Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/apple-sues-htc-for-patent-infringement-85950187.html

by alexandros • 16 years ago

105 145 16 years ago

mcav2• 16 years ago

Steve Jobs:

> "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. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

martythemaniak• 16 years ago

Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo:

mbreese2• 16 years ago

I assume you're talking about Nokia (since as an American, I can't be bothered to remember their CEO's name).

The Nokia situation is a little more murky than this. With Nokia, Apple tried to license their patents (which I believe are crucial to GSM), but Nokia wanted a broad cross-licensing agreement, to basically use all of the Apple display / mobile device / multitouch patents (what HTC is accused of doing). Patents involved in communication standards are supposed to be licensed on reasonable terms, so Apple cried foul. The predictable lawsuit and counter-suit then commenced.

I don't think anyone in this case is saying that HTC bothered to ask Apple to license the patents in question.

freetard2• 16 years ago

Steve Jobs:

> "innovating is stealing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

cnlwsu• 16 years ago

Steve Jobs, visited PARC in 1979 and was impressed and influenced by the Xerox Alto, the first computer ever with a graphical user interface. Jobs designed the new Apple Lisa based on the technology he saw at Xerox.

tewks• 16 years ago

They, Xerox management, gave him a license to do so. People at PARC weren't so enthusiastic, I think.

stcredzero11• 16 years ago

The Xerox management thought all of those things were just toys and that computers would never be anything but what they were at that moment.

Reminds me of a lot of people who look at the iPad and say "meh."

rauljara2• 16 years ago

I love that apple drives innovation in hardware and interface design. I hate that the patent system we have now actively hinders the adoption of apple's innovations.

Apple complains that competitors are stealing apple's technology, as though apple's success relies entirely on technology x or y. Not true. Apple's success is based on its polish and attention to detail, something which competitors have an incredibly hard time copying. I for one, love when competitors copy apple, because it forces apple to up its game.

raganwald5• 16 years ago

Apple's success is based on its polish and attention to detail

If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail?

You want to have your cake and eat it too: You want Apple to innovate and you want everyone else to leverage their innovation freely. I understand why that's in your best interests, I can't figure out why Apple would bother if everyone else could "adopt" their innovation wholesale.

Where do you want to draw the line? Can others adopt Apple's multi-touch gestures? How about the look and feel of OS X? What about the code, can CherryPC or whatever they were called make PCs that run OS X by writing drivers for it? How about duplicating the OS X copde, can Chinese clone makers simply copy the OS X code and replace Apple's logos with their own?

kristiandupont• 16 years ago

But it's not like Apple aren't standing on the shoulders of giants as well.

rauljara2• 16 years ago

"If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail?"

I don't think you understand what it takes to reach apple's level of polish and attention to detail. They simply can't achieve it without innovating.

"I can't figure out why Apple would bother if everyone else could "adopt" their innovation wholesale."

That's like asking why Intel would bother developing a new faster processor. Someone else will just "copy" their innovation and develop a processor just as fast, no?

You ask where I draw the line, and there is a line that I would draw. But I want to ask you where you would draw the line. Do you honestly believe that for the next (slightly less than) 20 years, no one except for apple should be able to develop a product with multi-touch capability? They don't seem much interested in licensing the technology. Do you really believe that when a bunch of companies are developing the same technology, the one that gets lucky and files it first should be able to lock everyone else out of using it for 20 years?

Yes, there has to be an incentive for innovation, but creating monopolies on whole classes of technology should not be that incentive.

razzmataz• 16 years ago

>If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail?

Because OS X and the iPhone are part of that polish and attention to detail.

three14• 16 years ago

The problem with patents is they kill all kinds of innovation.

Once one company, let's say Apple, gets some patents in an area, then no one else can work in the same space. Give Apple all the copyrights they want plus trademarks and design patents, but no software and hardware patents. Even independent invention is no defense against patents - if I invent something and sell it, and I've never heard of you, but you have a prior patent, you can steal my invention and work from me.

msg2• 16 years ago

Good questions.

Gestures, yes.

Look and feel, yes. (Without infringing trademarks.)

Drivers, yes.

