4 ms·

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.

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.