11 ms·
Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
- CaveTech 15y agoSadly it looks like there's an arms race brewing. Hopefully some sanity is restored before these companies start destroying each other.
- ConstantineXVI 15y agoCurious, it happens that Apple just recently phased out their last Macs that still used nVidia chips (and thus their only non-infringing models). Anyone know the reasoning for the switch?
- sjs 15y agoLong story short it was to reduce the number of chips and thus cost, area, and heat (which leads to noise). There are good articles on this on AnandTech or Ars Technica but I can't find them.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tghw 15y agoThis is actually a pretty favorable outcome for HTC, as the reported industry average for invalidations during IP review is around 90 percent. This is one of the biggest problems with the modern patent system.
- GrooveStomp 15y agoI was just going to comment on this quote. Glad someone beat me to it. I wonder if it's actually one of the biggest problems, though? What are the average number of invalidations for other industries? Do other industries also suffer from "The Lodsys Problem" to the same extent as software? I'd also like to see a reference for that number! My inclination is that, yes, software patents are terrible and should be abolished. Also, regardless of how 90% compares to other industries - it's a strong indicator that the way patents are granted in the first place is very broken.
- keypusher 15y agoThis quote stuck out at me too. Oddly enough, I went back today and it appears to have been removed from the story. Strange...
- iamdave 15y agoIs it still a sign of a broken system even if it means the guy I wanted to lose actually loses? Shakes magic 8-ball Signs point to yes.
- dpcan 15y agoLet's just stop the import of all computers and phones over Patent rulings. HTC and Apple should stick to their guns and deny imports of their products. Once nobody can buy computers or phones in the U.S. anymore THEN, just MAYBE, Congress will decide to fix this Patent mess.
- jrockway 15y agoHey, we'll still be able to buy all the computers and consumer electronics that are made in the US. ... Oh.
- Taft 15y agoConsidering the increasingly vocal outcry of rampant patent abuse, it's also possible that tech giants begin publicly stating their position towards US patent law: it needn't exist (or one of the many alternatives that have been proposed). If the market can metabolize that, patent law reform isn't far away.
- VMG 15y agoCouldn't the tech giants cooperate and introduce a system that benefits the top 10% and exclude the long tail of smaller companies? That could be even worse.
- kwis 15y agoI'd argue that the existing system does just that. The big boys have portfolios of patents that they fling at each other until some sort of cross-licensing deal is reached, whilst smaller players just have to cross their fingers and hope that nobody decides to tax them too extravagantly. I omit the possibility of creating non-infringing products simply because it's virtually impossible to bring any meaningful product to market without infringing on somebody's overly broad patent.
- burgerbrain 15y agoWorse? That is exactly what we have right now!
- barrkel 15y agoParadoxically, the ideal result seems to be only the lawyers coming out ahead.
- thoughtsimple 15y agoJust business as usual. Two giant corporations using the courts (or in this case the ITC) to set the price of a cross-license patent agreement. These sorts of cases aren't usually very interesting. They almost always get settled with no disclosure of the final settlement.
- emehrkay 15y agoCould Apple do anything about this? It seems to be an AMD and Intel problem
- jrockway 15y agoOf course. They can license all their patents to HTC in exchange for a license to all of HTC's patents. Everyone wins except the new upstart company without eight billion dollars worth of bullshit patents. We don't need any new computer companies, though, there are enough already. The system works!
- iqster 15y agoYou're not taking patent trolls into account.
- antihero 15y agoIt's pretty undeniable that the whole patents thing is now one giant clusterfuck. The problem is, as technology advances, previously "genius" ideas become trivial due to more people being able to solve problems. There was a time in history when things such as spoons were considered an amazing idea, but how utterly fucked would humanity's development have been if stone-age people allowed themselves to be crippled by greed and a the blind seeking of money.
- alanfalcon 15y agoWe'd all be eating porridge with a spork.
- lutorm 15y agoThe spork would undoubtedly have been found infringing and sued out of existence. We'd be eating it with a fork.
- pyre 15y agoOr a paddle/spatula. They might have been able to argue that it wasn't a spoon because there were no raise edges.
- AndyJPartridge 15y agoOr chopsticks. Assuming someone hasn't patented a stick. (Or come to think about it, the chewing process.)
- akdetrick 15y agoSticks may be fine, as long as you don't use it to play fetch with your dog later: http://www.google.com/patents?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&...
