific one of the patents in the Apple/HTC case that you feel is purely cosmetic, or are you referring to something else?
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      The most basic one is the "one-click" Amazon patent. Most of Apple's patents on forms of interaction with touchscreens or other touch-sensitive devices are little more than reflections of physical interaction with objects.
      - bruceboughton 17y ago
        So simple anyone could have done it, right?
jackowayed 17y ago
This press release didn't say anything. It could have been one line long. "We feel Apple's case has no merit, and we will fight it" or something of the like. That's the only interesting thing it said. Then it just went into "HTC is awesome", which has nothing to do with the case.
- nailer 17y ago
  It made the point that HTC has been doing touch based mobile phones for longer than Apple has. Apple tried to portray HTC as imitators in their announcement. This is a good damn good counter to that.
  - bruceboughton 17y ago
    Isn't the case about multi-touch though? Or am I mistaken?
    - stanleydrew 17y ago
      The suit from Apple covers 20 or so different patents. A breakdown is here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-bre...
    - nailer 17y ago
      The case is about using gestures to unlock phones, bouncing when a menu is scrolled too far, and other items. If Apple managed to get patents on multitouch (which was close 40 years old by the time iPhone came out) they're not involved here.
Tycho 17y ago
I can sympathisize with newcomers being frustrated by patents for technologies which seem like 2nd nature to them. But what patents does HTC itself hold and enforce? I'd like to find that out, cause you know, 'live by the sword, die by the sword...'
- technomancy 17y ago
  Considering this: HTC is a Taiwanese company. Taiwan has sane patent laws, unlike the US. So they're unlikely to have a large arsenal of frivolous patents.
  - Tycho 17y ago
    Well, that doesn't stop them from filing with the US patent office. Here's one they did file, citing an earlier 2008 patent in Taiwan, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0264157.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0264157.html. It appears to be a patent for a mobile phone touch-screen 'slide-to-lock' interface. Hmmm.
latch 17y ago
Dreamy I know, but you'd hope that a coalition would form to defend HTC from this, unless they rather be next: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
bobbyi 17y ago
So does this mean anything? Or is this what they would say even if they were really hoping to settle?
- protomyth 17y ago
  I think the telling part is that don't have anything to hit back with. Apple came at them with 20 patents and only has to make 1 stick. Apple and Nokia will probably settle (it seems more about price and licensing then winning), but HTC needs to win and that is extremely difficult with these patents. Check the Sun/Kodak history for an example.
EsquireCats 17y ago
It's petty to take sides in either end of this - I doubt anyone is well read enough on the patent portfolios of either company to pass a legitimately informed comment.
- pkulak 17y ago
  Then I guess I'm petty, because my next phone is going to be made by HTC.
  - EsquireCats 17y ago
    I'm not suggesting that at all - you should always buy whatever is best for you regardless of politics. (Loyalty is for suckers.) However I hope there is a total blood shed and all out patent war. I don't personally agree to the current method in which patents are used. It's a system desperately needing an overhaul. (Which is simply not going to happen.)

66 points by darshan 17y ago

thewileyone 17y ago

Good. HTC must challenge Apple's actions because Apple's really getting out of hand in their assertions of ownership.

