Intellectual property (patent) disputes in the smartphone and tablet industries

[thebruce44]

From the new Biography on Jobs set to be out Monday:

Isaacson wrote that Jobs was livid in January 2010 when HTC introduced an Android phone that boasted many of the popular features of the iPhone. Apple sued, and Jobs told Isaacson in an expletive-laced rant that Google’s actions amounted to “grand theft.”

“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” Jobs said. “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

Android went from 5th to 1st since Jobs made that statement. I don't want to say negative things about the dead, but the more you read about him and his life the less I respect him. He seems to think anything he refined he invented and that nobody else should be able to further refine it. And when he copies from his competition or takes a technology someone else invented its then his.

I don't read much, but I'll make sure to get around to this biography before the end of the year.

[strawbossisevil]

How would you feel if you spent, perhaps years of your life working to refine a product, only to have some one copy you shortly thereafter. And not only copy your hard creative work, but then to set it up as a direct competitor to your product.

 

I'm not saying that he is entitled to mouth off like that to the Android and HTC did that, but I could see how that might be frustrating. Others reaping the benefits from your hard work.

[PKBadger]

How would you feel if you spent, perhaps years of your life working to refine a product, only to have some one copy you shortly thereafter. And not only copy your hard creative work, but then to set it up as a direct competitor to your product.

I would probably cry a lot, and wipe the tears away with the $100 bills I use as Kleenex.

 

Let's remember that this stuff goes on all the time. Somebody was the first company to release a VHS player 30 years ago, too.

[1992casey]

Microsoft has been settling for licensing deals in cases where they feel their intellectual property has been ripped off. Some say that Microsoft makes more money from Android than they do from the Windows Phone OS. What's different with Apple is that they don't want money. They're looking for rulings that would require defendants to cease and desist.

[berniebrewer4life]

Microsoft has been settling for licensing deals in cases where they feel their intellectual property has been ripped off. Some say that Microsoft makes more money from Android than they do from the Windows Phone OS. What's different with Apple is that they don't want money. They're looking for rulings that would require defendants to cease and desist.

 

We could probably start a thread on the nitty gritty of some of the

patent issues out there right now. It's certainly interesting, and as KegStand81 says, it's part of the

landscape right now. Also, the issues transcend far beyond Steve Jobs.

I understand why Apple is doing what it's doing, but as far as running a business is concerned, i think MS is doing the right thing. Get paid for it, and if it takes off, you make bank on both your product and your competitors. Also saves in Court fees(of course, that's chump change for these big companies.).

[thebruce44]

How would you feel if you spent, perhaps years of your life working to refine a product, only to have some one copy you shortly thereafter.

I don't understand how Jobs refined products but everyone else copied him. Have you seen iOS5? Nearly every new feature is a copy or refinement of something Android brought to market. Because Android brought a notification bar to market first does that mean Microsoft and Apple phones can't have notification bars? You can't have it both ways.

[1992casey]

The messages below are split from the Steve Jobs passes away thread as the topic of intellectual property encompasses much more than Steve Jobs himself.

 

As most who follow the tech industry know, there are lawsuits aplenty. The most prominent ones have been brought by Apple, accusing certain smartphone manufactures — Samsung and HTC in particular, of violating its patents. Along with that, each of these companies have filed similar suits against Apple. Another huge suit has been filed by Oracle against Google.

 

I can't pretend to know what violates a patent and what doesn't, but I bet we'll all know a lot more in a year or two. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[1992casey]

I don't understand all of this either. As I mentioned in the new lead, I think we're about to learn. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

I'd have to figure that these suits go beyond simply offering similar features. As an example, Android offers a cool voice control feature. Before iOS5 and the iPhone 4S, Apple's smartphones and tablets also offered a voice control feature. I believe that technology was licensed from Microsoft. Apple now offers Siri. I think that here, we're talking about features with similar purposes that have different underlying technologies.

 

Obviously, these disputes have to entail something other than simply offering a function. My interpretation is that they seem to have to do with allegedly using a patented technology without permission, using a similar name for a feature, or copying artwork. Then again, what do I know?