- kwis 15y ago
- nextparadigms 15y agoMaybe even Apple will realize that the current patent system isn't really doing them any favors, either, overall. When even companies that stand to benefit from the current patent system start complaining about the patent system, that's when we'll see some radical change.
- ceejayoz 15y ago> Maybe even Apple will realize that the current patent system isn't really doing them any favors, either, overall. I suspect all the big manufacturers realize that. They just don't have an option - someone is going to sue, so everyone feels they have to.
- nextparadigms 15y agoThen I assume all the big companies have no problem supporting Google to push for an overhaul (or dare I say the abolishing?) of the patent system.
- ceejayoz 15y agoGood luck. There's more than just the US patent system at play here.
- lutorm 15y agoSo if Apple is infringing because they used AMD hardware, aren't everyone who owns a machine with AMD hardware also infringing? While the whole patent system is tending toward absurdity, it's really absurd that you can be sued for infringement by using a product that infringes even if you have no idea or even a way of knowing that...
- andrew1 15y agoIt might be the reason that Apple are infringing on the patent is that they are selling, not just using, a product which contains something which infringes the patent.
- cma 15y agoUsing something with unlicensed patented technology exposes you to liability as well. Otherwise you could just make shell companies to add the final software piece to a product and cleanse the liability from all the other players.
- Hawramani 15y agoWouldn't creating a patent alliance render the evils of this system ineffective? Members of the alliance would work together to acquire patents, and these patents will be used as patent lawsuit deterrents. Any non-member company who sues a member of the alliance will have to face a dozen lawsuits from other alliance members. (Alliance members should sign a legal agreement not to sue other members on patent-based issues.) Of course for this to be effective a huge number of patents is needed, but there are probably a lot of big companies willing to give big bucks to avoid the patent menace, and they can raise enough money to acquire a huge number of patents. Plus each company will come with its own patents. I guess others have already thought of this and found it impractical, which makes me wonder why it is so.
- elehack 15y agoI think it would be very difficult to do this without running afoul of antitrust law.
- streptomycin 15y agoThat sounds kind of like the [Open Invention Network](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network).
- GHFigs 15y agoIt's amusing that when there is a ruling in HTC's favor the headline is: "Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents"...but when there was a ruling in Apple's favor it was: "Apple's Plot to Kill Top Android Maker HTC Nears Fruition With Win" The latter being illustrated with a picture of Steve Jobs as the Emperor from Star Wars. Classy.
- sek 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
- jonknee 15y agoPerhaps because it's defensive? If HTC struck first and tried to kill the iPhone, I'd wager the headlines would have been reversed.
- willyt 15y agoBut it's not defensive if they acted in bad faith to begin with. The billboard adds for htc phones looked like ad's for iPhones until you got close enough to read the copy. The implication being 'an iPhone, but cheaper'. I have no problem with someone coming up with something better, but I was surprised that they were able to get away with something so clearly mimicking the look and feel of an iPhone.
- jonknee 15y agoBillboard ads have nothing to do with patents. Neither does the look and feel.
- willyt 15y agoSorry. My original argument wasn't very clear, I didn't mean to argue that the look and feel is patentable. It's not, obvioisly. I suppose what I meant that I could imagine Steve Jobs seeing an advert like that, picking up the phone to the lawyers and saying 'what can we do about this' and these various patent suits are the result. I am not arguing for this use as a justification for software patents, just making an observation that HTC don't have 'clean hands' in the greater scheme of things.
- buddylw 15y agoMaybe we can get to the "mutually assured destruction" phase of patents where everyone has so many ridiculous patents that any lawsuit is sure to ruin everyone? Of course, that doesn't stop patent trolls (terrorist rent seekers) with no skin in the game, but at least this drama would end.
- politician 15y agoThere's an idea, start calling patent trolls "patent terrorism" to leverage the current climate of fear for our own purposes.
- buddylw 15y agoI think the Patriot Act could actually help us here.
- Pooter 15y ago> but at least this drama would end. And anyone without a big enough arsenal of patents to protect themselves via MAD wouldn't be able to produce any products. The system needs an overhaul, if not outright scrapping, at least as regards software patents.
- erikb 15y agoOne of the few articles who recognises these patent law suits as what they are: means of gaining leverage and cutting into the winnings of other companies in the same market. Also a lot of references to further reading. Great article!
- algoshift 15y agoI find this comment in the article to be very interesting: "the reported industry average for invalidations during IP review is around 90 percent." It would be very interesting to have a look at stats on patent invalidation reviews. If there's solid data showing that the invalidation rate is around 90% this might be useful as evidence that the USPTO is not doing their job by issuing patents that should never have been issued. A number like 90% should embarrass anyone who might wish to argue that the system is not broken.
