And again, Apple hits HTC with another suit: Data Tapping again

[Bateluer]

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/apple-files-third-itc-complaint-in-as.html

In this week's complaint, Apple argues that HTC still infringes the patent. Apple is now asking the ITC for an emergency proceeding and enforcement action to prevent further infringement. These are the 29 devices targeted by the new complaint:

HTC One X
HTC One S
HTC One V
HTC Inspire 4G
HTC Vivid
HTC Status
HTC Sensation
HTC Sensation 4G
HTC Wildfire
HTC Wildfire S
HTC Hero
HTC Hero S
HTC EVO 4G LTE
HTC EVO 4G
HTC EVO V 4G
HTC EVO Design 4G
HTC EVO 3D
HTC Amaze 4G
HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE
HTC myTouch 4G
HTC myTouch 4G Slide
HTC Merge
HTc Rezound
HTC Rhyme
HTC ThunderBolt
HTC Flyer
HTC Jetstream
HTC EVO View 4G
Droid Incredible 2 by HTC

Its already been established that the patent is BS, with multiple instances of prior use, on hardware and devices going back years before Apple made its first touch screen devices. Obviously, the patent is junk and shouldn't have been granted in the first place. The functionality the picture above has been baked into every version of Android since 1.0, Symbian, BB, WinMo, WP7, Bada, etc. My old LG Env2, BREW, had similar technology.

Here is the bottom line though. HTC's taken a massive revenue loss in the past year, too many similarly spec'd devices with forgettable names. They're wounded, and Apple sees that. By successfully blocking HTC's halo and critically acclaimed One series, Apple cripples HTC and rids themselves of a competitor.

 

[QueBert]

It's already been established by who? you?

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Maybe we will get lucky and see some severe iOS vulnerability exploited in the next year or so that would damage Apple's public image. People have already proven that it's possible to sneak cleverly designed malware into the App Store despite all of Apple's restrictions.

 

[Oyeve]

It's already been established by who? you?

By common sense.

 

[Bateluer]

It's already been established by who? you?

Uh, why did I take you off the ignore list? I'll just put you back on it so I don't have read your ignorant comments again. As I noted, prior art alone renders should render it void.

I just did the exact thing by right clicking on my desktop too. From inside multiple browsers. And inside VLC. And from inside an email client.

But, its common knowledge these days that prior use and art mean nothing. Its about who has the best lawyers and the most money. As I said, Apple sees an opportunity to take down a competitor by slowing, if not outright blocking, the sale of their flagship device. Its as simple as that, Apple being the usual dipshits.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's nothing more than the lawyers at Apple trying to keep their jobs. Tim Cook seems to be doing things much differently than Steve Jobs, and hopefully he will rein in the lawyers.
Android evolves almost daily it seems. This is why Apple is so intent on fighting. Apple doesn't want to invest in continual incrimental updates and new devices every month.
People are going to want an iPhone or an Android device based on a few factors, non of which hinge on lawyer speak or the underlaying technology. They want the name, they want the OS experience, they want compatibilty.
Determining how you touch the screen and what ballon comes up is meaningless.
It's ironic that the 1984 Apple commercial was Apple trying to tell people to be different and break out of the mold. But now Apple wants everyone to be the same (Apple users).

 

[Mopetar]

As I noted, prior art alone renders should render it void.

When dealing with patents, you should probably list the claims of the patent and point to prior art that clearly invalidates it. I've seen a lot of casual dismissals based on prior art that don't cover certain aspects of a patent. Also, in many cases the patent is a lot older than the prior art which is given. Also, the language used in a patent may have technical definitions which do not necessarily correspond perfectly to their common English usage, leading to further confusion.

Here's the patent in question: US Patent No. 5,946,647

I've read through the claims and already identified at least one really trivial method of working around the patent.

I just did the exact thing by right clicking on my desktop too. From inside multiple browsers. And inside VLC. And from inside an email client.

Also, several of your examples have nothing to do with this patent.

