[The Faceless Master]

Apple won a wide-ranging exclusion order banning the importation of HTC Android devices at the International Trade Commission last December — the ITC found that Android's messaging app and browser infringed upon Apple patent #5,946,647, which covers automatically converting things like phone numbers and email addresses into actionable links that open a menu of options. The ban was delayed so HTC could engineer around Apple's patent claims, but it went into effect on April 19th — and although HTC claimed so-called "data tapping" was a "small UI experience" that would be completely removed from its US Android devices, Customs is now reviewing the One X and Evo 4G LTE.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/15/30...fringing-apple



BANNED IN THE USA!!!



Edit: Sprint Confirms HTC EVO 4G LTE Delay

[Dicer]

So fucking Stupid.

Edit: I hope Google uses Moto's pile O' patents and shuts Apple down somehow...

[Tuck]

Wow. Fuck the patent system.

[GK86]

I hate Apple and the software patents.

[Piano]

:|

[SimleuqiR]

Why isn't the Galaxy Nexus banned yet?

[giga]

It's delayed, not banned. HTC said they worked around the patent and customs is just reviewing it.

The US availability of the HTC One X and HTC EVO 4G LTE has been delayed due to a standard U.S. Customs review of shipments that is required after an ITC exclusion order. We believe we are in compliance with the ruling and HTC is working closely with Customs to secure approval. The HTC One X and HTC Evo 4G LTE have been received enthusiastically by customers and we appreciate their patience as we work to get these products into their hands as soon as possible.

[Horse Detective]

I'm okay with this.

[Andrex]

I hate Apple and the software patents.

Pretty much sums it up.

Why isn't the Galaxy Nexus banned yet?

1. They know they can't extort Samsung for Google's flagship phone without dragging Google into things directly. Since the Galaxy Nexus is stock Android, they can't use the "cover" of only banning phones with skins, sidestepping Google's legal wrath.

2. They know they'd lose against Google. Moto's phone patents go back far, far before Apple's and cover a wide variety of absolutely basic, core smartphone functionality. It would be a legal bloodbath on par with the Oracle/Google fiasco, maybe even worse.

[acxcrew]

The patent system needs an overhaul.

[Orayn]

Why isn't the Galaxy Nexus banned yet?

Because the patent claims don't actually hold water and force them to do silly scattershots like this.

[Blastoise]

popcorn.gif

-----------------------------
Sent from my iPhone.

[Freestyler]

Good. Don't steal innovation.

[SimleuqiR]

Because the patent claims don't actually hold water and force them to do silly scattershots like this.

Yeah. Just tested it on an email. Pressing a phone # bring up the dialer, with said # ready to be dialed. Long pressing it bring up all the options in this gif:



Apple, I demand my Nexus be banned!!

[The Faceless Master]

It's delayed, not banned. HTC said they worked around the patent and customs is just reviewing it.

"DELAYED INDEFINITELY" doesn't fit and BANNED and DELAYED INDEFINITELY were used interchangeably in the article.

[TheTowel]

Thanks

[giga]

"DELAYED INDEFINITELY" doesn't fit and BANNED and DELAYED INDEFINITELY were used interchangeably in the article.

Banned was used in the article with regard to the original ITC ruling. The One X shipped after that and HTC has supposedly worked around that specific patent.

Indefinitely just means there's no estimated date of approval. It's "indefinite". But if HTC says they worked around the patent, I don't see why anyone would think it'd be banned forever.

[Sentry]

Dayum. I'm not affected by this in the slightest but damn.

[sruckus]

2. They know they'd lose against Google. Moto's phone patents go back far, far before Apple's and cover a wide variety of absolutely basic, core smartphone functionality. It would be a legal bloodbath on par with the Oracle/Google fiasco, maybe even worse.