- nkassis 15y agoHTC has some leverage but I have a feeling, after seeing OS 10.7, that Apple cares less about the Mac then their iOS devices. Would they sacrifice the Macs for the chance to block Android?
- podperson 15y agoMore importantly, the same problem applies to anything not using nVidia GPUs, which is most low-end desktop PCs (Intel integrated GPUs) and a lot of high-end desktop PCs (anything with AMD). So now we can't have a PC with the best GPU and CPU because Intel and nVidia are suing each other over IP, and we can't have a cheap PC because Intel is infringing on S3 patents, and we can't even give up and get a top-of-the-line AMD/ATI CPU. Argh.
- redthrowaway 15y agoNot to nitpick, but while Intel owns the high end CPU market, the current ATI/AMD top end GPUs are much better than nVidia's offering. Unless, that is, I missed a major nVidia release lately...
- podperson 15y agoYou're right, modulo whether your favorite GPGPU API is supported.
- kenjackson 15y agoGiven this is a HW and SW patent, and my superficial reading leads me to believe that this may infringe on HW -- this isn't your typical SW patent issue. It's HW too. Are people ready to say that HW patents, such as those held by Intel and ARM, should also go bye-bye?
- redthrowaway 15y agoIf they're of the same general quality as software patents, then yes. I sure as hell don't want anyone holding a patent on "a process and system for fashioning transistors from silicon".
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- aboodman 15y agoIt annoys me that the tech community always focuses on software patents, as if hardware ones are automatically more legitimate. The original purpose of the patent system was to improve consumers lives by: a) Incentivizing innovations that would not otherwise be profitable. b) Incentivizing disclosure of invention details that would otherwise be kept secret. These are a pretty rare combination of circumstances for most inventions, whether software or hardware. a) is demonstrably rare since patents are constantly infringed, yet Apple (for example) still somehow manages to get by. b) does not apply to any technology that is distributed, since anyone can take it apart and see how it works. On the other side, patents of any type actively harm consumers: a) Products from large companies are driven up in cost due to litigation. b) Potential innovation from small companies is stifled by fear of litigation. I'm sure there's some use for a patent system, but it is very small. The US would be a far better place with no patent system than with the one we have now.
- kenjackson 15y agoI think I'd keep drug patents. Not sure if much else. Drugs take a long time and a lot of money to create. But copying a drug is cheap is quick. But I'm not sure if anything else meets the bar.
- Steko 15y agoThe level of IP related discourse on HN is reminiscent of talking politics with people who spend all their time listening to talk radio. I mean of course Ronald Reagan singlehandedly killed communism and minorities caused the housing crisis but did you know that the entire patent and copyright system could be removed tomorrow and everything would be just hunky dory? Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted. The solution is not to abolish patents, the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO and/or change the system so that rubber stamping applications with approved is not incentivized. You could fund it by taxing the patents themselves. Think your patent is worth $10 million? Ok, you owe the USPTO $100K and the legal damages you can claim from violation of that patent are capped at $10 million (this allows the competition to effectively public domain patents by buying them out).
- z0r 15y agoTaxing a patent directly in the way you suggest is a terrible idea. Then smaller innovators who might benefit from patent protection are priced out by larger players directly! The value of the patent becomes proportional to the wealth of the patent holder, not the value of the innovation being protected.
- dpatru 15y agoHe's not saying that small inventors couldn't profit. Just that their profits as a result of monopoly rights should be capped at a dollar amount. Patent rights are already capped in time: 20 years from the time of filing. After that, inventors no longer have the monopoly. The problem is that in high-tech fields, 20 years is too long. We don't want individual inventors to hold back progress for 20 years. Capping returns seems like a good solution. Inventors are still compensated, but within reason.
- chc 15y agoHe isn't saying that, but it would be the result of his suggestion. It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money, since the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand. The cost of getting a patent is already a hardship on non-corporate inventors. They won't be able to afford a lot on top of that — the ROI would just not be there. If Joe Inventor patents his technique for creating geese that lay golden eggs but can only afford to pay $5000 on top of the filing fees, then I can rip it off and end up having to pay him fractional pennies out of every dollar I make off my infringement.