nailer 17y ago
I'm looking forward to this. I want to see Apple try and claim they invented touch phones in court against a company that's been doing them for longer than it has. And I wanted to see them smacked down by a judge for doing it.
Auzy 17y ago
If you read their press release, to me, it suggests to me, that they might try to bring anti-trust into it against Apple too. But yeah, this was obvious
- thewileyone 17y ago
  Yes, it did seem that they might come after Apple, not only on anti-trust but also on precedence, using Apple's case against itself.
GHFigs 17y ago
Apple's really getting out of hand in their assertions of ownership. Could you be more specific?
- kloncks 17y ago
  Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something (when it, itself, was inspired by another product) and believing they own it 100% A good example is Keynote. Sun/Lighthouse developed a great presentation app called Concurrence that ran on NeXT's set of computers. When Steve sold NeXT to Apple and they went on to develop Keynote, he thought that was his invention, when really it's rather obvious where he got his inspiration from. Plenty of other stories like these with Apple (and for that matter, all the other giants)
  - nailer 17y ago
    Another example is their patent on unlocking a device with a gesture. Asides from Windows Mobile already using gestures for unlocks prior to iPhone beind released, achieving tasks with gestures has been around for years and adding a particular task 'unlocking a phone' doesn't make that novel.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Apple has no patent on the general concept of "unlocking a device with a gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a concept. This would be clearer if patent titles were prefixed with "A", as in "A method...", etc. Most people seem to read them as "The method...", which when combined with the linear format (even though claims are dependent), makes almost all of them sound much more broad than they actually are. You might might get a better idea of what the patent is intended to cover by noting the differences between implementations, rather than the similarities. I won't speak to that myself, as I have never seen the Windows Mobile implementation.
      - borism 17y ago
        you got it totally backwards concept is exactly what you apply a patent for, implementation is application of concept
        GHFigs 17y ago
        I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You cannot patent a concept, only inventions. You don't have to actually build the invention, but it does have to be a concrete thing and and not a wholly abstract idea. This is why patents have specific claims, descriptions, and diagrams associated with them, and not just titles. For instance, you can obtain a patent on a self-cleaning cat box by describing one and how it works[1], but if someone comes along and invents another self-cleaning cat box that works via some totally different method[2], your patent does not apply. You do not own the patent on the concept of a self-cleaning cat box, only the subset of all possible self-cleaning cat boxes that work more or less the way yours does. [1]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801 [2]: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868
- thewileyone 17y ago
  Read the news much? Apple's been doing this all over the place. It's not only technology. Apple has gone after companies that used the letter "i" in their name, like DOPi, which is a iPod case maker. That case was just thrown out by the courts.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Read the news much? Are you trying to insult me for asking you to be more specific? I'm sorry if I offended you, but I did not think it was an unreasonable question. Apple's been doing this all over the place. I'm sure you would agree that "all over the place" is not very specific, just as "getting out of hand" is. I'm asking what exactly you mean by this, not trying to debate you on points that you haven't even made. DOPi That's was a trademark case. The HTC suit is patent case. Trademarks have very different rules than patents, most relevant among them they can be lost if not enforced by the owner. Surely you realize that "DOPi" does not simply have an "i" in the name, but is in fact "iPOD" in reverse. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it's entirely "out of hand" for that to be the basis of a trademark infringement claim, especially in the context of iPod accessories. Perhaps not as clear-cut as something like "iPob" or "iDop" or "Apel", but not frivolous, either. It certainly isn't, as you characterize it, a case against the use of the letter "i" (which Apple does not hold a trademark on), and indeed there are many companies that use prefixed "i" in names without such claims being made on them. Again: Apple could literally lose the "iPod" trademark if it could be shown they were too lax in asserting it. It is obvious where the name came from, but not obvious that it is infringing. Hence, filing a trademark infringement claim and letting the court decide. This seems reasonable to me. To come full circle: this is why I ask people to be specific. Now that I know what you were referring to as "out of hand", I know that I disagree with you and have the opportunity to explain why. Before, it was unclear, which makes it difficult to have an intelligent discussion. Had I commented on the patent situation right off, without asking for clarification, we would simply be talking past each other, with little chance for insight.
    - thewileyone 17y ago
      sigh no, i wasn't trying to insult you. i was just wondering how you could have missed all the Apple news in the past year. it wasn't an unreasonable question, i just didn't feel inclined nor did i have the time to list everything that you could found through google.
grellas 17y ago
It is highly significant to me that Apple switched its general counsel this past September by bringing in Intel's general counsel, Bruce Sewell, to fill the role. Intel has been notoriously aggressive over the years in using its patent portfolio as a hammer against rivals, including AMD, to keep its competitive advantage, and Mr. Sewell is, among other things, a leading patent litigator by background, training, and experience. His fit for the role of leading protector of Apple's treasure chest of patents is, to me, an obvious one, and it is a fit precisely because Mr. Sewell has lots of experience in fighting patent fights on both sides of a case. For a pretty good write-up discussing Mr. Sewell's appointment as Apple's GC and some of these implications, see http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-snaps-up-bruce-sewell-intels-top-lawyer-20090916/ http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-snaps-up-bruce-sewe.... Another point to note here: Mr. Sewell replaced Dan Cooperman in the GC role. I worked with Dan years ago at a prominent San Francisco law firm and he is a splendid lawyer but he is not a litigator and never has been. He is said to have "retired" in stepping down from the Apple GC role but he in fact moved back to his old firm, where is once again doing corporate work (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446350729&rss=newswire http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446350729&rss=...). Now, a switch in general counsel can happen for many reasons but the circumstances here would suggest that one very important reason for the switch that occurred last September with Mr. Sewell's appointment is that Apple intends to be very aggressive about patent enforcement. While we can't know this for sure from the outside, we can know that it has certainly armed itself well to pursue that goal should it need or desire to do so.

