6 ms·
HTC's patents could lead to an ban on the next iPhone & iPad
- redthrowaway 14y agoHopefully this will be the case that gives Cook the ability to "gracefully withdraw" from Jobs' legal intifada against Android, and we can end this silliness for good.
- onetimeuse001 14y agoThere is no Android vs iPhone here. At worst for Apple, they let HTC off the hook and continue against others, for as long as they can.
- freehunter 14y agoIt doesn't sound like there could be any "let HTC off the hook". The whole point of this is that HTC is seeking an injunction against Apple. Even if Apple withdrew all complaints, HTC could still seek that injunction.
- onetimeuse001 14y agoApple won round one and really screwed HTC http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-htc-apple-patent-idUSTRE7BI24620111220 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-htc-apple-paten... . It's not in HTC's interest to pick a fight will mighty Apple at all, so the best scenario for HTC would a deal with Apple. Apple can sue them again and again and again for patent after patent. Even the legal fees will be felt by HTC Remember: HTC's loyalties are with their shareholders, not to fight a war against Apple on behalf of Google or Android fans. If their board determined that selling bottled water was better than making phones, they have a duty to pivot. Google (Motorola) is different, they have a much larger stake in Android.
- Mordor 14y agoCan Cook turn Apple over to eat humble pie?
- eckyptang 14y agoAm I the only one who is utterly tired of reading this sort of stuff? All it proves is that smart phone vendors are universally asshats and this market is dangerous, risky and volatile so I don't want to be involved.
- alexchamberlain 14y agoDear Judges of the World, Please declare all relevant patent holders to modern mobile phone and tablet technology must grant Compulsory Licences. Regards, The World This is getting ridiculous - very few of these patents are really innovative anyway! References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_licensing
- nathan_long 14y agoAbsolutely. And the licensing had better be cheap for new entrants to the market. The important implication of stories like this is not "Giant Company #1 may be hampered by Giant Company #2's intellectual property." Rather, it's "somewhere, someone who could make the Next Big Thing has just read this and decided not to bother, since making any device with a screen and menus and network access would probably get you sued." This is exactly the opposite of what intellectual property (at least in the U.S.) is for: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
- onetimeuse001 14y agoCan they? Judges have to go by existing laws, not invent them.
- alexchamberlain 14y agoI honestly don't know; more prominent lawyers/judges etc could comment on it at least to encourage governments to step in. A lot of time and money is being wasted here.
- X-Istence 14y agoWhat I don't understand is how companies can hold patents on something that is so clearly a standard that is required to be used by anyone that wants to connect to an LTE based network. If anything these patents should be licensed under FRAND, and should be licensed by the manufacturer of the modem not by every single device manufacturer that happens to include an LTE enabled modem in their device. I don't quite understand how someone can own patents on a standard and selectively allow and disallow people from using that standard. Why hasn't this been banned? Why are there no completely open standards for communication between a wireless base-station and a wireless node? Are there any patents on VHF/UHF communications using FM/AM modulation? Were there any patents that have expired that I am not aware of because I am fairly young compared to the technology (avid HAM radio user ... not nearly as well educated on its history)? Where these same patent battles happening when people were building radio's?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- kenster07 14y agoI feel exactly the same about smartphone UI.
- fluidcruft 14y agoI agree it's weird that the scope of the patents aren't limited to the actual modems and that the modem manufacturers haven't handled the licensing. But, maybe things are too fragmented... the modem chipset doesn't include the antenna or the SIM card. Possibly the patents cover things that are only possible once assembled. Given different antenna designs you couldn't expect the modem manufacturer to provide a blanket license them all. If that makes any sense. Similarly a floppy disk drive manufacturer doesn't provide universal licenses for all possible software that could be stored on a floppy used in the drive. But your point about UHF/VHF is very interesting and I'd also be interested in learning more. There were at least a few famous big battles over radio (Tesla/Marconi/Edison) and TV (Farnsworth/RCA) but these are inventor vs company (probably more entertaining than bigcorp vs bigcorp). I'm sure the transition to color TV was quite ripe for company vs company battles. There was also the big change in patent law/precident mid last century. In an entrepreneurship course taught by a patent attorney, he described it as patents suddenly having big value while having been nearly worthless previously.
