Just one more reason to not by an Apple product

[Glaucus]

Apple's ITC complaint names HTC phones, 10 other patents

The 10 patents in question in the ITC complaint include:

* 5481721: Method for Providing Automatic and Dynamic Translation of Object Oriented Programming Language-Based Message Passing Into Operating System Message Passing Using Proxy Objects
* 5519867: Object-Oriented Multitasking System
* 6275983: Object-Oriented Operating System
* 5566337: Method and Apparatus for Distributing Events in an Operating System
* 5929852: Encapsulated Network Entity Reference of a Network Component System
* 5946647: System and Method for Performing an Action on a Structure in Computer-Generated Data
* 5969705: Message Protocol for Controlling a User Interface from an Inactive Application Program
* 6343263: Real-Time Signal Processing System for Serially Transmitted Data
* 5915131: Method and Apparatus for Handling I/O Requests Utilizing Separate Programming Interfaces to Access Separate I/O Services
* RE39486: Extensible, Replaceable Network Component Systems

Pretty lame if you ask me. Sure, MS is no better at the patent game, but Apple is just exploiting a badly broken patent system here in an attempt to fend of Android. Apple likes to pretend they're the good guys, but really they're no better then MS. In fact, I'd say they're worse.

 

[Wayne]

Apple's ITC complaint names HTC phones, 10 other patents

The 10 patents in question in the ITC complaint include:

* 5481721: Method for Providing Automatic and Dynamic Translation of Object Oriented Programming Language-Based Message Passing Into Operating System Message Passing Using Proxy Objects
* 5519867: Object-Oriented Multitasking System
* 6275983: Object-Oriented Operating System
* 5566337: Method and Apparatus for Distributing Events in an Operating System
* 5929852: Encapsulated Network Entity Reference of a Network Component System
* 5946647: System and Method for Performing an Action on a Structure in Computer-Generated Data
* 5969705: Message Protocol for Controlling a User Interface from an Inactive Application Program
* 6343263: Real-Time Signal Processing System for Serially Transmitted Data
* 5915131: Method and Apparatus for Handling I/O Requests Utilizing Separate Programming Interfaces to Access Separate I/O Services
* RE39486: Extensible, Replaceable Network Component Systems

Pretty lame if you ask me. Sure, MS is no better at the patent game, but Apple is just exploiting a badly broken patent system here in an attempt to fend of Android. Apple likes to pretend they're the good guys, but really they're no better then MS. In fact, I'd say they're worse.

Actually, a lot of that has to do with the fact that HTC has broken several long existing patents which were written and owned by NeXT (still a wholly owned Apple subsidiary).

If you think for a single second that ANY company wouldn't be out there defending their patents (not just apple or microsoft), then you need to re-evaluate. That's why they file patents and trademarks in the first place.

Hell, even *I* had to continually work at protecting the Amiga.org logo from being stolen and used to hock warez on e-bay.

That being said, I've seen this before. TiVo, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and every other patent holder has to regularly defend their patents or lose them.

Amiga Inc anyone?

Wayne

 

[Wayne]

... besides, if you really think this is "Just one more reason to not by an Apple product" then it's obvious that you're only justifying to yourself your own need to stick with an inferior Windows platform..

Much like those who have never owned or used a Mac will sit and complain about the so-called "Apple penalty" (pricing difference).

You get what you pay for... In my case, the difference in my happiness and sanity level are well worth it to buy Apple products.

 

[Glaucus]

Actually, I'm pretty sure HTC didn't violate Apple's patents, Google did when they made the Android OS. I suspect that Apple is going after HTC in an attempt to incur a cost on using the otherwise free Android OS. That was one of Android's main selling features to OEMs but now Apple is making sure that HTC, Motorola and who ever else has been contemplating an Android phone will now have to pay something in the form of legal fees. This is a much bigger hit against Google then if they were to actually sue Google as Android may be dropped by it's OEM costumers for fear of litigation. Personally, I hope Google does all it can to squash Apple.

Anyway, I'm also of the opinion that software patents (algorithms) have no place in patent law. Looking over these patents I can argue that none of them should have been granted in the first place. This is just a other fine example of why software patents should be abolished.

 

[Wayne]

Actually, I'm pretty sure HTC didn't violate Apple's patents, Google did when they made the Android OS.

