HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google (Bloomberg) [LWN.net]

Bloomberg reports that Google has transferred some of its recently-acquired patents to HTC, which has turned around and immediately sued Apple for infringement of those patents. "The nine patents originated with Palm Inc., Motorola Inc. and Openwave Systems Inc., with Google taking ownership within the past year, according to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records. Mountain View, California-based Google recorded transfer of the patents to HTC on Sept. 1, according to the agency's website."

to post comments

HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google (Bloomberg)

Posted Sep 7, 2011 22:41 UTC (Wed) by marduk (guest, #3831) [Link] (3 responses)

Wheee... this is fun!

HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google (Bloomberg)

Posted Sep 8, 2011 2:18 UTC (Thu) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link] (2 responses)

I should have gone to law school, I would have been able to help to uphold this part of the US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

...excluding the first part.

HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google (Bloomberg)

Posted Sep 9, 2011 15:25 UTC (Fri) by utoddl (guest, #1232) [Link] (1 responses)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

I've never been able to read into that an interpretation that would make such exclusive rights transferable. Poor me...

Transferring patents

Posted Sep 11, 2011 0:06 UTC (Sun) by Kluge (subscriber, #2881) [Link]

Interesting point. I suppose it would be important to see if patents had been transferable in England and the colonies previously, to determine what the legal context was.

Can you imagine a world without lawyers?

Posted Sep 7, 2011 22:43 UTC (Wed) by meyert (subscriber, #32097) [Link]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

Maybe it shows someone the absurdness

Posted Sep 8, 2011 6:14 UTC (Thu) by ttonino (guest, #4073) [Link] (10 responses)

of the system. More like a chess game than promoting progress.

It wouldn't be sad, except there are huge costs directly (lawyer bills and courthouses) and indirectly (slowed progress, market risks) that we all pay.

The only winners in the end are lawyers, who will promote more types of "rights" to be created and "protected" by the law class. And create special courts for these "rights". Think the European Patent Office, whose workers, who are probably not underpaid, also receive huge tax breaks.

Another thing I do not understand: libertarians are generally against creating more laws and rules. But patents are laws too, but with a difference: generally written as broadly as possible, published in huge numbers, and no limit set on the punishment.

Thus, it is literally impossible to build new works avoiding existing patents. The only safe way is to copy works that are old enough not to be patented. The practical way is not too look and hope patent abusers find it not worth to sue you. Is that "promoting innovation"? Guess not.

I hope someone in government notices.

Maybe it shows someone the absurdness

Posted Sep 8, 2011 6:48 UTC (Thu) by fhuberts (guest, #64683) [Link] (2 responses)

> I hope someone in government notices.

They know, but don't care. Politics is ruled by money, not by ideals.
Welcome to the real world, it sucks, I know.

Maybe it shows someone the absurdness

Posted Sep 8, 2011 16:06 UTC (Thu) by tdwebste (guest, #18154) [Link]

"Politics is ruled by money, not by ideals."

Corruption and democracy: Political finances - conflicts of interest
ISBN 978-92-871-6355-4

Maybe it shows someone the absurdness

Posted Sep 8, 2011 16:41 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

This is, perhaps, a step towards money being for patent reform. I would be unsurprised if HTC were able to get an injunction against Apple selling any more iPhones, using patents that are very likely to pass review. Apple may not have a lot of lobbying infrastructure in place, but they've got plenty of money.

For that matter, this mess could easily surpass money and reach personal inconvenience for politicians. "Vote for patent reform, or you'll be stuck with your old cell phone forever" is tough to overcome with money.

Maybe it shows someone the absurdness

Posted Sep 8, 2011 7:07 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link] (6 responses)

> Another thing I do not understand: libertarians are generally against
> creating more laws and rules.

Yes? What exactly do you not understand? I am a libertarian, and I sure as hell want the patent-system destroyed, banished and eradicated. All of it.
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/ways-out-of-darkness-abo...