- bgarbiak 14y agoOnce Apple will announce LTE on iPhone all hell will break loose. HTC has two related patents, Samsung - 79. Source: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/042612-lte-patent-wars-258713.html http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/042612-lte-patent-wars...
- alexchamberlain 14y agoNokia owns loads of patents for GSM which the standards bodies negotiated terms on; I'm sure it will happen here as well.
- eisa01 14y agoApple has already settled with Nokia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia...
- simonh 14y agoYes, but Apple being sued over patents is OK, it's only when they sue somebody else that there's a problem. It's just like with Chinese labour. Everyone else uses them, but Apple using them is wrong, even if they pay more than everyone else and the workers prefer to work in the Apple device factories. Didn't you get the memo?
- StavrosK 14y agoThe problem is that Apple was the one who started using patents offensively, as far as I know.
- sbuk 14y agoSorry, but that'd be Nokia and Motorola.
- elemenohpee 14y ago
- beloch 14y agoOn the one hand, I'm pretty sick of this nonsense. On the other hand, it might be in everyone's best interest if HTC succeeds here. If millions of fanboys are denied their shiny new iPhones and Apple, which is rather well connected in Washington, finally winds up losing money due to the patent system, maybe we'll finally seem some progress towards reform.
- thaumaturgy 14y agoFor me, it's been fascinating to see what huge companies that are flush with more cash than ever before [1] will do with that cash during a prolonged recession. The most common argument for continuing to lower taxes on businesses is that it will stimulate the economy because the businesses will spend the money on their employees. It looks like what actually happens is that they spend the money waging legal wars against each-other. [1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an...
- davidw 14y agoI think you'd need more and better stats than a few large mobile phone companies in a turf war to really draw that conclusion.
- hga 14y agoIndeed; I need to learn more about the Long Depression (1873-79 or longer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression and obviously right when POTS was being developed) but I know that this sort of problem was big in the Great Depression.
- ceejayoz 14y agoLegal wars tend to be expensive because they involve spending a lot of money on employees, though.
- 14y ago
- imrehg 14y agoIsn't part of the patent system, that one could license the said technology for a given price? It's really sad, that that the first step is not negotiation and revenue, but lawyering and "ban it to hell!".... I don't care who started it.
- alephnil 14y agoFor some sorts of copyright, that is the case, like for music. A company can legally deny another company a license to a patent or set an unreasonable price for it. Normally it is in a company's best interest to license the patent, but they are not legally required to do it.
- junto 14y agoApple is a US company. I can't see a US court backing HTC. There will be a loophole. Watch this space.
- atirip 14y agoCreative wasnt US company... Stop watching.
- ktizo 14y ago“I don’t care if they bought these patents to sue you or not,” Pender told McKeon. “They are a property right.” Surely he should care if people are purchasing patents purely for litigation. There are not many other items that you can legally purchase for the sole purpose of using the courts to stop someone from doing something that would otherwise be perfectly legal.
- icarus127 14y agoBut it's not perfectly legal if the patent is valid. The infringement would just be against the original company if said company hadn't been bought. Or are you suggesting that when a company is acquired all it's patents should become null and void?
- ktizo 14y agoFair point, I wasn't really thinking that one through at all. Of course it is still infringement both before and after purchase and the previous owner may have been just as likely to litigate as the previous one. And I wasn't suggesting that a companies patents should become null and void after purchase, however my logic was still horribly flawed here. I really should avoid the internets when tired. Although I do think, as I have stated elsewhere, that a right to a monopoly should not be treated the same as any other property asset and should maybe have some limits in transferability and stuff like that.
- Mordor 14y agoIf closing Apple is the end game, can they take on the world... and win?
- jamesrom 14y agoDo you really think that Apple wont settle if they don't think they will win? I'm pretty sure whatever patents HTC has can't be worth a mere drop of iPhone sales profit. Apple are more likely to buy HTC outright for the patents in question than not sell the iPhone.