Roridge 17y ago

HTC [spent a week checking that Google had it's back and then] disagrees with Apple's actions and will defend itself. At the moment I can only see this battle doing 2 things: A: free press coverage [read "advertising"] for both Apple and HTC regardless of outcome. B: driving a wedge between die hard fans of both Apple and Google/HTC

37prime 17y ago

Seriously, I wouldn't expect it any other way. Definitely HTC would not agree with Apple's actions and would not defend itself. This won't happen: Apple: HTC, I'm suing you for blah blah blah...... HTC: OK, I give up.

michaelneale 17y ago
Well obviously not "OK I give up" but it could (and often end up) as an out of court settlement before anything happens.

kloncks 17y ago

It's really a giant game of Chess, here. Apple can't possibly expect to win this lawsuit. Jonathan Swartz, former CEO of Sun, had an excellent blog post on the subject: http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/ http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artis...

protomyth 17y ago
Wasn't he CEO at the time of the Kodak suit. That was probably not handled well.

weppes 17y ago

Can someone explain to me why is this a top story on HN, and why should i care? This sounds exactly just like celebrity gossip, just substitute people with big companies. I just can't grasp why is this interesting and why people are upvoting this?

nailer 17y ago
I disagree with you for the reasons the other poster did, but could new people stop voting stuff they don't like below 1? Your post was polite, there was no reason to mod you to oblivion.
rbanffy 17y ago
I care deeply about it because we have to live in a world where companies can say they own your product because it looks like theirs. They will make broad claims and see what sticks. If the company attacking you is big enough, that usually means doom for you.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  companies can say they own your product because it looks like theirs What are you referring to specifically? Is there a specific one of the patents in the Apple/HTC case that you feel is purely cosmetic, or are you referring to something else?
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    The most basic one is the "one-click" Amazon patent. Most of Apple's patents on forms of interaction with touchscreens or other touch-sensitive devices are little more than reflections of physical interaction with objects.
    - bruceboughton 17y ago
      So simple anyone could have done it, right?

jackowayed 17y ago

This press release didn't say anything. It could have been one line long. "We feel Apple's case has no merit, and we will fight it" or something of the like. That's the only interesting thing it said. Then it just went into "HTC is awesome", which has nothing to do with the case.

nailer 17y ago
It made the point that HTC has been doing touch based mobile phones for longer than Apple has. Apple tried to portray HTC as imitators in their announcement. This is a good damn good counter to that.
- bruceboughton 17y ago
  Isn't the case about multi-touch though? Or am I mistaken?
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    The suit from Apple covers 20 or so different patents. A breakdown is here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-bre...
  - nailer 17y ago
    The case is about using gestures to unlock phones, bouncing when a menu is scrolled too far, and other items. If Apple managed to get patents on multitouch (which was close 40 years old by the time iPhone came out) they're not involved here.

Tycho 17y ago

I can sympathisize with newcomers being frustrated by patents for technologies which seem like 2nd nature to them. But what patents does HTC itself hold and enforce? I'd like to find that out, cause you know, 'live by the sword, die by the sword...'

technomancy 17y ago
Considering this: HTC is a Taiwanese company. Taiwan has sane patent laws, unlike the US. So they're unlikely to have a large arsenal of frivolous patents.
- Tycho 17y ago
  Well, that doesn't stop them from filing with the US patent office. Here's one they did file, citing an earlier 2008 patent in Taiwan, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0264157.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0264157.html. It appears to be a patent for a mobile phone touch-screen 'slide-to-lock' interface. Hmmm.

latch 17y ago

Dreamy I know, but you'd hope that a coalition would form to defend HTC from this, unless they rather be next: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

bobbyi 17y ago

So does this mean anything? Or is this what they would say even if they were really hoping to settle?

protomyth 17y ago
I think the telling part is that don't have anything to hit back with. Apple came at them with 20 patents and only has to make 1 stick. Apple and Nokia will probably settle (it seems more about price and licensing then winning), but HTC needs to win and that is extremely difficult with these patents. Check the Sun/Kodak history for an example.

EsquireCats 17y ago

It's petty to take sides in either end of this - I doubt anyone is well read enough on the patent portfolios of either company to pass a legitimately informed comment.

pkulak 17y ago
Then I guess I'm petty, because my next phone is going to be made by HTC.
- EsquireCats 17y ago
  I'm not suggesting that at all - you should always buy whatever is best for you regardless of politics. (Loyalty is for suckers.) However I hope there is a total blood shed and all out patent war. I don't personally agree to the current method in which patents are used. It's a system desperately needing an overhaul. (Which is simply not going to happen.)