Apple sues HTC over iPhone patents
Apple is suing phone maker HTC and has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging that the Taiwanese company is infringing 20 Apple patents related to the iPhone.
"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it," Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO, said in a statement Tuesday. "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."
The patents that Apple alleges HTC is infringing are related to the iPhone's graphical user interface, and the iPhone's underlying hardware and software design. The company is asking for a permanent injunction, which would prevent HTC from importing and selling infringing devices in the United States. Apple also said it is seeking damages, but it did not specify an amount.
HTC said it was caught off-guard by the legal action. In a statement earlier Tuesday, the company said it had heard of the complaints only through media reports and Apple's press release. The company said it was reviewing the filings. Until it completes its review, a company representative said she is unable to provide "comment on the validity of the claims being made against HTC."
Early posturing
"HTC is a mobile-technology innovator and patent holder that has been very focused over the past 13 years on creating many of the most innovative smartphones," the company said in its statement. "HTC values patent rights and their enforcement, but is also committed to defending its own technology innovations. "
• See also: Apple sues HTC--court filings
Apple has been around the patent infringement block many times with regard to its iPhone, which quickly became both a technological and a cultural touchstone when it debuted in January 2007. But its lawsuit against HTC marks the first time it has aggressively initiated infringement accusations against another phone maker without being prompted.
It's also interesting that Apple has chosen to target HTC in this suit and not other cell phone manufacturers, such as Motorola, Samsung Electronics, or Palm, which have also built phones initially touted as "iPhone killers."
Another interesting point is the fact that Apple did not name software makers Google or Microsoft in its filings. In its complaint to the International Trade Commission, Apple named 12 phones that it claims use technology that infringes its patents. Five of those phones--including the Nexus One, which is sold directly by Google--use Google's Android operating system. And seven of the phones named in the complaint use Microsoft's Windows Mobile software.
Neither Google nor Microsoft were named as co-defendants in the federal patent case or the ITC complaint. This may be because the technology in question is software that HTC layers on top of the operating systems. If through the course of this case, Apple targets software features that are inherent in either the Google Android or the Windows Mobile operating systems, then Google and Microsoft would be forced to defend the technology in their operating-system software.
Typically, when a company licenses its technology to another company for use in a product, there is an indemnity clause that requires the licensor to defend its technology, should it come under legal attack. This is what happened in a patent case that Lucent Technologies filed against PC makers Gateway and Dell in 2003.
Microsoft, which was not named in the original suit, ended up joining the lawsuit because the infringement claims in the lawsuit had to do with MP3 and MPEG video-encoding and compression technologies that were supplied in Windows software running on the Gateway and Dell hardware.
This case has dragged on for years. In 2007, a San Diego jury found for Alcatel-Lucent and against Microsoft. And Alcatel-Lucent was awarded a record-breaking $1.52 billion in damages. Microsoft appealed. Part of the case ended up getting thrown out. But another part of the case continues to this day and is still unresolved.
"The Alcatel-Lucent-versus-Microsoft case is analogous to this one because in each case, Microsoft provides software to hardware vendors, and the hardware vendors are the ones getting sued," said Jason Schultz, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He explained that two main questions need to be answered to know if Google and Microsoft will eventually be pulled into the dispute.
The first is whether Apple's infringement claims include technology in the underlying operating-system software supplied by Google and Microsoft. And the second is whether indemnity is included in the licensing agreements between Google and HTC,k and Microsoft and HTC, respectively.
"Even without specific agreements requiring them to jump in, Google and Microsoft may defend their technology, anyway," Schultz said. "If Apple is successful with its suit, it could have a chilling effect on the promotion of Android and Windows Mobile phones."
Google wouldn't comment specifically on the case, but it said it would defend its technology.
"We are not a party to this lawsuit," a Google representative said in an e-mail. "However, we stand behind our Android operating system and the partners [that] have helped us to develop it."