Good point. No one really yet knows whether or not it'll be found that HTC, Google, or whomever really and factually violated ANY of the patents listed. Most of the patents listed however seem to be hardware based patents, so it's going to be interesting.

You just got me jumping when you "pulled a redrumloa" with the incendiary and baiting title about "one more reason not to buy an Apple product"...

If only I still felt that excited by the Amiga, I'd still own AO. Apple's OS X and iPhone OS are -- to me -- what Amiga should have become but they were too short-sighted to see it.

Wayne

 

[faethor]

Apple's ITC complaint names HTC phones, 10 other patents

The 10 patents in question in the ITC complaint include:

* 5481721: Method for Providing Automatic and Dynamic Translation of Object Oriented Programming Language-Based Message Passing Into Operating System Message Passing Using Proxy Objects
* 5519867: Object-Oriented Multitasking System
* 6275983: Object-Oriented Operating System
* 5566337: Method and Apparatus for Distributing Events in an Operating System
* 5969705: Message Protocol for Controlling a User Interface from an Inactive Application Program

Many of these seem more OS based than hardware based. How much creation did HTC have in the Android or Win Mo OSes?

And if looking for more reasons to not buy Apple you could cite recent announcements of using child labor and unreasonable work weeks. Apple's 'max' work week is 60 hours. It appears the manufactures worked the assembly workers more than 60 hours.

But hey if one is a liberatarian and believes laws are bad for industry then Apple's problems really show the problems in the laws themselves. We should, by Liberatarian school of thought, remove child labor protections and the 40 hour work week. And if those are 'good' the free market will get their on their own. :roll:

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Pretty lame if you ask me.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure I must violate a couple of patents a day at work. It looks like more time and effort has been put into filing the patents than "inventing" these inventions in the first place. There's probably a patent out there for "method of determining the sum of two integers by use of an electronic computing device" or other such nonsense.

Almost all software patents should be thrown out. They are a huge drag on the industry and increase the costs to consumers.

 

[Wayne]

Pretty lame if you ask me.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure I must violate a couple of patents a day at work.

Perhaps. I think the difference is that you're probably not trying to create a competing product and take their market.

Not saying I don't agree with you. I'm just sayin...

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Perhaps. I think the difference is that you're probably not trying to create a competing product and take their market.

Not saying I don't agree with you. I'm just sayin...

My point about patents (and Mike's I think) is that just about any old garbage can be called an "invention" even if it's obvious to people in the profession. It's all a matter of getting the paperwork done and since pretty much all industrial source code is "trade secret" there cannot be any real search of prior art. If you write enough patent apps you can gain the rights to ideas that you copied from someone else but that they thought were too obvious to patent.

Yes, I am not being bludgeoned by Apple because I am not making something that looks like an iPhone but I make software and lots of the stuff is portable across lots of realms. That's part of what makes software cool.

What Apple doesn't like is that we have a look and feel competitor but since it's already been fought in the courts before "look and feel" isn't that strong a claim. So, companies pull out the Patent Axe because patent law has a long and bloody history. Then they pull out a bunch of patents that seem to be indicative of the kinds of things they may think might underlie some of what they claim to be their look and feel.

What is the defense? Somehow you have to prove that you aren't violating the patents. How do you do that? Well, the proof is in the source code - but that's a trade secret. So either you give up trade secrets to the accuser (because they don't have to show that they use the patent to claim it - they needn't ever use it - they just own it) you have a company who is put in an unfair position. The only defense that is tenable then is counter suite. That's where you pull out a stack of your own patents and claim that Apple violates them.

After a bunch of lawyers get their money the two companies sit down and figure out who will license what from whom (and may end up paying a license for a patent that they aren't actually using rather than reveal their source).

It's almost all extortion and game playing and hardly anything to do with protecting inventions.

 

[Wayne]

Perhaps. I think the difference is that you're probably not trying to create a competing product and take their market.

Not saying I don't agree with you. I'm just sayin...

My point about patents (and Mike's I think) is that just about any old garbage can be called an "invention" even if it's obvious to people in the profession. It's all a matter of getting the paperwork done and since pretty much all industrial source code is "trade secret" there cannot be any real search of prior art. If you write enough patent apps you can gain the rights to ideas that you copied from someone else but that they thought were too obvious to patent.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here however is that it's not just Apple. EVERY company out there that holds patents and trademarks has to defend them against other companies.