Duplicate the code, no.

If someone can follow you fast into innovation, it's not innovative! If you can't stay ahead you'll get eaten by the wolves.

funkdobiest• 16 years ago

Good artists borrow, Great Artists steal - Pablo Picasso, I think Jobs also quoted that phrase as well

glhaynes2• 16 years ago

Yeah, he totally stole that line from him.

jsmcgd• 16 years ago

Which particular patents are in question?

raptrex• 16 years ago

Digital Daily has the documents http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100302/apples-suits-aga...

Gizmodo has a summary of the patents: The ‘331 Patent, entitled "Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States," was duly and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The ‘949 Patent, entitled "Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics," was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

The ‘849 Patent, entitled "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image," was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

The ‘381 Patent, entitled "List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display," was duly and legally issued on December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

The ‘726 Patent, entitled "System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device," was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘726 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

The ‘076 Patent, entitled "Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices," was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘076 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

The ‘105 Patent, entitled "GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality," was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘105 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

The ‘453 Patent, entitled "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor," was duly and legally issued on June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

The ‘599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

The ‘354 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods," was duly and legally issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-on-...

CoryMathews3• 16 years ago

it really is amazing what you can get a patent for...

wallflower• 16 years ago

NSNotificationQueue?!

I mean I love how easy it makes doing, say, dispatching a network update request and updating the CoreData model and refreshing the table rows when it's done but really?

"Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods"

jlgosse• 16 years ago

Don't the last two patents basically give them the right to sue ANYONE who has ever made some sort of GUI application, including vendors in their own app store and people who write apps for OSX? Aren't these basically design patterns?

nitrogen3• 16 years ago

I bet if someone got a bunch of experienced geeks together they could find prior art for most of those. Someone so motivated could start by getting in touch with pubpat.org.

kls• 16 years ago

I think they should put a cap on the size of a company that can hold and enforce patents. Apple et. al. do not need the protections afforded by patents. I know that in reality this would just create a lot of proxy companies but there has got to be a better way; getting rid of the patent system is not the solution as it does provide the little guy protection, from the big guys just stealing, his idea and drowning him out with cheaper copies.

But given the two choices, I am cheering for the patent trolls to just screw the whole think up to the point that the big guys clamor for it to go away.

yanw• 16 years ago

Way to stifle innovation, Apple. incumbents and lawyers getting what they want, fantastic system ...

alabut• 16 years ago

Innovation and theft are two different things. Forget the hardware and architecture patents - I'm sick of design being treated as a commodity that's assumed to be freely copyable, simply because it's a user interface rather than a hardware element. Just as many hours and insights went into making the iPhone UI as it did the physical device.

tkahn6• 16 years ago

Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image

Maybe hindsight is just 20/20, but "slide to unlock" seems to be something pretty obvious.

flogic• 16 years ago

Given the current pace of technology, I don't think patents should exist period.

rbanffy3• 16 years ago

"Just as many hours and insights went into making the iPhone UI as it did the physical device"

I seriously doubt it, unless you are counting all the GUI elements since the Xerox PARC days. Designing and manufacturing a device like the iPhone (or any other modern electronic device) is insanely complicated. It's bad when you use reference designs. It becomes absolutely insane when you invent something new.

RiderOfGiraffes• 16 years ago

Same story for those who prefer it on TechCrunch: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161526

ADDED IN EDIT:

tl;dr - I think cross referencing is a Good Thing(tm).

Clearly some people here think that this comment detracted from the value of HN. I can accept that, and I don't mind the loss of karma. Let me just explain that as a programmer I abhor unnecessary duplication. Equally, though, as an infophile I like to get different angles on each story, to try to see if there's any extras. So when I see the same story from different sources I like to read them all, but equally, I prefer that discussion and comments end up in one place.

So I try to add value to HN in part by making sure these things get cross-referenced. Mostly I think people find it harmless. Some people actively dislike it and vote me down, others actively like it and vote me up. Yet others find it both irritating and useful in equal measure, so no doubt they are confused and conflicted. That's their problem.

But I'm slowly stopping doing this anyway. I get the occasional comment saying it's really appreciated, but in general I'm reducing the time I spend here anyway.

