ITC dismisses S3's first complaint against Apple
0. phoneArena 21 Nov 2011, 22:12 posted on
The International Trade Commission has dismissed the first complaint filed by S3 against Apple saying there has been no violation of patents, but this does not affect the second complaint filed jointly between HTC and S3 against Apple...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
2. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
The last line made me chuckle. Good job. :)
I would hope, actually, that Jobs's death will have brought the patent wars: Apple/Android Theater to an end. Already we've seen two Google apps appear on the App Store in a manner of weeks after he was buried. Granted, the company may continue to attack competitors with lawsuits, but it's pretty clear from his biography that a huge part of the motivation to sue Android manufacturers was generated by him, so the offensive by Apple may yet die with him.
3. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
I hope so....it is getting ridiculously petty - innovation is still occurring, but I am sure a company's resources can be put to better use. Steve Jobs appears to have been senile in his later years.....lol
6. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
the google search app was already on the iPhone. There\'s was a bunch of google apps on iPhone while he was still alive.
I hope Apple continues to defend itself against thieves.
10. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
"Apple needs to defend itself against thieves."
So...what exactly did HTC steal from Apple?
Seriously, Taco, the hyperbole needs to STOOOOOOOOPPPPPP.
15. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Sounds like he is Steve Jobs ....and delusional....poor guy/girl/it (take your pick)
4. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> "As always, the patent system is convoluted, and confusing, but at least it's holding back these companies from investing in innovation, because obviously no one wants that."
That is patently B.S. -- it's NOT convoluted, it's NOT confusing and it does NOT hold back companies from investing in new innovations. Anyone can file a provisional patent application for a few hundred dollars, especially through legalzoom.com
You can tell the Michael H. is making things up because all he had to do was to use google or bing or some other search engine. Check this link:http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic
es/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htmand look up under the 8th column from the left entitled "Total Patent Applications."
That is the problem when people like the author who makes up a strange theory as a convenience as opposed to looking at the cold hard facts -- patent applications from 1963 to 2010 are UP and the trend is positive and decidedly positive.
People have a choice -- they can believe in fiction or they can verify the facts themselves. We have the internet today, so there's no excuses to find the information with some of the best search engines today.
9. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Thank you for the educated comment ardent.
11. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
You obviously missed the point. Michael's point is that patents are being used today by companies to wage war against each other. "Oh no!" Apple says. "Someone else realized that a rectangle with a touchscreen holds consumer appeal! And they use colors and make their OS relatively easy to use! Nobody else should be able to do that but us!!!! Quick! Instead of coming up with devices that are TRULY light years ahead of everyone else, let's let our device fall slowly behind the curve while we try to slow our competitors down with a metric s**t ton of lawsuits! Thank goodness the government lets us claim exclusive rights to ideas that any asshole could have thought of!"
So the fact that patent applications are up could point to more people having ideas, but considering the prevalence of patent trolling what it usually ends up meaning is that companies stockpile patents so when the lawsuits come-which cost millions of dollars for almost everyone involved except the lawyers-they have ammo to fight with.
Now, I'm not a big fan of out and out carbon copying specific designs. Which is why I've always been fairly lukewarm about some of Samsung's design choices, and I find the design of ZTE Android phone keyboards I've seen to be despicable (they are an almost complete copy of Apple's soft keyboard-and they suck anyway). However, touchscreens were inevitably going to take over from hard keyboards once they got good enough, and it's so intuitive to use gestures to control actions on touchscreens that any product design teams could have figured it out.
However, while Apple gets to sue for things like that, they'll happily swipe tech from companies that took decades to develop, like the communications technologies that companies like Motorola and Nokia hold patents for. Since those take way, way more R&D and technical skill to figure out, the companies who actually invest their own money to develop them do deserve some kind of protection from someone else simply copying their work and claiming it as their own.
This is why it was okay for Motorola to kick things off by suing Apple, as Apple happily shat all over about three decades of collective innovation by using all the tech Motorola had developed since the 70s and not paying a penny for it. And since Motorola had valid reasons for going after Apple, it was NOT okay for Apple to completely blow them off and yet turn around and sue for patents that required much less innovation, and then rinse and repeat with every other phone manufacturer that posed a competitive threat.
To sum this overlong post up:
Motorola sued in order to get some compensation for decades of R&D. The other Android OEMs have been suing defensively.
Apple is suing with the express and stated purpose of completely destroying its competitor in the market.
Any advocate of a free market should despise a company which tries to destroy competition using force. It's against the principle of the free market in every way.
14. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Get a patent and come back and talk. Those who can't do usually have the most hot air. Also, you didn't get Michael's theme that patent-lawsuits "hold back" innovation.
Patents exist only to be superseded. If you can't INVENT AROUND an existing patent, then you are the one with the problem. Nothing is stopping any of the android OEMS (Motorola, HTC, Google, et al) to invent around MicroSoft or Apple existing patents.
Google's patent with its maze-like screen unlock feature is an example of innovation that goes around Apple's slide to unlock. That is why patents have 20-year lives. The goal is to incentivize innovation. There are now over half a million patent applications (2010). No one has a monopoly on a new idea.
