With court-madated settlement talks between Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Choi Gee-Sung scheduled to begin tomorrow, Samsung Mobile's JK Shin took a moment to discuss the potential for resolution. According to Reuters:

"There is still a big gap in the patent war with Apple but we still have several negotiation options including cross-licensing," Shin told reporters at Seoul airport shortly before his departure for the United States.

Asked about the prospects for Samsung's memory chip business, Shin said the 4G chip shortage was expected to continue until early in the fourth quarter of this year.

While Apple and Samsung are suing each other over patents, trade dress, and other infringements real and imagined -- Apple accusing Samsung of being mobile's biggest copy cat and Samsung fighting back on technology, and standards, grounds -- they remain massive manufacturing partners. Many of the components in Apple's mobile devices, and some in their computers as well, are made by Samsung.

Apple recently claimed Samsung was destroying evidence, while also trying to bar Samsung from entering Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs biography as evidence.

Although analysts had hoped Tim Cook might be a less fiery and litigious CEO than his predecessor, Cook turns out to be every bit as serious about patent disputes, and cold as ice.

For their part, Samsung has denied allegations that they're a copy cat, despite the uncanny similarities to Apple products that keep popping up.

Apple reportedly gave their manufacturing partner, Samsung, fair warning before going "thermonuclear" on their competitor, Samsung, in the courts.

Unlike Microsoft, which is seeking -- and in large part has obtained -- licensing fees from manufacturers in a bid to make Android as "expensive" as Windows Phone, Apple's goal doesn't seem to be financial -- they don't want Android looking or working like iPhone. They want to out litigate and out innovate the competition.

That might make it unlikely a settlement will be reached, unless Tim Cook does do things differently and shows a willingness to take money in lieu of design concessions -- or Samsung's patents force the matter.

Source: Reuters

A date has been set for Apple and Samsung's court-ordered settlement talks -- May 21 and 22, 2012. While the talks were ordered by Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, they will be overseen by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero at the San Francisco courthouse.

one of the things Magistrate Judge Spero wants the parties to do is to provide a settlement statement until May 9 including, among other things, "a candid evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses" [emphasis NOT mine]. I think this is wishful thinking because the parties won't really say that any of their claims are legally weak, no matter in front of whom these talks take place, but there's no way they would ever express even the slightest skepticism over any of their claims in front of a judge involved with the actual litigation.

Apple and Samsung are currently engaged in 50 lawsuits in 10 countries. They also remain manufacturing partners, with Samsung providing key components for Apple devices like the iPhone and the iPad.

Apple CEO Tim Cook will represent Apple in the talks. Apple's late co-founder, Steve Jobs, reportedly met with Samsung in previous years but was unable to reach a resolution. According to his official biography, his terms were rather absolute:

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this. [...] I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.

Cook was recently asked if he might be more open to a resolution than Jobs was.

Cooks answer was pretty much the same now as it was before he became CEO — he doesn’t like litigation, but he also doesn’t like other companies using what he feels are Apple innovations to sell competing products. Cook also took it a step further, saying Apple cannot become the developer for the world. Although he didn’t elaborate, it seemed to be along the same theme as previous statements — he believes Apple competitors should invent their own stuff rather than copying Apple.

In other words, we'll hope for the best, but we're not expecting it.

Source: FOSS Patents

Apple CEO Tim Cook was asked during Apple's Q2 2012 conference call how he felt about ongoing patent litigation, and whether he might be more open to a settlement or resolution than his predecessor, Steve Jobs might have been. Cooks answer was pretty much the same now as it was before he became CEO -- he doesn't like litigation, but he also doesn't like other companies using what he feels are Apple innovations to sell competing products. Cook also took it a step further, saying Apple cannot become the developer for the world. Although he didn't elaborate, it seemed to be along the same theme as previous statements -- he believes Apple competitors should invent their own stuff rather than copying Apple.

Apple is currently engaged in lawsuits with Android manufacturers including Samsung, Motorola, and HTC. The late Steve Jobs seems to have taken particular, personal offense at Android using what he felt were Apple innovations and giving them away "promiscuously". According to Jobs' biographer, Walter Isaacson:

[The Microsoft Windows situation was] almost copied verbatim by Android. And then they licence it around promiscuously. And then Android starts surpassing Apple in market share, and this totally infuriated him. It wasn’t a matter of money. He said: ‘You can’t pay me off, I’m here to destroy you’.

