Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Sep 2011 23:33 UTC
Legal Ah, so that's what Google's masterplan is regarding the defense of Android against the patent trolls. HTC has just launched a few more defensive patent lawsuits against Apple, and while that's by far no longer newsworthy, it is this one time. You see, HTC is suing Apple over 9 patents that have only very recently been transferred (namely, a week ago) from Google to HTC. The patents come from Palm, Motorola, and others. This means Google is giving away its patents to Android device makers. Nice of them.
Thread beginning with comment 488831
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Shabby journalism
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Shabby journalism"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Thom - why not drop the pedantic crap and just raise your game a bit? It's not hard to be a better journalist and it''s very easy to be a poor one. Generally the best way to be a better journalist is to be especially careful when writing articles about stuff you have strong feelings about, you need to make sure that you are generally being as accurate as possible. If your strong feelings are justified then the facts alone will support them, no need for distortion or hyperbole.

In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to products they have made and which they claim their competitors are copying without permission. That's what patents are for. To use the term the 'troll' in relation to such activity simply devalues the word and empties it of all meaning. It just becomes synonymous with 'bad' so why use the word troll at all unless what you want to do is simply to smear.

You may think that the aim of Apple's actions is to curtail free competition in which case say so and the word troll is meaningless in relation to such behaviour. You may feel software patents in general are a bad thing in which case if you want to use the word troll in relation to software patents then use it against all those claiming software infringements, in my opinion still a misuse of the word but at least a consistent misuse. As I said using it in the way you did is wielding it as an insult and a smear and is piss poor journalism.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Shabby journalism
by shmerl on Thu 8th Sep 2011 15:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Shabby journalism"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

> In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to
> products they have made and which they claim their
> competitors are copying without permission. That's
> what patents are for.

Sounds like typical lawyer's talk. After all laws are in place, why not abuse them, right? Wrong. Using patents in such manner is unethical and is called patent trolling.

Edited 2011-09-08 15:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Shabby journalism
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 16:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Shabby journalism"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The difference between HTC/Google and Apple is that Apple actually invented the technology it accused HTC -- and by proxy, Google -- of "stealing" (to use Steve Jobs' verb). One of the patents Apple cited in its 2010 suit -- Patent No. 7479949 -- is a 358-page document signed by Jobs himself that covers everything from the way a finger touches the screen of a smartphone to the heuristics that turn those touches into commands.

HTC and Google, by contrast, are accusing Apple (whose smartphone designs they have plainly copied) of violating patents they bought fourth or fifth hand.

"Patents were meant to encourage innovation," Google's chief legal counsel David Drummond wrote last month in his famous open letter." Google's enemies, he complained, were using and "bogus" patents to try to "strangle" Android. "Fortunately," he added, "the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means."

Indeed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Shabby journalism
by molnarcs on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Shabby journalism"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to products they have made and which they claim their competitors are copying without permission. That's what patents are for.


Have many times, how many pictures, how many prior art, how much more proof do you apple fanboys need to get into your thick heads: Apple is suing companies with patents related to ideas they copied. One of the patents involved in Apple's recent patent trolling is the rectangular shape with screen and some buttons. Yes it's in their actual products (the iPad) and there are countless prior art from other manufacturers. They are suing with patents of so called "inventions" that 1) they most definitely did not invent 2) are way too obvious to call them inventions. Some of their patents may have some merit, but that's not what critics of Apple are railing against. It's the rest.

Edited 2011-09-08 17:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Shabby journalism
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Shabby journalism"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to products they have made and which they claim their competitors are copying without permission. That's what patents are for.


Have many times, how many pictures, how many prior art, how much more proof do you apple fanboys need to get into your thick heads: Apple is suing companies with patents related to ideas they copied. One of the patents involved in Apple's recent patent trolling is the rectangular shape with screen and some buttons. Yes it's in their actual products (the iPad) and there are countless prior art from other manufacturers. They are suing with patents of so called "inventions" that 1) they most definitely did not invent 2) are way too obvious to call them inventions. Some of their patents may have some merit, but that's not what critics of Apple are railing against. It's the rest.
"


In which case Apple's claims won't stand up in court in which case why are you getting worked up by it? The only reason people are so worked up is because Apple actually have a case and might win.

What really upsets people is that Apple aren't pussies anymore. They stopped being losers a while back and started playing hardball and winning and it drives people potty. Back in the desktop era the whole industry leeched off Apple for its R&D and Apple, run by bozos back then, let them. It must have enraged Steve Jobs, watching from his exile, and I am sure he was determined that if he ever got another shot with Apple that he wouldn't let it happen again. He did get another shot and Apple morphed into an innovation machine chewing up product sector after product sector with startling new devices. But this time around Apple wants to stop others copying them. And so they play hard on the patent front.

Good. Copying is bad for innovation.

Reply Parent Score: 0