20. iamcc (Posts: 1319; Member since: 07 Oct 2011)
You are correct with everything you are saying. The difference is, Apple is the first company to use their patents with SOLE INTENT of banning a competitors product.
They have absolutely no interest in collecting royalties from the patents that are supposedly being infringed on, they simply want to STOP other companies from releasing the product.
You don't see that as different? By the way, my father is a small business owner and has invented several products for which he has patents on so I understand the process very well.
24. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> so I understand the process very well.
iamcc, let me ask you this question: If a large firm blatantly infringed on your father's patents, would your father sue to defend his patent(s) like what Apple did? Defending one's patents is part of the patent process that most people don't understand. The patent process starts at the new idea to patent application to being awarded a patent for 20 years and defending said patent during its 20-year life.
> Apple is the first company to use their patents with SOLE INTENT of banning a competitors product.
I call B.S. because Apple is not the FIRST company with that sole intent. The whole purpose of a patent is to ban competitors from infringing on patents absent an agreement.
The 1793 US patent law was amended in 1800 to address patent infringement cases with treble damages. (source:http://www.ladas.com/Patents/U
SPatentHistory.html) This behavior dates back to the 1800 meaning Apple can't be the first.
> They have absolutely no interest in collecting royalties from the patents that are supposedly being infringed on...
I call B.S. Apple offered to license to "Samsung lower level patents" and Samsung nixed the idea.
"However, he emphasises that such discussion was part of the broader discussion of a framework by which Samsung Electronics Co Limited could continue to sell its products with some elements of Apple Inc’s intellectual property, such as some 'lower level patents', available to them but would cease copying the features and functionality of Apple Inc's products, and the iPad in particular."
+Refuses+to+License+Some+Paten ts+to+Samsung+Samsung+Fires+Ba ck/article23028.htm)
These are standard propaganda used by android fanboys against Apple and they are nothing but LIES, LIES, and more LIES.
At the end of the day the FACTS are revealed and the ones that are most surprised are the ones who didn't do their homework.
22. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Translation it's ok if Motorola sues, but not if Apple sues.
7. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Michael that\'s a bs line you threw in there. Patents are needed to have innovation. Otherwise companies have no incentive to innovate as they will not profit from new ideas. All ideas would be stolen immediately when brought to market.
8. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Looks like another win for Apple. How many lawsuits does Apple need to win before the trolls give it some credit that maybe it has some valid cases.
12. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Valid in the eyes of the law? Sometimes. Maybe.
Valid in the sense of justice being served? Not a chance.
18. iamcc (Posts: 1319; Member since: 07 Oct 2011)
Just because people disagree with you doesn\'t make them trolls. You are the troll by making comments like that...
13. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Releasing phones which take advantage of faster hardware in order to do more systemwide, pushing the limits of hardware durability while minimizing physical dimensions, and increasing the scope and functionality of the phone by introducing hardware that fundamentally changes what the phone can accomplish, therefore creating modular computers with plug and play processors.
Treading water is: taking functionality from competitors (and doing a worse job of implementation), keeping the outer hardware exactly the same, including a better camera, spending more time on voice controls and giving them a fake personality so people think it's cooler (while taking that voice control away from people who had it before) and calling it good.
16. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
I wish we could could all patent squares and rectangles....
21. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Faster hardware is not innovation.
Artificial intelligence on a smartphone is innovation. A new GUI that everyone copied is innovation.
23. Sniggly (Posts: 7305; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
But artificial intelligence does not exist on any phone. An app list is not a new GUI. it's a stripped down GUI. Android has more in common with BREW, windows and Blackberry OS.
17. Evil_SaNz (Posts: 259; Member since: 20 Oct 2011)
For once, what did htc steal to Apple plz :p? Or you\'re still one of those that think that the first Apple computer was made by Jobs or that first OS with icons was Mac System 1? First Apple computer was made by Steve Wozniak and first OS with icons was Xerox PARC Xerox Alto.
Apple is just smart to take existing technologies, make them comfortable to the common user with low informatic knowledge and patent them like was theirs the first idea.
In an apocalyctic way, if Apple would win all the lawsuits, your iphone would cost 2000 bucks. Rivalry between big companies was always good for the consumer. Really don\'t understand why you still hold for Apple\'s monopoly, do you have a share of the company at wall street?
As android user I hope that Apple makes good phones and sells them, that\'s how I can find now a galaxy s2 for less than 400.
19. axed97 (Posts: 16; Member since: 19 Aug 2011)
everyone is getting mad at apple for sueing for patents they filed they filed them so there going to defend there ip that was given to them by the patent offiices.
now with that said the real people that need to look at this are the knuckleheads that approved there in my opinion very veague and general patents i mean patent the pinch to zoom idea? the slide to unlock? and patent them after there were touchscreen phones that utalized the feature
the patent office really needs to look at the and say uh...no this is a to general patent show us the code line and we will let you patnet that thats innovation yes patent what you invented but not an idea patent the line of code the hardware but gestures that and ideas have been used way before the manufactuer made the phone
i dont blame apple for doing what they do neither do i blame android both are equally as guilty for "stealing"eachothers ip
all of this is what ive seen in the last few months of the patent wars its really getting out of hand something needs to change and with apples new ceo he will take the company in the right direction