 

I think it's interesting that rather than Android itself, the hardware makers are the are the key players. Yesterday, Microsoft announced that "more than half of the world’s ODM industry for Android and Chrome devices is now under license to Microsoft’s patent portfolio."

 

The big exception seems to be Oracle's lawsuit against Google. That's targeting Android itself. I think this may pose a far greater danger to Android than anything that might come from Apple.

[strawbossisevil]

How would you feel if you spent, perhaps years of your life working to refine a product, only to have some one copy you shortly thereafter.

I don't understand how Jobs refined products but everyone else copied him. Have you seen iOS5? Nearly every new feature is a copy or refinement of something Android brought to market. Because Android brought a notification bar to market first does that mean Microsoft and Apple phones can't have notification bars? You can't have it both ways.

 

 

I think this goes back to the original iphone...the first iphone comes out and google bends over backwards to make quick use of the idea to pattern their OS and phones off of the original iphone. Time and effort spent by google in R and D was nothing compared to that of Apple. Now, not having spent the time led Android to being a bit half-baked at the start, but you have to admit it was an effort at mimicking the OS found in the original iphone.

 

Iphone was completely different from anything that had been out previously. We aren't talking about features or notification bars....it was a completely new interface...and Google/HTC swiped the idea without having put the R and D that the Apple company did.

 

It would be like this...imagine you spend 10 years designing a motor that runs on water...you pour money into developing it, refining it etc. When you get the motor to market, suddenly...within a few weeks another person has taken your specs and made what amounts to essentially a copy of the moter you spent so much time, money, and effort developing. The fact that they didn't have to spend the time and money, also allows this new competitor to offer the product you invented at a cheaper price, significantly slashing your expected income from your hard work.

 

That would suck, and I think that was the sentiment expressed by Steve Jobs. He could certainly been a bit more gracious, however.

 

As for the comment about crying into his $100 bills. I guess I don't see how the amount of money involved makes a difference. If we as a country want to encourage imagination, invention and inovation, one of the worst ways to do that is for allow for the stealing of intellectual property.

[endaround]

Apple gave the Blackberry a touchscreen. Let's not get carried away here about how revolutionary the 1st iPhone was.

[thebruce44]

How would you feel if you spent, perhaps years of your life working to refine a product, only to have some one copy you shortly thereafter.

I don't understand how Jobs refined products but everyone else copied him. Have you seen iOS5? Nearly every new feature is a copy or refinement of something Android brought to market. Because Android brought a notification bar to market first does that mean Microsoft and Apple phones can't have notification bars? You can't have it both ways.

 

 

I think this goes back to the original iphone...the first iphone comes out and google bends over backwards to make quick use of the idea to pattern their OS and phones off of the original iphone. Time and effort spent by google in R and D was nothing compared to that of Apple. Now, not having spent the time led Android to being a bit half-baked at the start, but you have to admit it was an effort at mimicking the OS found in the original iphone.

 

Iphone was completely different from anything that had been out previously. We aren't talking about features or notification bars....it was a completely new interface...and Google/HTC swiped the idea without having put the R and D that the Apple company did.

 

It would be like this...imagine you spend 10 years designing a motor that runs on water...you pour money into developing it, refining it etc. When you get the motor to market, suddenly...within a few weeks another person has taken your specs and made what amounts to essentially a copy of the moter you spent so much time, money, and effort developing. The fact that they didn't have to spend the time and money, also allows this new competitor to offer the product you invented at a cheaper price, significantly slashing your expected income from your hard work.

 

That would suck, and I think that was the sentiment expressed by Steve Jobs. He could certainly been a bit more gracious, however.

 

As for the comment about crying into his $100 bills. I guess I don't see how the amount of money involved makes a difference. If we as a country want to encourage imagination, invention and inovation, one of the worst ways to do that is for allow for the stealing of intellectual property.

Yea...thats not what happened at all. Development on Android started in 2003. Google purchased Android Inc in 2005 and development went very quickly because they based it off of Linux/Java and released it as open source. Furthermore, Android 1.0 reminded me more of Windows CE/Mobile or even Windows itself than iOS 1, which I believe was still considered OS X back then.

http://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/3-years-ios-android.png

 

[thebruce44]

Apple gave the Blackberry a touchscreen. Let's not get carried away here about how revolutionary the 1st iPhone was.