And that's the rationale behind the comment.

ADDED FURTHER IN EDIT: Or perhaps you saw that I'd got the reference wrong and just down-voted me instead of bothering to tell me. Now I'm really disappointed in the HN crowd. I've fixed the reference.

nailer7• 16 years ago

I appreciate the need to get different angles, TechCrunch however isn't a credible source of information (they throw great parties though).

I'd love to see a Mashable or CodeSketch or whatever perspective though. Someone else contributed John Gruber's post on the topic and was modded up accordingly.

kerringtonx• 16 years ago

I was wondering how long it would take Apple to start doing this. A good amount of phones have similar tech to their baby.

pg3• 16 years ago

If this had happened a day earlier I don't think I would have posted that RFS. Apple is inching ever closer to evil, and I worry that there's no one within the company who can stand up to Jobs and tell him so.

CoryMathews3• 16 years ago

Apple has been evil since the first ipod when you had to use itunes to load music. They have locked people in with no cheap way out. Pure evil IMO.

mishmash• 16 years ago

Pretty sure DRM started out as an industry idea. Regardless, it all pretty much had to happen the way it did. At the time, none of the major studios would have considered releasing DRM-free music.

The had to be shown that it would work first.

raganwald5• 16 years ago

Aiding and abetting totalitarian regimes by censoring search results and turning over email correspondence is evil. Making shiny toys that don't do exactly what you want is not evil. Let's stop using "evil" as a synonym for "reprehensible."

stcredzero11• 16 years ago

My definition of Evil includes coercion. Apple doesn't coerce you into using iTunes. They market an iPod to you, which you buy voluntarily. It's only after that you have to use iTunes. And even then, you don't really have to, since there are alternatives for software.

If you can opt-out and just not pay for it, then it isn't evil. It still might be "shitty practice" but you can still vote with your feet.

daniel1231232• 16 years ago

Sheesh, honestly this is far afield but why do people keep lumping not having a feature in with evil?

Aren't most of you people software developers? Do you sell software to people? Regular humans who can blow out your profit with a single helpline call?

Choosing to not support a scenario is about as far from evil as you could possibly get.

Do you seriously look at all of the things that itunes doesn't do, all of the things that it does poorly or all of its bugs and think "apple is evil"?

Isn't it clear that they, despite having some great talent, are resource-constrained like everyone else?

Have you ever used a bug database? Tracked a bug count? Tested? Shipped a product?

OK, I'm trying not to be insulting or personal here but let's be clear: not supporting file system access aka supporting only the sync model INDISPUITABLY saved engineering resources. That feature you want is not free. If you can't see that then we're done because the only response would be insulting.

Roridge3• 16 years ago

It's all about control.. I often wonder if Apple have become the man in the screen, instead of the woman with the hammer.

jrockway2• 16 years ago

This has been the case since they implemented PT_DENY_ATTACH. Revolutionaries that throw hammers at screens do not artificially limit their operating system.

jmatt• 16 years ago

For those you who weren't around in 1984... Or didn't pay attention in high school english or decades old super bowl ads.

Apple's commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

And the obligatory wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial)

davidw• 16 years ago

Apple has always been about very firm control. I don't think it's necessarily "evil", but it's not a world I want to live in, either.

nitrogen3• 16 years ago

Firm control over one's product and patent lawsuits against one's competitors are very different things. Firm control is annoying, frustrating, and maybe borderline evil (in the tech sense of the word as pg defined it), but suing competitors' manufacturers for treble and punitive damages is definitely evil. It would take a revelation of truly bad behavior on HTC's part for me to think otherwise.

aswanson• 16 years ago

The only person who had a chance of successfully doing that was Woz circa 1976. But I'd even bet against him.

[EDIT: Better grammar]

ewjordan• 16 years ago

It's a real shame, too - it's so easy to hate Microsoft when it gets hostile and starts abusing its position, because their software generally makes you want to scream. Apple, on the other hand, puts out stuff that is a genuine pleasure to use, but controls it in increasingly infuriating ways. What's a geek to do?