This followed Jobs' famous scorched-earth vow:

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this. [...] I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.

Some have hoped that Tim Cook might bring a different temperament to the situation, and indeed he will be meeting with the head(s) of Samsung to discuss points of resolution in their case.

However, based on his statements today, it doesn't sound like he's making any drastic policy changes at this point.

(Nor is he addressing examples of Apple using Google and Palm-style elements, like Notifications, in iOS.)

Apple and Samsung CEOs will be meeting in San Francisco within the next 90 days to hopefully put an end to their ongoing patent feud. This was partially forced by Northern District of California judge Lucy Koh, who ordered that both parties reexamine their availability for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Both want to look like they're being cooperative (even if they're not), so of course they've agreed to talk with a judge overseeing things. Samsung and Apple said in a joint statement:

As directed by the Court, Apple and Samsung are both willing to participate in a Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference with Judge Spero as mediator. At Apple, the chief executive officer and general counsel are the appropriate decision-makers, and they will represent Apple during the upcoming settlement discussions. At Samsung, the chief executive officer and general counsel are also the appropriate decision-makers, and they will represent Samsung during these settlement discussions.

Source: FOSS Patents

Apple is going to owe Motorola damages for infringing on push email patents currently being used by iCloud and Mobile, so sayeth the Mannheim, Germany regional court.  iPhone and iPad users in Germany had push email disabled back in February over the case, and today's ruling backs up Motorola's ban.

Apple is still advising, via knowledge-base article, that German iCloud and MobileMe users switch to pull email.

Affected customers will still receive iCloud and MobileMe email, but new messages will be downloaded to their devices when the Mail app is opened, or when their device periodically fetches new messages as configured in iOS Settings. Push email service on desktop computers, laptop computers, and the web is unaffected, as is service from other providers such as Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync.

This is a bum deal for iOS users in Germany, who might still be able to get email, but not at the lightning speed that push affords. You would think that if Apple had paid for damages, there would also be some sort of licensing in place to allow things to go back to normal. Then there's the precedent this sets for other markets -- is it possible that Motorola could lock out push email in other countries too? If they do, odds are good that other Android devices would be spared, seeing as Google is on the cusp of owning Motorola.

I don't like Apple being left a significant step behind any more than you guys do, but hey, at least in the U.S. Apple is beating out Motorola. How many of y'all rely on push email? Any Germans in the house been impacted by this case?

Source: WSJ, Apple Knowledge Base

Apple has been granted permission to step in against Lodsys, a holding company with alleged ties to Intellectual Ventuers, which is intent on suing iOS developers for patent infringement. Apple had originally applied to intervene nearly a year ago after Lodsys claimed the right to in-app purchasing, and consequently went after big-name devs like Square Enix, 2K, Atari, Rovio, and EA for royalties. Apple's stance has been that they've licensed the rights to the in-app purchasing mechanism to these parties, and that Lodsys should take up the fight with Apple directly.

This is a textbook case of patent trolling, and I imagine that while Lodsys might have had a shot squeezing money out of the smaller developers, and a slim chance of getting royalties from the bigger ones, they won't stand a chance against Apple. Lodsys went after Android developers too, and Google intends to intervene on that front in much the same way as Apple.

It's only unfortunate the courts took this long to decide, however, because those smaller developers have no doubt been hurt in the mean time.

Source: FOSS Patents; Image: Statue Forum

Apple is trying to take a little of the sting out of it's proposal for a nano-SIM standard by offering the rest of the industry a royalty-free license for the technology. Apple was among the first to ditch the popular mini-SIM found in the iPhone 3GS for the much smaller micro-SIM found in the iPad and iPhone 4/iPhone 4S, but with component space increasingly at a premium, the nano-SIM aims to make the total package even smaller still by essentially removing everything but the chip. While carriers seem to be on board, Motorola, RIM, Nokia and other vendors have pushed back, partly because they didn't want to be constrained by Apple's inclusion of a SIM card tray in the standard offering.

Now FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller brings word on Apple's latest attempts to win them over.