True. I had an HTC Wizard when the first iPhone came out and didn't feel the need to upgrade at the time. Due to the way a person interacts with a candy bar style phone, there are only so many directions a Mobile OS can take.

[strawbossisevil]

I don't view Jobs frustration as unintelligible. You apparently disagree. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this discussion. I think all who dismiss the advance that was made with the introduction of iphone 1 are understating its impact on the development of the modern day cell phone. Just my $.02.

[thebruce44]

I don't view Jobs frustration as unintelligible. You apparently disagree. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this discussion. I think all who dismiss the advance that was made with the introduction of iphone 1 are understating its impact on the development of the modern day cell phone. Just my $.02.

I agree that we most likely wont see eye to eye on this. I don't agree that I view Jobs frustration as unintelligible and I don't want to give off that impression. I would never use the word unintelligible to describe anything about Jobs. Instead I view it as narcissistic and juvenile.

Regardless, Jobs' frustration isn't really what bothers me. Its the revisionist history that most of his faithful exhibit when they typically have little to no experience with the Android OS. Sure, the same could be said about a lot of Android adopters. Personally, I have used Android a lot more than iOS, but I have used iOS enough to understand its advances and shortcomings. I wish iPhone users would do the same with Android before assuming their phones are unique just because Apple tells them they are.

[strawbossisevil]

I don't view Jobs frustration as unintelligible. You apparently disagree. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this discussion. I think all who dismiss the advance that was made with the introduction of iphone 1 are understating its impact on the development of the modern day cell phone. Just my $.02.

I agree that we most likely wont see eye to eye on this. I don't agree that I view Jobs frustration as unintelligible and I don't want to give off that impression. I would never use the word unintelligible to describe anything about Jobs. Instead I view it as narcissistic and juvenile.

Regardless, Jobs' frustration isn't really what bothers me. Its the revisionist history that most of his faithful exhibit when they typically have little to no experience with the Android OS. Sure, the same could be said about a lot of Android adopters. Personally, I have used Android a lot more than iOS, but I have used iOS enough to understand its advances and shortcomings. I wish iPhone users would do the same with Android before assuming their phones are unique just because Apple tells them they are.

 

 

I resent the assumption that I am some apple fanboy who simply repeats apple slogans. I recognize that apple products have their strengths and weaknesses just as Android does. I don't view my viewpoint as revisionist...I think anyone with any sort of honesty would admit that google borrowed heavily from apple. That isn't revisionist history, that is fact.

 

I guess due to the content of your post I'm not surprised that you are an Android user. I've met a number of android users who feel like they have to constantly defend their operating system and set straight those who find the Ios environment superior. Honestly, if you like your Android better, fine, enjoy your product. You don't need to justify your purchase to Ios users any more than IOS users have to justify their purchase to you. For both groups the best advice is "enjoy your device and shut your mouth". At least in my opinion.

[thebruce44]

Honestly, if you like your Android better, fine, enjoy your product. You don't need to justify your purchase to Ios users any more than IOS users have to justify their purchase to you. For both groups the best advice is "enjoy your device and shut your mouth". At least in my opinion.

I would love a scenario in which iOS, Android, and Microsoft were allowed to innovate, compete, and give all of their users the best experience they can. Then we would all be able to enjoy our devices and shut our mouths as you suggested. However, there is one company who seems to be against this scenario, and that is why it gets discussed, not because one group feels they need to justify their purchase to another.

http://androidos.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Infographic_Mobile-Patents.jpg

In other words, I am not trying to justify my purchase, I'm trying to justify my purchase's existence when I shouldn't have to.

And I apologize if my previous post came off as an assumption of you being an Apple fanboy. My frustrations were more directed at several of my friends who purchased the 4s this past week. They seemed shocked to learn I've had voice commands and talk to text abilities for years already. To me, it seems like a lot of iPhone users just assume that everything that shows up on their phone is something innovative that nobody else has and I do think a lot of that has to do with Apple's closed system and marketing.