Don't make me laugh

[planar1280]

Pretty much sums it up. 1. They know they can't extort Samsung for Google's flagship phone without dragging Google into things directly. Since the Galaxy Nexus is stock Android, they can't use the "cover" of only banning phones with skins, sidestepping Google's legal wrath. 2. They know they'd lose against Google. Moto's phone patents go back far, far before Apple's and cover a wide variety of absolutely basic, core smartphone functionality. It would be a legal bloodbath on par with the Oracle/Google fiasco, maybe even worse.

haha...no. Apple's patent match and even go beyond Google's patents. Microsoft has even more important patents. Google will lose if there is a patent war

[Divvy]

Software patents are such a joke.

[Andrex]

haha...no. Apple's patent match and even go beyond Google's patents. Microsoft has even more important patents. Google will lose if there is a patent war

Really?

Motorola's been dealing in telephony since the 90's.

[iamshadowlark]

Are they really gonna ban it because of that meaningless feature?

[rkn]

Pretty much sums it up. 1. They know they can't extort Samsung for Google's flagship phone without dragging Google into things directly. Since the Galaxy Nexus is stock Android, they can't use the "cover" of only banning phones with skins, sidestepping Google's legal wrath. 2. They know they'd lose against Google. Moto's phone patents go back far, far before Apple's and cover a wide variety of absolutely basic, core smartphone functionality. It would be a legal bloodbath on par with the Oracle/Google fiasco, maybe even worse.

We welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners...

[malyce]

haha...no. Apple's patent match and even go beyond Google's patents. Microsoft has even more important patents. Google will lose if there is a patent war

lol... uhhh.. no. some of you guys are funny.

[Sentry]

I have a question to those who think software patents are completely without merit. Keep in mind I don't have a definitive opinion on it either way, so i'd like it if projection was avoided.

Let's say we have a developer who comes up with a great idea that's a big hit, and people love using it. I can use Instagram as an example, but there's a hundred different cases that you could look at. Then you have a big wig such as Apple (or anyone, really) who takes the premise of that idea or software and makes it their own, and doing it arguably better than the original, essentially wiping out the need for the third party type of solution or feature.

How 'right' is this? I can think of a lot of instances where the hard work of a developer can go unrewarded due to the 'hijack' of a well received idea or feature by a company that has the means to incorporate it superiorly.

I don't know, it's a more complicated issue than it's being given credit to, I think.

[Polari]

I have a question to those who think software patents are completely without merit. Keep in mind I don't have a definitive opinion on it either way, so i'd like it if projection was avoided. Let's say we have a developer who comes up with a great idea that's a big hit, and people love using it. I can use Instagram as an example, but there's a hundred different cases that you could look at. Then you have a big wig such as Apple (or anyone, really) who takes the premise of that idea or software and makes it their own, and doing it arguably better than the original, essentially wiping out the need for the third party type of solution or feature. How 'right' is this? I can think of a lot of instances where the hard work of a developer can go unrewarded due to the 'hijack' of a well received idea or feature by a company that has the means to incorporate it superiorly. I don't know, it's a more complicated issue than it's being given credit to, I think.

The problem is a small developer doesn't have the resources to take advantage of the patent system. Also the number of trivial things patented in software makes it difficult for small developers to actually create anything without infringing on someone's patent. This story pretty much sums up how ridiculous the system is, and why the US are complete fuckers for trying to spread software patenting internationally:

My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had. The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process. After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one. An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?" After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.

[Greyface]

haha...no. Apple's patent match and even go beyond Google's patents. Microsoft has even more important patents. GoogleEverybody will lose if there is a patent war

fixed.

[macuser1of5]

fixed.

yeah, everyone loses. shits lame.

[Andrex]

fixed.

The Nuclear Option.

Apple trying to ban the Galaxy Nexus would be the equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the Patent Wars™.

[Sho_Nuff82]

Software patents are such a joke.

[Utako]

Bullshit. Bad business, bad morals.

[Stat Flow]

._.

