March 2nd 2010, Tuesday, Apple filed suits against HTC, “alleging that the company is infringing 20 patents “related to the iPhone’s user interface, underlying architecture, and hardware,” before both the US District Court and the International Trade Commission. (Patel, 2010)
For your information before you look up for the detail on these patents, they mostly were granted in the past year, and one of them just got the patent authorized February 2. Yes, last month.(Patel, 2010)
Although it could take years to have a result in court, both courts have the ability to stop HTC from selling devices and issuing fines, but none of that is going to happen anytime soon. This move from Apple was regarded as an attacking move instead of defending it homeland, because some of the patent were directly pointed to the Giant–Google and its Android’s Operating System structure, which by no means could be infringed by the phone manufacturer, a relatively smaller player, HTC. (Patel, 2010)
Before we take a look on what this lawsuit is about, let’s listen to both sides first. Here comes the word from 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,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”
And then the HTC’s response:
“…HTC Corporation values U.S. and international patent rights and will work with in the U.S. Judicial System to protect its own innovations and rights. HTC believes that consumer choice is a key component to success in the smartphone industry and this is best achieved through multiple suppliers providing a variety of mobile experiences. HTC has focused on offering its customers a uniquely-HTC experience through HTC Sense and its broad portfolio of smartphones…”
Apparently, both parties emphasized on different takes here. Apple had a strong argument on their patents were infringing, and the way to stop this would be to freeze the import of HTC’s product–which covers mostly Android phones and some of Windows Mobile phones. On the other hand, HTC brought up the awareness that Apple is using its patents to exclude other smartphones from the market (Apple and Nokia have been in a patent suiting war for a while, and some of the patents infringing that Apple claimed were as same as this case. That case is still pending a rule, which will be an important reference if Apple v.s. HTC case goes on trial. )
Despite the fact that the whole case could last years, one thing I would like to discuss here is: as an user, which side would you take? I am not asking you to be an expert and breakdown 20 patents that Apple claimed against HTC, but think about the reading we had on “The Future of the Internet — and How to Stop It” by Jonathan Zittrain, would the case between Apple and HTC bring up some Déjà vu for you?
Yes, the case between TiVo and EchoStar. In 2004, TiVo sued the satellite TV distributor EchoStar, accusing the company of infringing on its patent on DVR technology. After some drawn-out litigation, TiVo ended up winning the case, and a Texas judge ordered EchoStar to disable the DVR functions on most of its set-top boxes. An appeals court is reviewing the matter. (Bilton, 2010)
As we all know, Andorid phone was on the market since 2008. Andorid phone had around 1.5million users in Q3, 2009. If Apple won the lawsuit, would all the Andorid phone become patent-infringing products?
See how Mr. Zittrain comments on this case: ““The judge simply ordered EchoStar to connect to the DVR boxes via the Web and destroy the functionality,” Mr. Zittrain told me in an interview. “Patent law is a completely different universe online. That means if the court were to side with Apple and issue an injunction that insists HTC kill the phone, or at least some of its functionality, they easily could.””(Bilton, 2010)
For that being said, it brings us back to the original spirit of patent law, which should be “encouraging innovative ideas.” Compare to what the patent law being used as a tool to defend whoever’s niche market, even the law was enforced, consumers will lose the choice on the market eventually.
Consumers, do you want to lose your choices?
This is not a statement defending the service that ripping other’s work to its own possession. Had HTC infringed the Apple’s patents, HTC would have to take the consequence regardless. However, if the patent law was being used to protect whoever gets the patent first on the fundamental component and other else were excluded from building on the good innovation , the benefit of encouraging innovative idea is no where to shown.
Mr. Zittrain made the point on the patent in his book “The future of the Internet–and how to stop it?” that “patent infringement doesn’t require a copying of the original material, so once someone have came up the idea already, the new work is infringing. Not only does patent not have such a limitation, but it also applies to the abstract concepts expressed in code, rather than to a specific set of code.” This speaks the fact that patent warfare nowadays turns into a race on the path to USPTO. And whether the patent owner suing the infringing entity just depends on if it’s worthy to suing.(Zittrain, 2008)
And I take the side on Mr. Zittrain, that “This is not an ideal state of affairs for anyone. If those who see value in software patents are correct, infringement is rampant. And to those who think patents are chilling innovation, the present regime needs reform.” In a lot of situation, the companies are just going for business interest. And that lead to the public perception that how the companies disputing on the patent infringement are actually just trying to wrestle their opponent out of business. “Mr. Von Hippel also said that these lawsuits pointed to a bigger problem with the patent system. “It’s a bad scene right now. The social value of patents was supposed to be to encourage innovation — that’s what society gets out of it,” he said. “The net effect is that they decrease innovation, and in the end, the public loses out.””(Bilton, 2010)
Come back to this case at the end. The possible outcome of this case is that neither one can get the win completely. While a settlement seems likely, Google would not like to see that happen since the settlement could mean the end of Android. Apple will possibly win some of their 20 patents infringement claims, but it might not be the result that Apple is seeking: ruling out the Android phones and possibly some Windows Mobile phone too. (Sterling, 2010) We will see what happen next after Apple starts the patent warfare on the smartphone industry.
Web sources:
Patel, N. (2010, March 2nd). Apple vs htc: a patent breakdown. Retrieved from http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/
Patel, N. (2010, March 2nd). Apple sues htc for infringing 20 iphone patents. Retrieved from http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-20-iphone-patents/
Bilton, N. (2010, March 2nd). Http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/what-apple-vs-htc-could-mean/?em. Retrieved from http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/03/canalys_q3_2009_iphone_rim_taking_over_smartphone_market.html
Sterling, G. (2010, March 03). Apple vs. htc (android): it’s not about money. Retrieved from http://internet2go.net/news/hardware/apple-vs-htc-android-its-not-about-money
Zittrain, J. (2008). The Future of the internet and how to stop it . New Haven: Yale University Press.
{ 2 } Comments
This is a very detailed post about a case between APPLE and HTC. Thank you, Jim. I think I take a same side with Mr. Zittrain and you that “This is not an ideal state of affairs for anyone. If those who see value in software patents are correct, infringement is rampant. And to those who think patents are chilling innovation, the present regime needs reform.” Sometimes I feel what exactly patent purpose is. It seems to me that people use patent as a tool to do business competition, which lose orginal purpose of patent. I really think copyright and patent should reform to meet current situation since technology keeps changing.
I believe that the true purpose of the patent has been lost and is definitely out of touch with the world of today. Patents were suppose to encourage innovation but its the other way around the people are the ones that lose out.
It is often argued that patents were all about for protecting intellectual property and ensure the inventor is to be compensated for his development work fairly. Basically giving them a mini-monopoly for an period of time. This is the incentive for companies to pursue the development of products that require immense R&D
But look at today and companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc…they have portfolios of patents. Most of which will never amount of products seen in the market. Instead they are used a business tools as Josh has mentioned. More patents you have the better you can protect yourself from having to pay big $$$ and take you product out of the market. Basically this is a way to keep new innovators out.
REFORM is in much need! But the question here is how do we create new incentive to keep companies to innovate? There needs to be a solution that benefits both companies and consumers. If you push companies too hard by going against their interest that could result them packing up and moving else where…especially one that have more favorable patent laws.
We can bash patents all we want but until we come up with some solution. This issue is going no where and will jeopardize our future.