Again, I have no problem with Apple's innovation or their OS. I just don't like when they try to stop others from advancing and innovating or when Apple users defend these practices. That isn't the true spirit of how patents in this country were intended to work.

[strawbossisevil]

Here's the issue, though. If Apple legally does own those patents, the other companies have no right to infringe on them. To infringe on those patents is tantamount to stealing.

 

Your problem shouldn't be with Apple, it is simply acting as any smart company under capitalism would act to protect its own interests. The fact that other companies (Microsoft, for example) handle it in a different manner (legal settlements) is entirely up to the determination and rights of the one who owns the patent.

 

Your problem should be with those who are granting the patents to Apple. If it really isn't in the true spirit of how patents are intended to work, Apple shouldn't be able to receive them, or their lawsuits shouldn't hold any legal power in court. But apparently those who issue those patents see no problem with Apple, and the courts seem to favor the idea that their rights are being infringed upon.

 

I'd be interested in hearing from you what you believe to be the purpose that patents serve...my understanding is that patents are primarily meant to protect those who innovate from others copying and ripping off their ideas/inventions. Am I incorrect in that understanding?

 

Some might say that Apple being a multi-billion dollar company has no right to patents like that, but I don't see why dollars and cents should or ever has determined whether one rightfully is entitled to a patent or not.

Also, talk to text has been on IOS too, for quite some time (Dragon etc). The innovation behind Siri isn't that it merely turns talk into text, but that it is a significant step forward in improving the use of voice commands. What it does could be done before on Android through memorized commands, but not quite with the simplicity of Siri. If you're honest, you have to admit that Siri is a step beyond the voice input found in the Android system (although I'm sure Android is going to be working hard to catch up in the near future).

[thebruce44]

If you're honest, you have to admit that Siri is a step beyond the voice input found in the Android system (although I'm sure Android is going to be working hard to catch up in the near future).

 

It no doubt has improvements over the stock Android system. After playing with it all weekend though I found it less reliable than Android's system, mostly because of AT&T's network though. The true beauty though in my mind is the way Siri is integrated into iOS, which again is something Google did a log time ago.

 

I'd be interested in hearing from you what you believe to be the purpose that patents serve...my understanding is that patents are primarily meant to protect those who innovate from others copying and ripping off their ideas/inventions. Am I incorrect in that understanding?

 

Yes and no. Is it right for Apple to bully struggling companies into selling their patents to them so that they can use them to attack Android? Is it right for Apple to tie up HTC in legal battles for years that it most likely wont win? It my opinion Apple isn't using its patents to protect its ideas, its using its vast reserves of money to slow down the overall development of mobile phone technology. Apple couldn't innovate and grow at the speed of open source competition so they have resorted to litigation to slow that competition down. When Apple's goal isn't to win but to slow down its competition I definitely see that as a problem.

[thebruce44]

I should add, I would really prefer not to get into a debate about the system itself as I am far from an expert. There are only so many ways to do something, especially when it interfaces with the human body. I mean, these two things look an awful lot alike. Does the guy who invented laces get to sue everyone who makes a shoe? Should companies have to come up with a different way for you to put things on your feet? Maybe they have to open up on the bottom?

 

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/2341055_f496.jpg

 

Kinda like Apple suing HTC because their phones unlock by sliding. Isn't that how all smart phones do it? So why sue now besides just to get at Android when they passed you?

[strawbossisevil]

I would say you are interpreting their actions in a way that may not be entirely fair to Apple. If Apple has the patent for unlocking a phone via sliding, then HTC legally can't use that. There are plenty of other ways to unlock...clicking, facial recognition (as Android is offering in ice cream sandwich). HTC acted illegally, so should it be surprising that Apple holds them to it? Especially since they are a main opponent, of course Apple is goingto act this way.

 

I'm sure that patent for Apple wasn't cheap, so I could see how a blatent disregard for the patent would push them to legal action. I think Apple is trying to keep Google from producing an equal product...I don't think it has anything to do with advancement. They don't want iphone clones everywhere because it devalues their product. I'm also not convinced that Apple is just going through the motions...the way they are pursuing the lawsuits, I think it is entirely possible that they could win a number of them.

