Apple goes after HTC at ITC and in D Del
On March 2, 2010, Apple filed complaints against HTC with the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Del., which can award damages and grant an injunction against HTC to stop sales.
HTC makes the Nexus One, G1 and myTouch 3G, which use the free, rival Android mobile operating software from Google Inc.
Further-->
Tony Bradley at PCWorld has a rambling and incoherent account titled Apple Suit Against HTC Highlights Patent Issues
Bradley includes a link to the USPTO site which has the text:
Acquiring a Patent can be broken down into five simple steps
Search the Patent Full-Text and Image Database (PatFT) to see if an idea has already been patented.
View Fee Schedule for current fees and information related to the patent process.
Apply for a patent using the Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) as a Registered eFiler or Unregistered eFiler.
Check Status of a current patent application or any published application using the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Maintain a patent by paying maintenance fees using the Revenue Accounting and Management (RAM) system.
There are additional optional steps that you may encounter in the patent process:
Appeal the decisions made on your patent application with the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).
Assign Ownership of a patent using the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS).
Bradley makes a big deal of the sheer number of patents:
Let's begin with step one. There are millions--approaching ten million--patents. Some are utility patents, some are design patents, and some are plant patents (I won't even bother getting into how or why someone can patent a plant--let's just say I am pretty sure it has to do with large pharmaceutical companies)--so you can narrow the field somewhat. But, sifting through millions of patents and comparing them to ensure the new patent is unique is a daunting process.
The problem with Bradley's argument is that patents since 1975 and all published applications are on a publicly-available, searchable database. Bradley's argument is something like "I can't go to the library to find a book because the library has lots of books." Even in the old days, we had card catalogs and shoe boxes.
Bradley talks about "patenting an infringement":
The sheer volume of patent applications is overwhelming and reviewing and approving them assumes some level of understanding of the concepts and technologies being patented. It's easy to see how seemingly frivolous patents slip through the cracks, especially when one of the criteria essentially allows you to patent a patent infringement since it's allowable to patent a "new useful improvement" of an existing patent.
Yes, one can obtain claims in a new patent which fall within the scope of claims of an older patent. But one can't practice the new claims without permission from the owner of the old claims.
Paradoxically, Bradley had asserted, earlier in the same article:
Once the patent is filed, the USPTO still has to examine it, verify that it doesn't violate or infringe on existing patents, and make sure that it meets the criteria that it invent or discover a new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof.
If, hypothetically, the USPTO did verify that it doesn't violate or infringe on existing patents [there is in fact no such verification], then saying one of the criteria essentially allows you to patent a patent infringement is NOT SELF-CONSISTENT.
A commenter to Bradley's post pointed to the derivative nature of some of Apple's work:
I looked at Apple's patents and I find most of them to be ridiculous. Apple has a patent on creating an object-oriented interface to an operating system, the Genie effect, and various obvious scroll interactions.
Apple's patents are particularly irritating because most of what makes the iPhone a good phone are ideas and inventions created by others. The object-oriented system APIs came from Xerox and Stepstone, their kernel came from CMU, touch screen phones were created and popularized by IBM and Handspring. PDAs and PDA phones were big with Nokia and Psion. The mobile app store came from Danger. And on and on. Apple liberally borrowed other people's ideas and then created these ridiculous patents.
But I think big companies like the patent system: they cross-license their technologies (they have to), but it creates enormous barriers to entry to small, new, innovative companies.
All Apple probably really wants is to force cross licensing agreements with the major players so that they don't have to worry anymore about getting sued by Nokia, IBM, Microsoft, and others. Once they are a member of the patent club in this market, all the big players are happy again because they can then proceed to jointly screw the customer again, with proprietary formats and incompatible devices.
Going to the "patent pool" concept, espoused by some (as in the area of stem cell patents in California), one recalls that the
airplane patent pool during World War I was merely an effort by the the major players [Curtiss, the owners of the Wright interests] to bar entry by small, new, innovative aircraft makers. The pool agreement was drawn up by Benton Crisp, who was Curtiss's lawyer. Same old, same old...
UPDATE from CNET Is Apple launching a patent war?:
Many technology companies, such as Nokia, Qualcomm, or Texas Instruments, launch patent fights to extract revenue from companies that will license their technology. In fact, that is why Nokia filed a lawsuit against Apple late last year. Nokia's patents, which it accuses Apple of infringing, largely deal with cellular and Wi-Fi technology. This is technology that Nokia licenses to many other companies, and it generates a nice revenue stream from these patents.
But Apple is not interested in generating cash through licensing technology. In fact, Cook made that very clear during the company's recent shareholder meeting. When asked if the company would consider licensing technologies that Apple develops but doesn't actually sell, he said that the company is "not in the business of licensing ideas."
"In many other patent cases, it's about money," Schultz said. "But that's not likely the case with Apple. You generally only get Apple developed technology on Apple products."
Apple certainly doesn't need the money. And it has plenty of cash to pick up the tab for a long legal battle. At the end of December, the company had about $25 billion in cash and short-term investments. When questioned about the company's large war chest, Jobs said during the company's shareholder meeting that Apple is holding onto the money to take "big, bold" risks. Stoking an expensive patent war to maintain the iPhone's unique position in the market, could certainly be considered a "big, bold" risk.
IPBiz notes there is a bit of inconsistency between the words of Jason Schultz, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the UC Berkeley School of Law -- You generally only get Apple developed technology on Apple products. -- and the text -- what makes the iPhone a good phone are ideas and inventions created by others --.