A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment.
iPhone's days in court
Since the iPhone's arrival, Apple has been the target of several patent infringement lawsuits. The company has been accused of copying multitouch technology, visual-voice mail technology, and digital-camera and imaging technology.
The most bitter battle for Apple so far has been against Nokia, the world's largest maker of mobile phones. In October, Nokia filed a suit against Apple claiming it is infringing on 10 of its patents related to its wireless handsets.
Apple countersued a couple of months later, claiming that Nokia is infringing 13 of its patents.
In December, Nokia lodged yet another complaint against Apple with the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging that Apple infringes seven Nokia patents "in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, and computers." The alleged patent infringement is connected to key features in Apple products, including user interface, camera, antenna, and power management technologies.
Meanwhile, Kodak recently filed complaints with the International Trade Commission against Apple and Research In Motion related to digital-camera patents. The photo company claims that the camera technology used in Apple's iPhone and RIM's BlackBerry to preview images infringes on a digital-imaging patent owned by Kodak. The lawsuit was filed concurrently with the U.S. International Trade Commission and in U.S. District Court in Delaware.
Technology companies have increasingly been filing patent infringement cases with the ITC because the process there tends to move much more quickly than in the federal court system.
"ITC cases are much faster and can be over in 18 months," said Steven Lieb, a patent lawyer and partner at Frommer Lawrence & Haug, a New York law firm. "You can't get damages, but you can get injunctive relief."
But Schultz said faster isn't necessarily better.
"A lot of mistakes can be made when you're burning through documents as quickly as you do in an ITC case," he said. "Judges and administrative folks in the ITC cases handle things on the fly. So while you get a decision much faster, it's not always a better decision. It's something to be watched."
Update, 3:45 p.m. PDT Added more background information and comments from Google and lawyers. CNET's Jonathan Skillings and Ina Fried contributed to this story.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
Get a clue. Do you have ANY idea how many patents Apple owns that they just sit on. Do a google search on Apple and Piles. Its a patent from the 90's and they have done dick with it. They have hundreds of others that they just sit on. Apple is worse then MS ever was. The company needs to be eradicated from the planet.
You're promoting device with everything closed/restricted and acting as a Big Brother. Google will put an end to that.
You're in a big trouble in future , you realized that I guess based on your first move to sue HTC.
Like Apple did not just grab the Xerox idea of the graphical interface
Or the mouse
Whatever.
The CULT that is Jobs and Apple rolls on. Here's to a million comments to appear here.
You gotta figure there can only be so much code that can be written without it being duplicated. Everyone has a brain, so if your brain got an idea that mine had already, you should be punished for it.
@eee, technically Apple didn't grab anything from Xerox. Those technologies were leased or sold respectively to Apple at a very cheap price (practically a steal, but still a sale nonetheless). Aside from this being a well known blunder, its also taught as a lesson in business schools. Btw, Xerox also DID sue Apple over these patents and LOST. Keep that in mind. Xerox realized their bad decision and sued, hoping for sympathy, since they were previously unable to capitalize on their own inventions.
I'm definitely not an apple-fanboy. In fact, since 2004, my respect for them as a company and for their technology has been in decline and practically non-existent at this point.
@slapppy - how do you know what PC people are using? Not everyone who uses an Apple or PC knows the entire history of the company they purchased from. Likewise, just because someone uses an Apple doesn't mean they like it (or a windows PC for that matter).
They eventually licensed the Alto GUI around 1984. Only after they "took" the initial GUI, keyboard and mouse ideas for their own development after touring the facility, in 1979, and even hiring Xerox PARC researchers, in 1980, to flesh out the existing Xerox ideas to be used in the original Macintosh in 1984.
The licensing was almost an afterthought to the thievery.
So, it seems a little ironic for Jobs to be up in arms about someone using the ideas of another.
Furthermore, the lawsuit between Xerox and Apple was only dismissed on the grounds of it exceeding the three year statute of limitations.
So, they didn't lose the lawsuit on any grounds that proves your point.
From:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html?pagewanted=2
"But the Star's interface has been widely copied, most successfully by Apple, in its Macintosh computers. Mr. Jobs had been permitted to visit the Xerox laboratory in return for allowing Xerox to invest in one of Apple's last private financing offerings. Mr. Jobs later hired computer researchers away from Xerox to help build personal computers with many of the features he first saw at Xerox.
The intellectual debt that Apple owes Xerox is almost universally acknowledged. As one example, Bruce Horn, one of two principal designers of the Macintosh ''Finder'' interface, spent some of his youth participating in a program at the Xerox research center to make computers more accessible to children. "
HTC: Your Honor, I?m going to demonstrate how our software differs from the iDont. I?m launching Pandora now? Can you hear the music? I?m now going to check my email.. Do you still hear the music?? Now I?m launching the Web Browser.. Can you still hear the music???
Judge: Case closed!!
10/10
You just won this article.
"Like Apple did not just grab the Xerox idea of the graphical interface
Or the mouse "
Quite possibly the most ignorant comment regarding patents i have ever read. Have you ever actually read up on the issue before accusing Apple ?
1. Xerox's managers didnt know what to do with the technology invented at PARC
2. Steve Jobs paid Xerox in ~$100m in Apple Stock options for a guided tour of the PARC facility
3. Apple's people saw 3 different technologies. The bitmapped display, object-oriented programming and a local network.
4. Apple did not infringe on any patents that Xerox held.
After that Apple invented implemented their version of the desktop metaphor with drop-down-menus, windows, icons, cut-n-paste, drag-n-drop, folders, etc,etc.
And many of the employees from Xerox moved to Apple.
Jeeze you IT nerds in here are so ignorant of the history of any of these companies. it's no wonder you bash Apple and support the me-2 companies in this industry. Go read 'Fire in the valley' or watch 'Triumph of the nerds' for a crash course on the history of this industry before you bash Apple.
Judge: what say you Apple ?
Apple: here's an iPhone from 2007 doing all those things those copy-cats showed you. And here are the patents we were legally awarded for coming up with and shipping products with those features, first (2007).
Judge: HTC..... bend over.
Palm can own Apple if they were to sue them.
Nope - the rotary dial was patented in 1891 by an irate undertaker in Indiana who was convinced the operator in town was directing everyone to her husband's business - a rival undertaker.
I recently found the instructions for an early rotary phone - it reads just as badly as instructions to a new computer.
You are close, but not exactly accurate. You are refering to Strowger who invented the first automatic telephone switch which would bypass operators. The first phones used push buttons not a rotary.
Guess who owns this patent now? The French. Alcatel - Lucent
"We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."
So I ask again. What will happen when Apple's greedy eyes are set on Google? Well one of 2 things.
1) Google will respond in kind with law suits of their own and pull all Google support from the iPhone. What would the iPhone be without the support of Google? Well it wouldn't have any form of maps program among other things.
2) When apple finds out they should be after Google instead of HTC they will stop the law suit in fear of loosing Google support on the iPhone and be labled as hypocrites in the process (if they aren't already).
I think Google may only get involved if the patents Apple is complaining about are related to Google and not HTC. Then again if HTC fails to win this than Google could lose a lot of it's support for the Android OS sionce HTC is currently the largest supplier of Android phones. I think it would be in the best interest of Google, and Microsoft for that matter, to back HTC on this one.
The blood is in the water now.
Same deal with Apple. If they lost the iTard Phone they would be royally screwed. Frankly those who can't innovate.....sue. Apple doesn't, and frankly can't innovate. All they do is recycle the same crap over and over and over until sales start to dip, then add a new feature onto the same crusty device\OS and call it INNOVATION! WEEEEEE. And the iTards of the world eat it up, because they can't think different.
And don't forget the new product coming out next year: the Apple mind control device, which will force you to post pro-Apple comments on the internet. Now THAT is innovative!
Maybe you should qualify innovation.
If innovation means taking the ideas of others and using them to your advantage, then Apple's a great innovator.