- temp765 15y agoNothing in the article suggests HTC's patent is ridiculous like what was portrayed recently in the TAL program about Intellectual Ventures. There doesn't seem to be anything inherently absurd about patenting an image compression system. I mean, imagine it was a small company that invented a new compression system that was 20% better then all the competition. Would they too be chastised if they tried to protect themselves from large corporations that ignore intellectual property law? Patent are supposed to incentivize innovation and give the patent holder an edge against the competition as a sort of prize for his work. This "edge" was sold to HTC, and now HTC has every right to protect it. Seems like Apple should just either suck it up and pay a licensing fee, or change their hardware/software to get around using this technology. The problem with the patent system is the disgusting legal harassment done by patent trolls - where smallish companies are sued over absurd patent and because they don't have the financial means to legally defend themselves they're pressured into settling; this case doesn't seem to exhibit any of those problems.
- mcosta 15y agoIn the real world this small company would be counter sued with any random patent eg pattern matching. With reason or not the costs skyrockets... Guess who loses?
- temp765 15y agoYes, that would be the problem I described in my last paragraph, but that has no bearing on the facts of this case. Just because they could be counter sued (though I'm not completely convinced it's that east), doesn't mean the original law suit has no merit. Large companies routinely ignore the intellectual property rights of others (in part due to so many of them being bogus), but that doesn't make it okay. HTC is completely within it's right to demand compensation for technology they own, if their claim is legitimate. There is nothing in this article that suggests their claim is absurd or unjustified. Maybe the patent is on some amazing piece of compression technology that took years to develop. People are just jumping to the conclusion that it's yet another "toast" or "pop-up text" patent.
- emilis_info 15y agoSomehow this old tale from 1992 springs to mind: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/humour/Computer_Audience/A%20Legend%20For%20Our%20Time.html http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/humour/Computer_Au...
- Zachhack 15y agoAwaiting the day when 'Patent Law 101' becomes a pre-req for Computer Science degree..
- younata 15y agoalready there at my uni.
- Zachhack 15y agoAwaiting the day when 'Patent Law 101' becomes a pre-req for Computer Science degree..
- netmau5 15y agoWe live in a capitalistic society. I'd like to think that means IF !STOLEN THEN PAID and its contrapositive IF !PAID THEN STOLEN. Patents say IF USED THEN STOLEN. Companies tend to license these patents into their capitalistic form for many reasons, but the fact that they have a decision in the matter allows for monopolistic behavior. I believe all patents should come with a required provision that lists a fair market value for licensing it which anyone can use, thus IF !STOLEN THEN PAID. In turn, this forces the USPTO to actually quantify (to some degree of error) the "useful" requirement of a patent and, by small extension, if it is "statutory" (product or productizable) and "nonobvious" (existing competition?). I think it also forces the requestor to give some detail on the intention of the patent rather than making an arbitrary claim to an underlying concept. It's all about the money; they need to stop pretending and judge it that way. As it reads now, the current patent system was a premature optimization which planned for a society out of Star Trek instead of, well, lets not go there today.
- cwp 15y agoFrom the article: As NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) is a licensee, units with its GPUs are not in violation. However, models with graphics by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) or integrated graphics from Intel Corp.'s (INTC) (such as the newly refreshed MacBook Air lineup) are in violation. Whoa. So this actually goes way beyond Apple. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
- bpd1069 15y agoWell isn't this a pickle, according to ars the two patents that the judge have been found infridged have been ruled invalid... http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/07/itc-judge-says-macs-infringe-s3-patents-but-it-may-not-help-htc.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/07/itc-judge-says-mac... ... [Litigating Apple] noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art. Apple can ask the ITC to review the infringement decision in light of the USPTO's invalidation of those patent claims as ipso facto an invalid patent claim cannot be infringed. ... ars's source: http://www.litigatingapple.com/blog/2011/7/24/why-htcs-courtship-of-s3-might-be-too-clever-by-half.html http://www.litigatingapple.com/blog/2011/7/24/why-htcs-court... And the soap opera continues.
- deepGem 15y agoWell Appe will just use Nvidia chips in the new set of mac airs. I think the author overstates the damage by saying the ruling will impact the entire mac line up.
- billmcneale 15y agoMutually Assured Destruction.
- ashishgandhi 15y agoITC judge says Macs infringe on S3 patents, but it may not help HTC. "Litigating Apple noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2815852 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2815852
- TeMPOraL 15y agoI expected to see Economic Wars soon[1], but so far it seems we're getting Patent War. Anyway, is getting interesting. [1] - yes, I've just read "Black Oceans" by Dukaj ;).