Also
Apple's HTC patent lawsuit is a bluff
HTC makes the Nexus One, G1 and myTouch 3G, which use the free, rival Android mobile operating software from Google Inc.
Further-->
Tony Bradley at PCWorld has a rambling and incoherent account titled Apple Suit Against HTC Highlights Patent Issues
Bradley includes a link to the USPTO site which has the text:
Acquiring a Patent can be broken down into five simple steps
Search the Patent Full-Text and Image Database (PatFT) to see if an idea has already been patented.
View Fee Schedule for current fees and information related to the patent process.
Apply for a patent using the Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) as a Registered eFiler or Unregistered eFiler.
Check Status of a current patent application or any published application using the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Maintain a patent by paying maintenance fees using the Revenue Accounting and Management (RAM) system.
There are additional optional steps that you may encounter in the patent process:
Appeal the decisions made on your patent application with the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).
Assign Ownership of a patent using the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS).
Bradley makes a big deal of the sheer number of patents:
Let's begin with step one. There are millions--approaching ten million--patents. Some are utility patents, some are design patents, and some are plant patents (I won't even bother getting into how or why someone can patent a plant--let's just say I am pretty sure it has to do with large pharmaceutical companies)--so you can narrow the field somewhat. But, sifting through millions of patents and comparing them to ensure the new patent is unique is a daunting process.
The problem with Bradley's argument is that patents since 1975 and all published applications are on a publicly-available, searchable database. Bradley's argument is something like "I can't go to the library to find a book because the library has lots of books." Even in the old days, we had card catalogs and shoe boxes.
Bradley talks about "patenting an infringement":
The sheer volume of patent applications is overwhelming and reviewing and approving them assumes some level of understanding of the concepts and technologies being patented. It's easy to see how seemingly frivolous patents slip through the cracks, especially when one of the criteria essentially allows you to patent a patent infringement since it's allowable to patent a "new useful improvement" of an existing patent.
Yes, one can obtain claims in a new patent which fall within the scope of claims of an older patent. But one can't practice the new claims without permission from the owner of the old claims.
Paradoxically, Bradley had asserted, earlier in the same article:
Once the patent is filed, the USPTO still has to examine it, verify that it doesn't violate or infringe on existing patents, and make sure that it meets the criteria that it invent or discover a new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof.
If, hypothetically, the USPTO did verify that it doesn't violate or infringe on existing patents [there is in fact no such verification], then saying one of the criteria essentially allows you to patent a patent infringement is NOT SELF-CONSISTENT.
A commenter to Bradley's post pointed to the derivative nature of some of Apple's work:
I looked at Apple's patents and I find most of them to be ridiculous. Apple has a patent on creating an object-oriented interface to an operating system, the Genie effect, and various obvious scroll interactions.
Apple's patents are particularly irritating because most of what makes the iPhone a good phone are ideas and inventions created by others. The object-oriented system APIs came from Xerox and Stepstone, their kernel came from CMU, touch screen phones were created and popularized by IBM and Handspring. PDAs and PDA phones were big with Nokia and Psion. The mobile app store came from Danger. And on and on. Apple liberally borrowed other people's ideas and then created these ridiculous patents.
But I think big companies like the patent system: they cross-license their technologies (they have to), but it creates enormous barriers to entry to small, new, innovative companies.
All Apple probably really wants is to force cross licensing agreements with the major players so that they don't have to worry anymore about getting sued by Nokia, IBM, Microsoft, and others. Once they are a member of the patent club in this market, all the big players are happy again because they can then proceed to jointly screw the customer again, with proprietary formats and incompatible devices.
Going to the "patent pool" concept, espoused by some (as in the area of stem cell patents in California), one recalls that the
airplane patent pool during World War I was merely an effort by the the major players [Curtiss, the owners of the Wright interests] to bar entry by small, new, innovative aircraft makers. The pool agreement was drawn up by Benton Crisp, who was Curtiss's lawyer. Same old, same old...
UPDATE from CNET Is Apple launching a patent war?:
Many technology companies, such as Nokia, Qualcomm, or Texas Instruments, launch patent fights to extract revenue from companies that will license their technology. In fact, that is why Nokia filed a lawsuit against Apple late last year. Nokia's patents, which it accuses Apple of infringing, largely deal with cellular and Wi-Fi technology. This is technology that Nokia licenses to many other companies, and it generates a nice revenue stream from these patents.
But Apple is not interested in generating cash through licensing technology. In fact, Cook made that very clear during the company's recent shareholder meeting. When asked if the company would consider licensing technologies that Apple develops but doesn't actually sell, he said that the company is "not in the business of licensing ideas."
"In many other patent cases, it's about money," Schultz said. "But that's not likely the case with Apple. You generally only get Apple developed technology on Apple products."
Apple certainly doesn't need the money. And it has plenty of cash to pick up the tab for a long legal battle. At the end of December, the company had about $25 billion in cash and short-term investments. When questioned about the company's large war chest, Jobs said during the company's shareholder meeting that Apple is holding onto the money to take "big, bold" risks. Stoking an expensive patent war to maintain the iPhone's unique position in the market, could certainly be considered a "big, bold" risk.
IPBiz notes there is a bit of inconsistency between the words of Jason Schultz, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the UC Berkeley School of Law -- You generally only get Apple developed technology on Apple products. -- and the text -- what makes the iPhone a good phone are ideas and inventions created by others --.
Also
Apple's HTC patent lawsuit is a bluff
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home