The early Apple PCs and their UI were invented by Xerox and used by Apple.
They eventually licensed the Alto GUI around 1984, but only after they "took" the initial GUI, keyboard and mouse ideas for their own development after touring the facility, in 1979, and even hired Xerox PARC researchers, in 1980, to flesh out the existing Xerox ideas to be used in the original Macintosh in 1984.
The licensing was almost an afterthought to the thievery.
So, it seems a little ironic for Jobs to be up in arms about someone using the ideas of another.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html?pagewanted=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox
So it's great that Xerox invented all those great products. But too bad for them that they didn't know how to package them successfully and be first to market. Apple knew how bring all those great ideas together in a successful package, and hence in my book they are innovators.
So by my definition, for example, Google was innovative in the way that they re-though searching and advertising, but they certainly were not the ones that created internet searching, nor internet advertisement. They managed to take ideas of others and package them in a way that had not really been seen before, and became hugely successful because of it.
"Maybe you should qualify innovation."
Have you actually read up on the history of personal computers ? cause it doesnt look like it at all.... i'll give you a crash course.
1977: Apple II vs Altair 8800 (look at the two 'PCs' and tell me which one had innovation ?
1984: Macintosh vs MSDOS
1991: Quicktime
1993: Messagepad running NewtonOS
1995: Firewire
1998: iMac (industrial design)
2001: MacOSX, iLife and iPod
2003: iTunes Music Store
2007: iPhone
2008: App Store
As far as Xerox. what do you call Apple paying Xerox ~$100m in Apple Stock options ? Also....
1. Apple saw bitmapped display (Xerox Alto or Star, which were not commercially available at the time), object oriented programming and local networked computers.
2. Apple didn't infringe on any patents, unless of course 'bitmaps' were patented. The concepts of icons, folders, trash, drag-n-drop, cut-n-paste overlapping windows, drop-down-menus, etc....were first commercially available on an Apple macintosh.
Since your comments stem quite simply from pure ignorance, i suggest you get some basic education on the matter. i recommend reading 'Fire in the Valley', or watching 'Triumph of the Nerds' for starters, before you decide to bash Apple. Although given your current ignorant bias against Apple, i doubt any amount of information will sway your opinion.
I linked sources for the information detailed in my comments. So, it's far more likely that mine are factual, than yours. Especially since I haven't been insulting people I disagree with.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html?pagewanted=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox
So, there you have it. Everything I stated is based on fact.
Not only that, but if Apple were entitled to the ideas, and Xerox did not feel wronged, why did they file suit against Apple for patent infringement?
The lawsuit was only dismissed because of the statute of limitations.
Stating common knowledge does not make anyone ignorant or biased. Insulting someone on the opposing side of an argument does, however, make you an immature child.
Quote from Steve Jobs after touring PARC:
"They just had no idea what they had."
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox
He did know what they had, and he took it. Along with most of the researchers developing it.
I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than capitalizing on the ideas of others. The license for Alto was made the same year that The Macintosh was released. Which means they had already been developing the software based on Xerox's ideas before licensing was ever considered.
Call it what you want, but I certainly won't call it innovation.
And while I appreciate your unverifiable timeline and random facts without cited sources, I think the NY Times said it best:
"But the Star's interface has been widely copied, most successfully by Apple, in its Macintosh computers. Mr. Jobs had been permitted to visit the Xerox laboratory in return for allowing Xerox to invest in one of Apple's last private financing offerings. Mr. Jobs later hired computer researchers away from Xerox to help build personal computers with many of the features he first saw at Xerox.
The intellectual debt that Apple owes Xerox is almost universally acknowledged. As one example, Bruce Horn, one of two principal designers of the Macintosh ''Finder'' interface, spent some of his youth participating in a program at the Xerox research center to make computers more accessible to children. "
Yelonde loses, gavron wins.
Yes exactly, it's not like Linux, Windoze and Android are not "cults" by your definition, right ? of course not, it's only Apple.