 

[Bateluer]

Here's the patent in question: US Patent No. 5,946,647

I've read through the claims and already identified at least one really trivial method of working around the patent.

Also, several of your examples have nothing to do with this patent.

All my examples were exactly like this patent, recognizing a string of data and presenting the user with a menu of options. You can also add Palm to the list. Palm was on the way out when I could afford a smartphone, and didn't realize that they also had this feature in several PalmOS and WinMo devices under their name.

Additionally, Apple has filed an injunction against Samsung over the SGS3 now as well, for this patent and another patent.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/apple-formally-requests-us-injunction.html

I've said it before, and it needs to be repeated. Apple needs to be made an example of for their blatant patent bullying. Their patents should all be invalidated and their war chest confiscated.

 

[Mopetar]

All my examples were exactly like this patent, recognizing a string of data and presenting the user with a menu of options. You can also add Palm to the list. Palm was on the way out when I could afford a smartphone, and didn't realize that they also had this feature in several PalmOS and WinMo devices under their name.

First and foremost, you've already left out several important details. Second many of your examples fail, simply because they are not prior. For example, VLC's first release was in 2001. This patent was filed in 1996.

When right clicking things on your desktop, the computer isn't using a grammar-based algorithm to determine a list of appropriate actions. It also probably doesn't use an analyzer server. Furthermore, the interface doesn't highlight detected structures.

Certain browser features may be examples, but I doubt that any of them were implemented before 1996. The first version of Netscape Navigator was released in late 1994, and the initial release of Internet Explorer was in August of 1995. It's unlikely that either used the same method proposed in Apple's patent, but technically possible.

Also, I'm not fully aware of the exact features of early Palm devices, but the first Palm Pilot was released after this patent. Prior to that Palm hadn't used an in-house OS (They used GEOS), so it's questionable if they would have any prior art of their own to invalidate this patent.

 

[Bman123]

This shit is stupid seriously, apple really looks stupid trying to sue people.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Now they are going after the Galaxy S3 for this as well.

 

[Bateluer]

Now they are going after the Galaxy S3 for this as well.

I noted that above. Its core functionality in Android and not limited to anyone manufacturer. Under this, they should be suing Moto and LG, plus ZTE, Huawei, etc. Suing Google directly would be too much for them to chew. 😛

 

[Oyeve]

Apple is really the uber douche. I cant wait until they fall again. This time MS won't bail out their douche asses.

 

[Phynaz]

Apple is really the uber douche. I cant wait until they fall again. This time MS won't bail out their douche asses.

MS bailing out Apple is a myth.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/592FE887-5CA1-4F30-BD62-407362B533B9.html

TL;DR - MS got caught with Quicktime code in Video for Windows. The $150M was settlement money.

 

[Oyeve]

MS bailing out Apple is a myth.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/592FE887-5CA1-4F30-BD62-407362B533B9.html

TL;DR - MS got caught with Quicktime code in Video for Windows. The $150M was settlement money.

Yeah, sure, whatever.

 

[Phynaz]

Yeah, sure, whatever.

Not going to let facts get in the way of your fanaticism I see.

 

[pm]

Please keep it technical, on topic, and impersonal.

Moderator PM

 

[Ns1]

First and foremost, you've already left out several important details. Second many of your examples fail, simply because they are not prior. For example, VLC's first release was in 2001. This patent was filed in 1996.

When right clicking things on your desktop, the computer isn't using a grammar-based algorithm to determine a list of appropriate actions. It also probably doesn't use an analyzer server. Furthermore, the interface doesn't highlight detected structures.

Certain browser features may be examples, but I doubt that any of them were implemented before 1996. The first version of Netscape Navigator was released in late 1994, and the initial release of Internet Explorer was in August of 1995. It's unlikely that either used the same method proposed in Apple's patent, but technically possible.