On the other hand, I wouldn't be too quick to avoid iPad startups; even if it feels "wrong", your reasons for expecting the iPad to transform the computing landscape are as valid as they ever were, and there are good businesses to be built in that space. I'd let the RFS stand, and not feel too bad about it. Business is business, we do what we can in the markets that we're able...Microsoft has sucked pretty hard for a long time, but I would never dream of blaming someone for basing a startup on the Windows platform, and I think people that ignored it over the past decade were probably making a mistake.

What I would do is be on the lookout (maybe even draft an RFS) for startups that offer a better vision for the future than Apple, assuming there are any people out there with ideas about how to get a foothold and subvert their control freakishness. Bolstering products that compete with the iPhone and iPad could be a start; if must-have software starts showing up on Android, it would really help.

As much as we might want to blame Jobs for this, I fear that once he's not holding the reins, the company will only start acting worse, as they'll have lost a lot of the vision that drives their actual innovations. And that's when the serious consumer-hostile bullshit is likely to start in earnest...

stanleydrew• 16 years ago

if must-have software starts showing up on Android, it would really help.

You mean like Google Voice and Google Maps Navigation? Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have helped much.

tvon• 16 years ago

I get your meaning, but all the same I think calling a tech company "evil" falls under Godwin's Law, at least in spirit.

If only Google had chosen "don't be a dick" instead, the world would be a less confusing place...

projectileboy• 16 years ago

Serious question: What would that person say? How could Jobs be nudged out of his reality-distortion field enough to realize the ways in which he's damaging their long-term credibility with their developer community?

Alternately, is their something we're not seeing? Is there possibly some beautiful universe that gets created when Apple controls the entire ecosystem?

hacking_hamster• 16 years ago

PG, I am working on a startup in a controversial field. I'm excited about figuring out how to solve the problem that is inherent in the field. I believe our solution will bring great value to the industry but sadly, it might be exploited - albeit legally - by unscrupulous parties and still bring us revenue. It is this last part that I'm conflicted about. I truly believe in many of the hacker principles (that are also common to many users in this forum) but feel really sad and lousy that my system might violate the principles I believe in. So I ask the following question not with a trollish sentiment but with genuine interest in how you deal with similar conflicts:

You seem upset by Apple's latest antic and I am guessing that it violates some of your core principles. Would you take a stand and withdraw your RFS to show your disapproval of their tactics and risk future profits from YC's involvement in iPad startups?

pg3• 16 years ago

I thought about it, but withdrawing an existing RFS is a more drastic step. I'm not trying to start some kind of boycott; I'm just personally not very pleased with this move.

codebaobab• 16 years ago

I must confess that I was very surprised to hear that Apple initiated a lawsuit against HTC and I am wondering if there is some backstory that we don't know.

I am not going to try and argue that Apple is some kind of altruistic, saintly company. But Apple's recent history lead me to believe that they viewed patents as defensive, not offensive weapons. Yes, they sued Nokia, but only after Nokia sued them first.

So questions that come to my mind include: Why HTC? Why now? Why hasn't Apple sued Palm? (Surely the Pre infringes on something!)

And is there any significance to the fact that the suit was filed with the ITC?

If Apple really is going to go on the patent offensive, I will be very disappointed.

zecg• 16 years ago

Because now people are buying a lot of HTC's (Android-powered, I'd wager) phones. Duh.

joezydeco• 16 years ago

It's easier to slap an injunction on a company shipping boxes full of patent-violating product.

cheald• 16 years ago

The short answer is that Android-based phones like the Nexus One and Desire are a far bigger threat to Apple's stranglehold on the NA smartphone market than anything else to date. This isn't about "protecting their inventions", it's about throwing up roadblocks to their biggest potential competitor.

starkfist• 16 years ago

To play devil's advocate:

Apple does own these patents. Why is it evil for them to enforce them?

If Android was a Microsoft project, would people still think this legal action was evil?

If the iPhone OS was "open source" and there were other means of selling apps other than the app store, would people still think this legal action was evil?

If Google (the "underdog" (?)) owned these patents through the purchase of Android and was suing Apple, would people think Google was evil? Or would it be a David vs. Goliath story? (goliath vs. goliath?)