I guess the only fundamental difference between Apple and other cults like Microsofties and the Penguins is that Apple is the trailblazer and actually innovates. I'd rather be in an cult with originality than cults which are constantly trying to copy them lol.
He's not calling them cultists because they use certain brands. He's calling them cultists because they vehemently defend any and every decision or product ever to come from the company without question, regardless of logic or necessity.
They even become enraged, like hawkeye_a, when people point out facts that could possibly make their "brand" look anything other than perfect, and call them ignorant and biased for doing nothing more than presenting those facts.
I have an iPhone and love it, and am looking at a Mac Pro, so that I can run OS X and Windows. I still think basing the iPad on the iPhone OS was a mistake, (it would have been more useful running OS X, but they may have some huge updates in store for the iPhone OS, only time will tell) and I don't think their hands are completely clean when it comes to theft of IP.
One more article, to illustrate that:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Steve-Jobs-Jonathan-Schwartz-Sun,9844.html#xtor=RSS-181
I use Windows 7, but I don't defend every decision Microsoft makes as though they are some divine infallible deity. I hated Vista, and the first few generations of Zune were terrible.
But since I only use the brand, and am not a brand cultist, I am willing to admit that Microsoft is fallible, and can make occasional bad decisions and products.
What goes around comes around $teve. Hey, when are you going to help Haiti or Chile, $teve? Too busy hoarding your cash to care for anyone else?
There's a new evil empire in town. Apple. They censor, they sue, they hoarde.
Think greedy.
I like apple and I have to say, the stupidest thing the commission of IT ever did was give them the multitouch.
To me, that was like giving someone the patent of a device that has teeth that moves its lower jaw that has vocal cords and that should be use for eating and talking but not limited to it and could be extended to kissing if possible and other activities such as smoking disregarding the kind and also drinking.
Its just giving a company too much control over something thats logical.
I give them credit for coming out with it first "not inventing it" the microsoft project surface i believe was when i saw it first. Touch was destine to get more finger friendly and it was just a matter of time before it got to where it is and i thank apple for going some years ahead but as far as patenting it, not cool.
How about ford gets the patten for inventing a device that uses four wheels that is powered by gasoline which is derived from oil and has an interior to transport humans and things. possesses headlights and taillights and................
If ford could get those i bet you Bentley would have made a flying car by now or would not exist.
This patent is bad for business, giving apple a monopoly should refresh our memory back to somebody whom we dont get along with so well "the M word", and we shouldn't want that to happend again. I do respect intelectual property "for the most part" and i know that it secures an investment but this time i think it was just too obvious and lazy patent. Apple, your iphone is still first, but instead of suing tell you what...
Just give the app store some breathing ground, take your iphone out of exclusivity, give it perhaps some more colors and definitively a redesign, the simplicity of the phone is extenuating already, give it some wireless re sync, so after you sync the first time you dont need to keep connecting it as you more likely just want to refresh your playlists and stuff, and you would still have the best phone. I have a 3gs, and just got a nexus one and i have to say man, this android is going to "kill" the iphone like you said, they made a huge improvement over 2.1. i have multitouch, maps with direction "for free" turn by turn, 3d media gallery copy and paste, mms, gogole voice, stuff that took you guys 3.0 update over 3 years. just compete apple, you guys are the best, so lossen up and shake it up.
Finnally commentor, scan your income statements and donation slips for Haiti let's see how generouse you are. If you want the same from me well I will just be honest and say the closest I have gotten toba donation to Haiti was that my church supports nurses whom are in Haiti right now.
In conclusion, stealing is stealing, I'm gonna let the courts decide if it was that in fact.
P.S. I read posts all the time on many different forums and why are 90% of them are totally idiotic, racist, elitist, opertunistic and plain sad. Come on people we are seeing what peoe are really like when they are truly themselves, a d that makes me sad. Let the bashing begin
The first graphical pointing device was the roller-ball pointing device used in the Lunar Excursion Modules in the 1960's (NASA).