Also, I'm not fully aware of the exact features of early Palm devices, but the first Palm Pilot was released after this patent. Prior to that Palm hadn't used an in-house OS (They used GEOS), so it's questionable if they would have any prior art of their own to invalidate this patent.

waiting for Bat to respond to this post.

 

[destrekor]

First and foremost, you've already left out several important details. Second many of your examples fail, simply because they are not prior. For example, VLC's first release was in 2001. This patent was filed in 1996.

When right clicking things on your desktop, the computer isn't using a grammar-based algorithm to determine a list of appropriate actions. It also probably doesn't use an analyzer server. Furthermore, the interface doesn't highlight detected structures.

Certain browser features may be examples, but I doubt that any of them were implemented before 1996. The first version of Netscape Navigator was released in late 1994, and the initial release of Internet Explorer was in August of 1995. It's unlikely that either used the same method proposed in Apple's patent, but technically possible.

Also, I'm not fully aware of the exact features of early Palm devices, but the first Palm Pilot was released after this patent. Prior to that Palm hadn't used an in-house OS (They used GEOS), so it's questionable if they would have any prior art of their own to invalidate this patent.

Isn't there supposed to be a point in time where, if you fail to "protect your patent" for such a length of time (when clearly violated), you lose the right to seek financial damages?

If this patent has been around since 1996, imho it's a seriously questionable move to pursue litigation all this time later.

I thought this had been a situation somewhat recently too - where waiting until a competitor gets fairly well-off financially, a long time after you've known of clear violations, is definitively not able to be pursued.

 

[Mopetar]

Isn't there supposed to be a point in time where, if you fail to "protect your patent" for such a length of time (when clearly violated), you lose the right to seek financial damages?

If this patent has been around since 1996, imho it's a seriously questionable move to pursue litigation all this time later.

I thought this had been a situation somewhat recently too - where waiting until a competitor gets fairly well-off financially, a long time after you've known of clear violations, is definitively not able to be pursued.

What you're referring to is the concept of laches, which can be used as a legal defense. Of course it requires the defense to show that the plaintiff knew what was going on. I don't think it would work all that well as in many cases where Apple has sued someone they either entered talks with the company before the lawsuit or sued them within a year or so. Also, in many cases, they just want the other company to stop using their patents, so I don't think it's a question of trying to extort more money from them.

Part of the problem is that with software, it's not always possible to determine how something is done just by looking at it. It either requires carefully examining the behavior and pokes and prods or looking at the source code in order to determine if it really does violate a patent or if it just accomplishes a similar task in a completely different manner. As I've said, there's at least one trivial method of defeating this patent and I'm sure that there are other ways to accomplish the same outcome without running afoul of the patent. All that Apple really needs to say is that they spent time investigating the defendant's devices to ensure that Apple's patent was actually being violated so as not to waste the court's time.

This might be a more valid defense if Android had shipped something like 10 years ago and Apple were just getting around to suing them now.

 

[Phynaz]

waiting for Bat to respond to this post.

I guess he's not going to.

 

[cheezy321]

I guess he's not going to.

Typical par for the course.

 

[Dari]

How long do patents last? 20 years?

 

[Bateluer]

waiting for Bat to respond to this post.

Response. 😛


http://www.nasdaq.com/article/judge-throws-out-patent-suit-between-apple-motorola-20120608-00658

Slightly related. Judges making smart, well-informed, pro-consumer decisions? Inconceivable!

The suit was set to go to trial earlier this week when Judge Richard A. Posner dismissed the case, claiming that neither side had established a right to relief.

"I have tentatively decided that the case should be dismissed with prejudice because neither party can establish a right to relief," Posner said in a court statement on Tuesday.

He also stated that only two of Apple's claims of patent infringement were admissible, and that was not enough to continue with their entire suit:

Here's the full legal brief.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv08540/262961/956/

 

[soccerballtux]

I'm going to try to create some cognitive dissonance in my hipster friends by informing them how capitalistic and greedy Apple is that they're trying to shut down other phone manufacturers like HTC.