Should patents and trademarks be done away with? To a certain extent, I'd say yes. To another, I'd say no. I think it's gotten silly with everyone trying to sue everyone for everything, BUT... On the other hand, if I were a genius developer and business owner, I would have FAR less incentive to actually create something if I knew that -- without restriction -- some jackass could just come along, steal my ideas, and build a competing product.

Not saying things aren't overdone, but I do understand the need for some regulation. The trouble is, where do you draw the line?

Wayne

 

[Glaucus]

It's all a matter of getting the paperwork done and since pretty much all industrial source code is "trade secret" there cannot be any real search of prior art.

And this brings up a whole new issue which I haven't yet seen discussed anywhere. Android doesn't have any trade secrets. It's open source. So there's a double whammy here. Apple is doing to the open source movement something MS could have only dreamed of. Since Android is open source it is very trivial for any other company like Apple to look at the very source code. Doing so makes it very easy to find violations and to prove them in court. All software, including Apple's and all it's competitors violate patents all the time. The main reason they're not called on it is because, as Fluffy pointed out, the source is a trade secret making it hard for companies to examine. They'd need to disassemble it, but doing that to all the software out there is way too time consuming. But it's far less so with open source. So if Apple wins here we could see a chill in open source software growth, at least in commercial applications, as companies would find themselves in the middle of a patent mine field where their competitors own the map. There's a good chance that the open source aspect of Android is what led to the patent law suites, and that will always make Android a prime target for patent law suites by everyone who owns a patent.

Open source in the corporate world has suddenly become less attractive.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

[...] if Apple wins here we could see a chill in open source software growth,

which would make Apple officially arseholes since OS X is built largely on open source.

 

[Glaucus]

Pretty much.

Interestingly, Google may be in a unique position to use it's own technology to help itself out of this. Google is very good at cataloging huge amounts of information. That information could, by chance, include examples of prior art on any of those patents. If the gods of Open Source smile upon this case, Apple could have just walked itself into a trap where half of it's patents vanish into thin air. Well, one can hope anyway. a long shot, but that would turn this around into a big boost for open source.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Pretty much.

Interestingly, Google may be in a unique position to use it's own technology to help itself out of this.

By finding all those compromising photos of judges...

 

[Glaucus]

That's the sure fire way to do it. Google has some pretty fancy face recognition code. Ever use their Picasa photo organizer? The name tag feature is pretty cool.

 

[Glaucus]

Even the mainstream, non-tech press is bashing Apple for this: Patently Stupid

This gets to the essential problem with patents on user-interface concepts like multitouch. Apple came up with a device that translates what you do with your fingers to action on the screen. It rightly claims ownership over the implementation of that idea—the specific way in which the iPhone marries software and hardware to do what it does so well. But Apple should have no right to patent the idea of a multitouch interface; if other companies come up with competing implementations of the same idea, they ought to be free to market them. As John Gruber points out, user interface concepts are just that—concepts. Just as there's more than one way to make a bagel, abstract ideas like multitouch can be implemented in a number of ways.

What's more, it's clear that Apple did not come up with the concept of multitouch. Jeff Han of the New York University Media Research Lab showed off a multitouch display at the TED Conference early in 2006, long before anyone outside Apple had seen the iPhone. Tom Cruise showed us one in Minority Report in 2002. And Microsoft was working on its multitouch Surface computer at the same time Apple was working on the iPhone; indeed, Microsoft was awarded a patent in May 2006 for a device that "may be configured to receive multiple concurrent touchscreen contacts." That was months before Apple won its first multitouch patents.

What did I tell you? Prior art. Not sure how Apple is going to claim they were the first to invent multitouch when MS already had a patent for it.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Even the mainstream, non-tech press is bashing Apple for this: Patently Stupid

Good article. Sums it up pretty well. Software cycles are so fast these days that a patent of 5 years is more than reasonable for an innovator to make money - but being able to rest on a single idea for decades? Where's the motivation to continue to innovate? But even 5 years is too long just because of the industry drag imposed by so much lawyering. All that lawyering is a cost to the consumer too - directly in bucks shelled out but also in reduced innovation and less choice in what you can buy.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Bill Buxton

Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touchin 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983.