Is Apple going to sue the ccurrent holders of the patents for UNIX IP or MIT?
Apple should lose any lawsuit involvinhg graphical interfaces just on the basis of prior art.
Id love for the day to come that i stop buying Apple products, because its just getting too much, and a bit boring...but honestly, no other company comes even close in the art of perfecting what they do.
Since when did i mention in my comments whether or not I donate. The fact is, all companies like to come out or atleast make public whether they donate or not. But since the media and everyone wants to get a piece of Apple/Jobs everyday life, then why isn't there anything listed under donations?
I am sure the Apple fanboys would have something more to argue with if Apple makes public whether or not they donate. All i see is oh Apple did this, Apple did that. You can't do this , this is old style. Then why not bother to come out and say whether or not they donate. Their silence just proves our point.
Again (greedy b@$t@rd$).
So you have inside knowledge that "all" companies like make public whether or not they donate?
"Since when did i mention in my comments whether or not I donate" I want to thank you for making my point. You were commenting on Steve's lack of donations so it would would seem to be relevant if you were to provide that info about yourself. For all you know Steve may be one of those rare people who figure that charity should be anonymous. I do not know if he is or is not and unlike many who post here I figure it is none of my business.
It was stupid.
Apple paid Xerox ~$100m in Apple stock options for a guided tour of PARC. Apple improved on what they saw and delivered the Mac. many of the Xerox engineers moved to Apple.
Microsoft pirated the ideas, technologies and software from the Mac prototypes illegally without permission.
So you choose to use stolen products, and now you are actually advocating the use of stolen products ? You advocate the use of stolen products quite candidly...probably because you have never had anything stolen from you. Grow up.
There is nothing wrong//illegal for Apple(or any company) to protect it's inventions with patents. that's what encourages companies to invent stuff in the first place. But i do see how that could be a problem to companies like Microfluffy(and their horde) who are incapable of coming up with stuff on their own.
Maybe he meant that Apple has a patent on child labor and will sue "every other electronics manufacturer."
Which sucks, of course.
This seems to be Apple fishing to see how well they can do against HTC before they go after Google for Android.
Too bad ford didn't patent mass production lines, huh?
You mean sweep side to side like switching web pages on the iPhone (or pages of app icons)? Or flipping through photos? Or flipping through open pages of games (like high scores, etc.) Just because you apply it to app windows themselves doesn't mean it's not the same interface. Nor does it mean that Apple didn't somehow gain a patent for this implementation, one they have used partly so far but WILL use for multitasking when that is enabled in 4.0. I don't necessarily agree that all these things should be patented, but why not defend them if the govt was stupid enough to grant them to you?
Then there's the way that apps do what you are saying on Mac OS X using "Spaces." Spaces has been around in OS X for a while. Apple makes more than handsets, and they have patents on OS related interface, independent of the specific device those patents are currently applied to.
So, what exactly is it that HTC invented here that Apple didn't already have in their UI for the iPhone and/or in OS X? just asking...
Yawn... and how about the Nokia lawsuits against Apple... presumeably due to aplpe "stealing" nokia ideas? lol... yeah sit up on yer high horse steve....
More lawsuits = (More pricey products for people to buy = less time innovating)
You are quite clearly a troll, please be quiet, he's talking about phones. If you actually failed to realise this then obviously were not working on the same intellectual level.
Have a nice day.
Yes, the ideas for the Mac came from Xerox Parc, but Xerox basically gave it all to Apple. The lady that demoed the software for Apple, told her bosses they were giving away the farm, but they didn't appear to care.
Microsoft got 95% share of the market by strong arm tactics that were deemed illegal, but the damage was already done.