[MIMIC]

Apple won a wide-ranging exclusion order banning the importation of HTC Android devices at the International Trade Commission last December — the ITC found that Android's messaging app and browser infringed upon Apple patent #5,946,647, which covers automatically converting things like phone numbers and email addresses into actionable links that open a menu of options. The ban was delayed so HTC could engineer around Apple's patent claims, but it went into effect on April 19th — and although HTC claimed so-called "data tapping" was a "small UI experience" that would be completely removed from its US Android devices, Customs is now reviewing the One X and Evo 4G LTE.

WTF....I thought most smartphones could do this (and well before the iPhone).

How is this an Apple patent?

[Andrex]

WTF....I thought most smartphones could do this (and well before the iPhone). How is this an Apple patent?

Apple were the first to the USPTO. But how dare HTC rip off Apple!

[Sentry]

The problem is a small developer doesn't have the resources to take advantage of the patent system. Also the number of trivial things patented in software makes it difficult for small developers to actually create anything without infringing on someone's patent. This story pretty much sums up how ridiculous the system is, and why the US are complete fuckers for trying to spread software patenting internationally:

So in the end, it the patent system that's really at fault or just the equal access to it? In other words, is there a consensus for a solution in which the a software patent system could still exist?

Or does it just need to go all-tgoether.

Bullshit. Bad business, bad morals.

LOL.

[eastmen]

i seem to remember aol instant messanger and a slew of other chat clients doing this back in the 90s.

[macuser1of5]

i seem to remember aol instant messanger and a slew of other chat clients doing this back in the 90s.

the platform wars those clients were on had been battled and won.

[MIMIC]

Apple were the first to the USPTO. But how dare HTC rip off Apple!

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that Apple was the first company to "claim" it as a patent even though its usage was already widespread?

[Andrex]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that Apple was the first company to "claim" it as a patent even though its usage was already widespread?

Yes, most likely. Haven't looked at the specific patent though.

[Copernicus]

What happened to the good guys? I miss the Jobs era.


=*(

[pompidu]

I have a question to those who think software patents are completely without merit. Keep in mind I don't have a definitive opinion on it either way, so i'd like it if projection was avoided. Let's say we have a developer who comes up with a great idea that's a big hit, and people love using it. I can use Instagram as an example, but there's a hundred different cases that you could look at. Then you have a big wig such as Apple (or anyone, really) who takes the premise of that idea or software and makes it their own, and doing it arguably better than the original, essentially wiping out the need for the third party type of solution or feature. How 'right' is this? I can think of a lot of instances where the hard work of a developer can go unrewarded due to the 'hijack' of a well received idea or feature by a company that has the means to incorporate it superiorly. I don't know, it's a more complicated issue than it's being given credit to, I think.

Patents cost money and time. Small developers do not have this luxury. Plain and simple.

[giga]

WTF....I thought most smartphones could do this (and well before the iPhone). How is this an Apple patent?

It's not an iPhone specific patent. They invented and filed for it in 1996 for Mac OS.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...id_phones.html
http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647

[akachan ningen]

What happened to the good guys? I miss the Jobs era. =*(

jobs is the one who started all this nonsense. read this article: http://www.businessweek.com/articles...war-on-android

[br0ken_shad0w]

Patent Wars - whoever wins, we lose.

[Gattsu25]

Apple continuing to stifle fair competition

[Metalmurphy]

How can they have this patented?

My HTC P3600 with windows mobile 6 does this, and it released way before the iphone

It's not an iPhone specific patent. They invented and filed for it in 1996 for Mac OS. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...id_phones.html http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647

Oh... so why is this just a problem now?

[Horse Detective]

Good. Don't steal innovation.

Hell yeah

[Kinitari]

if string is organized as x, format as y - doesn't seem like something software-patenty. I guess if the code was lifted directly from iOS or something... but this just seems like the equivalent of patenting increased accuracy in touch sensing - essentially saying "no one else is allowed to have a decent smartphone except me". Patenting something so integral and assumed to the smartphone environment just seems wrong.

[tokkun]

What happened to the good guys? I miss the Jobs era. =*(

I too miss the good old days, when it was just Apple suing NYC's environmental conservation program.