Maybe it shows someone the absurdness

Posted Sep 8, 2011 7:47 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (guest, #60148) [Link] (1 responses)

Some libertarians see intellectual property as an extension of personal property, which I think is wrong. Others see it as a state-granted and enforced monopoly, that should be limited if the goal is to limit the reach of the state. This is a position I feel is consistent with libertarian beliefs

Ron Paul has in the past I believe expressed support for the IP-based industries, and despite the major reforms he recommends in other aspects of finance and economy, has never suggested widespread IP reform. I think he falls into the former category.

This is where the confusion lies

Maybe it shows someone the absurdness

Posted Sep 9, 2011 12:49 UTC (Fri) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]

>Ron Paul has in the past I believe expressed support for the IP-based industries

Copyright and patents are so dissimilar that it sows confusion to classify them together. How many people out there favor eliminating copyright completely? Few to none. Why? Perhaps because copyright doesn't apply to anything susceptible of independent invention.

No one needs to clone Mickey Mouse. It might be nice after a couple of generations, but Mickey Mouse is not a major drag on the economy. Patents are. Outside of perhaps pharmaceuticals (due to government testing requirements), patents are just an economic and technological progress destroying form of corporate welfare. Progress destroying because most patents, especially the most valuable patents, are on things that tens to hundreds of companies are about to "invent" in the ordinary course of business.

If patents were only granted for things that had a vanishingly small probability of being independently invented in the next twenty years, that would be one thing. As they are, they are the economic equivalent of throwing sand in the gears.

Maybe it shows someone the absurdness

Posted Sep 8, 2011 15:22 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (guest, #51588) [Link] (3 responses)

The *idea* of the patent system isn't necessarily bad. It was designed to prevent $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY from copying the idea of $JOE_BLOW_INVENTOR and muscling $JOE_BLOW_DEVELOPER out of the market by brute force.

In implementation, it actually has done the polar opposite. Now only $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY can afford the full time lawyers to go over what all of their engineers are working on and file patents in a frenzy.

This is why politicians aren't always the best people to fix problems.

Sorry, but no.

Posted Sep 8, 2011 16:13 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

It was designed to prevent $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY from copying the idea of $JOE_BLOW_INVENTOR and muscling $JOE_BLOW_DEVELOPER out of the market by brute force.

Not even close. This is retcon which tries to justify this abomination. Patents were invented for one single purpose: make more money for the crown without raising taxes. Nothing more, nothing less. "Progress" was not ever even mentioned.

Now, modern patents... these are different. When patents abuse passed certain threshold and patents become outright toxic they were mostly abolished - but their supporters managed to convince people that it'll be good idea not to abolish all patents but to keep some (for completely new inventions).

In implementation, it actually has done the polar opposite. Now only $BIG_EVIL_COMPANY can afford the full time lawyers to go over what all of their engineers are working on and file patents in a frenzy.

Yup. It looks like we need another round of patent frenzy reduction. Last one was almost 400 years ago - it's time for the repeat! Perhaps this time they can be abolished completely...

Sorry, but no.

Posted Sep 9, 2011 7:58 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (1 responses)

I had this (absurd?) idea that patents were established to give incentive for inventors to disclose their secrets in exchange of protection against copycats (big and small).

Maybe someone forgot to mention that society had to win something for the patent system to make any sense.

Nope.

Posted Sep 9, 2011 12:18 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I had this (absurd?) idea that patents were established to give incentive for inventors to disclose their secrets in exchange of protection against copycats (big and small).

Yes, this is popular idea, but as I've already said it's retcon. Initially patents covered extremely wide areas and continued almost indefinitely - and this was so obviously bad that people decided to abandon them. But it looked like some patents are less evil then others and may, in fact, benefit the society. These were retained - and people tried to justify them ever since.

When Statute of Monopolies abandoned most patents it gave such a strong push to the society development (this act basically jump-started first Agricultural Revolution and later Industrial Revolution) that the problems with remaining [relatively narrow] patents were barely felt - but over time lawers expanded the scope of patents and now they are significant barrier for the progress. It's time if not to abandon then at least trim them again.

HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google (Bloomberg)

Posted Sep 8, 2011 9:14 UTC (Thu) by sgros (guest, #36440) [Link] (2 responses)

What prevents HTC from using those patents now to attack other makers of Android phones?

Also, what about Samsung and its tab?

HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google (Bloomberg)

Posted Sep 8, 2011 9:56 UTC (Thu) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

Google will sell the remainder of its patents to its remaining licensees, in small chunks. Then they can all happily sue anyone, each other, etc, except Google.

Finally a way to monetize each individual patent to the max without having to pay the lawyer's fees. Like arms dealing.

HTC Sues Apple Using Patents Obtained From Google (Bloomberg)

Posted Sep 8, 2011 9:59 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Depends on the deed of sale.

If Google placed a covenant on the sale that the patents can't be asserted against android kit, or can't be asserted in a first strike, or whatever whatever ... that's all totally legit.

Snag is a victim wouldn't know - we'd be relying on Google to intervene and say "you can't do that" - a bit like Novell intervened in SCOG v IBM and said "you can't do that" - and that took a while before IBM actually benefited any from it :-(

Cheers,
Wol

He Who Sows The Wind, Reaps The Whirlwind

Posted Sep 9, 2011 2:37 UTC (Fri) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link] (6 responses)

While I admit my sympathies are more with HTC and the other Android companies, I can only feel trepidation at the direction these patent lawsuits are going. The more preoccupied companies become with these legal shenanigans, the less time and resources they have to produce innovative products, which means we, as the customers, suffer.

Seems like the ultimate consequence of these lawsuits will be that everybody will be under injunctions preventing them from selling their products, and/or punitive fines and royalty payments that make it uneconomic to continue offering those products. In other words, total and final legal gridlock.

He Who Sows The Wind, Reaps The Whirlwind

Posted Sep 9, 2011 6:49 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (5 responses)

The patent wars may very well be sucking the innovation from the industry, chances are though they have little to no effect. Legal and Engineering aren't the same department and other than trying to defend the engineering practice the effect is probably minimal on the innovation though it does effect profits and waste a lot of money on lawyers.

But this war wasn't started by Android, it was started by Apple and MS. Apple was quicker with the lawsuits (and more interested in halting other companies phone sales) and MS was more interested in extracting financial penalties so that WM7 was the same price as the patent licenses and thus more competitive against the free Android.

But the end result for both was trying to eliminate competition through patents. Google stepped into the fray likely at the request of their OEMs and certainly to avoid Android being damaged. I doubt Google's intent is to drive anyone out of the industry, but simply to force the others to compete on innovation and to stop using patents as a weapon to halt competition.

What I don't understand is why the competition doesn't move their OS's to the same ad-supported system that Android has embraced. I understand that it means less profit and that it's harder for the others without the google advertising experience but their trying to compete against someone who's willing to make less money and ultimately they can't succeed against that.

He Who Sows The Wind, Reaps The Whirlwind

Posted Sep 9, 2011 10:05 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link] (4 responses)

Believe or not, some users don't want adware. They are willing to pay for something and not see the ads.

He Who Sows The Wind, Reaps The Whirlwind

Posted Sep 9, 2011 10:34 UTC (Fri) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] (1 responses)

troll harder.

He Who Sows The Wind, Reaps The Whirlwind

Posted Sep 9, 2011 11:17 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]

When I saw the mail I had a feeling it would be you, Jubal. :->

He Who Sows The Wind, Reaps The Whirlwind

Posted Sep 9, 2011 17:15 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

The problem is that no one is offering that. All* of the Mobile systems track location (even if they deny it, its been shown to be true), all of them track behavior and all of them serve advertising to you based on that information. The difference is that Android is upfront about it.

* RIM might not do this. I've not seen any studies to indicate if they do, though even if they don't they are likely to start because the revenue possibilities are huge. It's because of that Revenue that Apple has begun investing heavily in mobile advertising.

He Who Sows The Wind, Reaps The Whirlwind

Posted Sep 10, 2011 22:40 UTC (Sat) by dps (guest, #5725) [Link]

All mobile networks track the location of handsets. This is required to use the appropriate towers to route a call to a given handset. At least where I live operators are also required to be able to locate a handset used to make an emergency call.

I have received the odd advert from my mobile network, but not other mobile advertising. There is no evidence of this being location or behavior aware. Even the most basic behavior analysis would reveal that offers on text messages will just be deleted.