If I make BLOOPT.com which does the same thing as loopt.com, is it evil for Sam Altman to sue me, when he gets his patent?

ajross3• 16 years ago

All patent suits are evil. If all software patents were enforced, no new software could be written without licensing thousands or tens of thousands of patents from hundreds of holders. And no free software could be written at all. So the answers to all your your questions is "yes".

Except the last, which is kinda dumb. "BLOOPT" would no doubt be a trademark violation, you can't patent a name. But yeah, if Loopt filed a patent suit against someone simply for competing with them, then it would be evil too.

DaVinMan• 16 years ago

They're a for-profit company. They'll act completely out of self-interest under all circumstances. Do you really trust any for-profit company? Think about it.

jwhitlark• 16 years ago

It is safer to be feared than loved, if one must choose, but above all else, one must avoid being hated. (Paraphrasing Machiavelli)

It's interesting to me that a few year ago I'd have been scared to compete (in any way) with apple for fear of being beaten by a better product. Today the picture is much muddier, but the feeling of revulsion is new...

lambda• 16 years ago

I've realized this for a while; ever since I looked at the terms of service for the iPhone SDK, which forbid pretty much any innovation on things like RFS #5 (you are not allowed to write compilers or interpreters which run on the iPhone, which pretty much precludes any development tools that aren't web apps).

I think it's about time for me to get an Android phone. The platform isn't as polished, but you can actually get root on your damn phone and some of it is free software (about like Mac OS X, actually; a free kernel, some libraries, and utilities, with some applications on top that are closed).

frederickcook• 16 years ago

Mobile devices is an incredibly patent-heavy landscape, where manufacturers are used to licensing technology from one-another and have been for years.

Obviously Apple and HTC have been in discussions (lawsuits are incredibly expensive and always a last resort) and the fact that Apple went ahead and filed indicates that these discussions failed. This means either HTC was offering less than 'market' in licensing fees, or Apple was asking for more. Which do you think is more likely?

rbanffy3• 16 years ago

It could be a "you infringe on as many of our patents as we do infringe on yours" thing too.

I expect a counter-suit.

jcl• 16 years ago

Regardless of how patent-heavy mobile devices may be, this represents a major change in Apple's policy.

In some discussion thread in the distant past, someone pointed out that Apple has never used its patents offensively. And a quick check through Wikipedia seems to confirm it: The only mention of patents was in cases where Apple had first been sued for violating a competitor's patents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

Up until now -- well into their reign in the mobile device sector -- Apple could claim that they were only amassing patents as a means of defending themselves from other companies with patents. Hence, this preemptive strike is unusual.

mcav2• 16 years ago

Could suing for patents ever be considered a violation of monopoly law? (I know Apple isn't a monopoly.)

protomyth• 16 years ago

By definition, patents give you a monopoly.

Roridge3• 16 years ago

If I were paranoid I might think that this was a bit of an attack on Google rather than HTC.

thetrumanshow• 16 years ago

I agree. It smacks of a proxy war.

Roridge3• 16 years ago

"if" it were an attack on Google rather than HTC, I wonder what it is that has spooked Apple to bring out such a big gun now, rather than earlier?

blasdel2• 16 years ago

I think it's far more calculated than that: Google's shipping Android builds avoid a lot of basic UI features that Apple did first. HTC then adds most of them through their "TouchSense" modifications, just like they did with WM6 before.

They're trying to keep Google in its place, and prevent HTC from extending it. They're happy with Android being out there for the dorkwads and ideologues (it lets them shed their 'worst customers') but they don't want the public to see a sea of direct clones of their style of multitouch.

tensor• 16 years ago

I enjoy reading hacker news comments because they tend to be mature and express interesting ideas well. I hope your future comments do not resort to childish name calling as you do in this one.

As for your point, that you feel patents like the multi-touch patent are justified, I would point out that many people disagree with trivial patents such as this, or even software patents in general. It is developers and IT people that are upset with Apples highly controlled development environment. Alienating this group of people may eventually backfire.

nailer7• 16 years ago

Apple's 'style of multitouch' is the same multitouch Bell invented in the 60s. Pinch to zoom has been around for decades, Apple's genius is in bringing that to smartphones - unfortunately that's not patentable, so they have to resort to 'using a gesture to unlock a device' and other such specific (and obvious) applications of the concept.