Microsoft did not get 95% of the market through strong-arm tactics. They got it because IBM was the machine for business and nearly everyone started developing on that platform. You can point to things like MS bundling disk compression in their OS, this killing Stac Electronic. You can point to MS bundling IE with their OS, this killing Netscape. Those are not strong-arm tactics, though. Stac was well-paid in a lawsuit (sadly, it took one). Netscape did declare war on MS with a browser and what should they expect? Google is now doing the same thing, but MS can fight Google so easily. Well, it could, but they've refused to exploit Google's weakness: their ad network. I've wondered why MS has worked more aggressively to take that market. They keep focusing on "search", but that's not where the revenue is... it's a means to an end.
Anyway, Apple has every reason to be upset. They have brought some cool technologies to market lately.
Quoted as saying " We think corporate donation is healthy, competitors of Apple should create their own donation efforts to share the enormous wealth we are all making with those afflicted by disasters such as earthquakes, drought, and disease."
Will appear on national television to reinforce his donation efforts. Pledges to wear the new Apple blue logo shirt to promote donations by individuals; also will wear shoes.
Nice sarcasm...
Well WHO isnt that impressive oh they seem like they are but..........their measures of medical reportsand testing lacks alot to be corrected....... Besides WHO is so badly supported but High priced business and medical company to support their products. Hence why you see Apple computers and other devices in WHO locations. ( can you say KICK BACKS )......
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsphone/videoGallery.aspx
It appears Apple might be approaching to the point that its iPhone patents could be construed as a means to shut out competition, and given the precedent mentioned in the case above....
As much as I hate to say this to another Apple Religion Fan as yourself, SactoGuy018 has it correct here. It's not a comfortable fact that Apple is indeed very likely in trouble here and I don't like that at all. Apple is supposed to be perfect and it's times like these that they show that they are indeed just a tech company, greedy and stupid as the rest.
The truth hurts. I don't like that at all.
As far as Jobs being greedy, so what? Isn't that what the capitalist system is supposed to be about - maximizing the return on investment? Would any of the commenters turn down the chance to trade places with Steve Jobs? Yeah, I thought so...
Cases in point: Toyota, housing market, ATT wireless, etc
Toyota, once the staple of reliability and quality for its cars, rising to the top, only to be dashed immediately because of a sticky pedal issue...they ignored what brought them to the top, they ignored their consumer and then boasted about wha tmoney they saved...
housing market, continually handed out loans to people who shouldnt have them..taking advantage of the weak for the immediate buck.
ATT Wireless, lots of complaints against its service currently due to drop calls and lack of bandwidth, what is worse is that they are hardly reinvesting in their infrastructure all in the name of "profit"...this will bite them heavily.
Add Apple, who rather than deciding to implement many of the requests its consumers have in regards to its iPhone (battery/memory exchangeable, open source, multiple carriers, multitasking) went and put money into a stupid product called the iPad which offers nothing except a large coffee table decoration.
The list goes on though.
If you want people who arent greedy, then look for the ones that continually offer the best customer service and the best innovation and the best products and the best reliability. These are the companies that put the consumer first. These are the companies that capitalism was built for, and it is the companies that capitalism will sustain.
But everyone should understand that both the patent lawsuit and the ITC action are tactics in a negotiation. No one who is in the patent game wants either to go to completion, they're both very expensive. (ITC less so) A patent lawsuit can take 4-5 years to finish (even in Marshall) and can cost tens of milions of dollars to bring.
As for the comment on patent abuse, you can only get yourself in trouble if you refuse to license the patents, refuse to license it to a subset of the market or treat one vendor with substantial differences. If you are willing to license and you are being reasonable then no issues.
- by irdac March 2, 2010 8:23 AM PST
- The whole patent system is a mess. We are now at the stage where in developing any electronic gadget which has a similar purpose to an existing gadget it is almost certain that an existing patent will be infringed. Even if the developers were sealed in a room with no external links they would be bound to produce some part of the gadget which fell foul of a patent. This will continue until the Patent Office stops granting patents for the obvious development particularly in software. I have not done a lot of coding but I would not be surprised if some of my code infringed a patent I have no means of knowing.
- Like this Reply to this comment 5 people like this comment
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (245 Comments)