 

As for your tennis shoe analogy, if someone has the patent for shoe laces, then yes, that person legally needs to be paid for the right for the use of their product. And, the person owning that product legally has the right to deny the use of that product if he sees fit. That is how the system works. It ensures that those responsible for innovation receive a fair return for their ideas. To blatently disregard a patent is theft...and it is within the rights of the person owning the patent to sue and recoup damages.

 

Edit: one more thought. I think HTC's blatent disregard for the patent shows a lack of desire to innovate. Instead of seeking to create something new or better, they took the shortcut of stealing the way it had always been done by their competition. That's not an innovative action, that is laziness and conformity.

[thebruce44]

I would say you are interpreting their actions in a way that may not be entirely fair to Apple.

I'm not the only one who views it this way:

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice announced today that in order to proceed with the first phase of their acquisition of certain patents and patent applications from Novell Inc., CPTN Holdings LLC [ a holding company owned in equal measure by Microsoft Inc., Oracle Corp., Apple Inc. and EMC Corp.] have altered their original agreements to address the department’s antitrust concerns. The department said that, as originally proposed, the deal would jeopardize the ability of open source software, such as Linux, to continue to innovate and compete in the development and distribution of server, desktop, and mobile operating systems, middleware, and virtualization products.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-at-491.html

Again, I don't want to debate the system or get into patent reform which is probably more of a political issue. The end result to Apple's patent moves as opposed to innovation is that all the big companies are just going to start buying up the smaller companies to protect their product. Any smart phone has a million parts about it that could be harassed by a decade of broad patents to hundreds of companies. Google is new to the mobile landscape and since their OS took off so quickly Apple has chosen to attack where they see a weakness.

Google also seems likely to become more aggressive in buying up patents,

much the same way its rivals have. As much as Google appears to loathe

playing the patent game, spending money to prevent litigation rather

than innovating, it may have come to realize that it has no other

alternative. Link

This is the primary reason Google purchased Motorola. These legal games and the ambiguity of some of these patents are the reason HTC and Saumsug are suing Apple back. Its going to be a decade long mess that costs everyone money and styfles innovation and Apple is the key player starting it. As a fan of technology and someone who uses a smart phone every day I think I have every right to be annoyed and angry at this practice.

[thebruce44]

Edit: one more thought. I think HTC's blatent disregard for the patent shows a lack of desire to innovate. Instead of seeking to create something new or better, they took the shortcut of stealing the way it had always been done by their competition. That's not an innovative action, that is laziness and conformity.

What would you call Apple's new notification bar? I'd say its pretty similar to a certain "notification of mobile device events." If you are going to add it to your OS, at least make it better than Android 1.0.

 

Now do I care? No, because iOS5 made some innovations I want Android to counter. I just don't want these companies to pretend it doesn't happen all the time from both sides and try to stop each other from development.

[strawbossisevil]

Does Android have a patent for the notification bar? If they do, then yes, it would be stealing. If Android does not, then Apple is free to copy the notification bar.

[Katuluu]

I would say you are interpreting their actions in a way that may not be entirely fair to Apple. If Apple has the patent for unlocking a phone via sliding, then HTC legally can't use that. There are plenty of other ways to unlock...clicking, facial recognition (as Android is offering in ice cream sandwich). HTC acted illegally, so should it be surprising that Apple holds them to it? Especially since they are a main opponent, of course Apple is goingto act this way.

Actually, their are various forms of engineering that could result in the phone sliding open without infringing on Apple's patent. That is the problem, Apple seems to think the basic "idea" of sliding is controlled by their patent and that simply isn't true. Of course, Apple knows this, but the lawsuit isn't designed to win the case and prove HTC acted illegally, but rather bog down the company in litigation and try and get them to think twice about doing anything similar to what Apple does in the future as well as take much needed funds from HTC's R&D department and funnel it to their legal department.

[thebruce44]

Does Android have a patent for the notification bar? If they do, then yes, it would be stealing. If Android does not, then Apple is free to copy the notification bar.

http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pub=20090249247

Yes, google owns that Patent and Apple stole it.