CoryMathews3• 16 years ago

I hope apple knows they will lose that fight.

nailer7• 16 years ago

HTC should countersue (if Apple are actually trying to sue HTC over HTC's technology and not Google's).

HTC pushed pure touch-based phones for years before Apple released the iPhone in 2007 and should have a reasonable patent portfolio they can use against trolls like this.

bitwize• 16 years ago

Apple released the iPhone in 2007. They didn't even release the iMac until 1998.

freetard2• 16 years ago

I guess that makes Steve Jobs a hypocrite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

zppx• 16 years ago

I'm really hating how tech discussions relating to Apple are turning in the Apple fanboys versus detractors of Apple.

tsally• 16 years ago

My next computer wont be a Macbook. :-/ Which makes me really angry because I love my current Macbook. And there goes the thought of buying an iPhone as well.

Unfortunately at this point I feel that I'm obligated not to buy Apple products. Walk with your feet, as the saying goes. Believing in patent reform can be damn inconvenient sometimes.

ronaldj• 16 years ago

I'm in the same boat. I think Apple should consider adopting that bullshit "Don't be evil" mantra.

nailer7• 16 years ago

Apple make good laptop hardware though. Here's a better idea: keep your existing Mac, but buy an HTC Desire as your next phone.

You get a lot of features the iPhone doesn't have (pictures for your contacts, social network integration, streaming, no sync requirement, a faster CPU) and stick it to Apple at the same time.

orblivion• 16 years ago

I don't know why, but this just makes me laugh.

dpifke• 16 years ago

I love John Gruber's response to this:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/02/stand-by-this

acg• 16 years ago

It seems to part of a longer game, I think certain companies are not wanting "Google Voice" to revolutionise phone calls. There is a lot of companies making a lot of money for not a lot of bandwidth.

brucejacob• 16 years ago

Swiping to unlock and other similar patented items are all "obvious" design decisions. All great design is obvious because great design produces things that are appropriate. Moreover, because great design is so obvious, it must be easy to design great things; the world must be full of great designs.

Right?

Um, no. The truth is that great design is NOT easy, and it stands out so prominently because the world is NOT full of great designs. Things like swiping to unlock are "obvious" only in retrospect. All great design is obvious -- in retrospect -- because great design produces things that are appropriate. But it is hard to do (PG has several essays on precisely this topic). Moreover, because it is hard to do, great designers are rewarded with some degree of protection for making the details of their innovations public (thus the legal terminology that patents "teach" a particular topic). I don't see why we should expect great designers to give up control of their ideas, willingly or otherwise, simply because those ideas are particularly good. Much of the logic in these comments amounts to "the iPhone had such a marvelously simple UI that everyone copied it, and because it became pervasive (by virtue of the copying), it must remain pervasive via Apple giving up the right to protect their IP."

I just don't buy that.

Also, people are asking "why now? why not earlier?" According to Gizmodo & other news sites, the brief is some 700 pages long. I'm sure Apple started working on this the day the Nexus One details started surfacing and it became clear it was effectively an iPhone clone. They can't sue Google (remember that Schmidt sat in Apple's huddles for years, listening to the plays, learning the playbook by heart, soaking up all insider info he could) because Google is intentionally disabling contested technology in Android -- they evidently know quite well what patent infringement means. Google is instead relying upon their handset manufacturers to enable the contested technology and thus take the bullet for them. I wonder why nobody is criticizing Google for using HTC as a "human" shield?

nopinsight• 16 years ago

Why can't Apple continue to out-innovate Nexus One and Android instead of suing them?

Reading from the overall situation and his quote, Steve Jobs might feel that the current iPhone UI is 'perfect' as a whole. Apart from nitty-gritty details, he does not see a way to drastically improve it. (That's why he chose it for the iPad UI as well.) So he might figure that the only way to stop competitors from getting too close is to sue them.

Apple Sues HTC for Patent Infringement

Related Stories