A perfectly reliable source that I can't disclose has shown me a letter dated March 19, 2012 that a senior Apple lawyer sent to [the European Telecommunications Standards Institute]. The letter addresses the primary concern of critics of the proposal. The FT said that "the Apple-led proposal has caused some concern among its rivals that the US group might eventually own the patents". But Apple's letter has removed this roadblock, if it ever was any, through an unequivocal commitment to grant royalty-free licenses to any Apple patents essential to nano-SIM, provided that Apple's proposal is adopted as a standard and that all other patent holders accept the same terms in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.

Mueller thinks that a) this shows how serious Apple is and how hard they'll be pushing the nano-SIM standard, and b) it will make it harder for other vendors to push back, especially the soon-to-be-Google-owned Motorola due to Google's vocal support for open standards.

iMore previously heard that Apple is also looking into reducing the size of the traditional 30-pin dock connector in iPhones, iPads, and iPods, to save on space inside. As power-hungry parts like Retina displays, LTE radios, and quad-core chipsets become more common, battery capacity needs to grow to support them, and every micro-militer that can be saved inside a device becomes incredibly important. This is especially true for Apple since they've shown no interest in simply making the iPhone larger the way other manufacturers have done with, for example, the Samsung Galaxy Nexus to the Nokia Lumia 900.

Carriers reportedly previously shot down an Apple initiative to completely replace the SIM card with a built-in, programmable alternative, since they didn't want to be eliminated from the customer relationship. If all the players agree, this could be the next best alternative.

Source: FOSS Patents

A German appeals court has issued a temporary ruling that prevents Motorola (currently in the process of being acquired by Google) from enforcing a ban on Apple iPhones and iPads based on what may be FRAND-absuing terms. Bloomberg reports:

“At the current state of the proceedings, it is to be assumed that Motorola Mobility would violate its duties under antitrust rules if it continues to ask Apple to stop the sales,” the court said in a statement.

FRAND patents are considered essential to standards-based implementations of technology, and in exchange for a patent becoming part of a standard, they're expected to be licensed to anyone and everyone under Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Apple, which is suing many other companies based on non-FRAND (i.e. proprietary) patents, has been counter sued by Motorola and Samsung based on FRAND patents, something the European Union is now investigating.

It's probably too soon to tell how big a blow this is for Motorola, though Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents thinks it could be a deal breaker, especially in terms of how much value it takes out of the Motorola acquisition for Google:

Motorola was hoping to gain near-term leverage against Apple and Microsoft through the aggressive pursuit of injunctive relief based on standard-essential patents. Google, which was totally in agreement with MMI's litigation strategy, was hoping to buy that leverage for $12.5 billion, and Germany was a key part of that plan because its legal system places a relatively high burden on implementers of standards invoking the FRAND defense. In fact, Google's public statement on the post-acquisition use of MMI's patents proposed the German approach to FRAND as the way forward for the whole world. With today's ruling, Googlorola's strategy has failed even before the companies have formally merged. This is such a major blow to Google's patent strategy that, from a mere shareholder value point of view, it should now give serious consideration to the possibility of coughing up the $2.5 billion break-up fee agreed upon with MMI's board of directors and walk out on this deal. After all, that $2.5 billion payment would be an affordable subsidy for the only totally Google-aligned company among the major handset makers. But in all likelihood, Google will nevertheless try to close the deal, if only to avoid a colossal embarrassment for its CEO and other decision-makers.

This doesn't affect Motorola's other cases against Apple, including the non-FRAND win on pager sync patents that forced Apple to stop providing push email for German iCloud and MobileMe users.

Source: Bloomberg, FOSS Patents

The U.S. Department of Justice recently approved Apple's acquisition of various Nortel and Novell patents. The need to clear these purchases with the DoJ was for anti-trust purposes; after all, Apple already has a huge market lead, and any patents that could put competitors out of business would result in less choice for American consumers (which I think we can all agree is a bad thing). During the investigation, Apple had committed to licensing standard essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, and won't be seeking injunctions involving those key patents.  Though the Department of Justice has given the green light, they're still keeping a very close eye on the situation.

"In light of the importance of this industry to consumers and the complex issues raised by the intersection of the intellectual property rights and antitrust law at issue here, as well as uncertainty as to the exercise of the acquired rights, the division continues to monitor the use of SEPs in the wireless device industry, particularly in the smartphone and computer tablet markets.  The division will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action to stop any anticompetitive use of SEP rights."

While the DoJ also approved RIM and Microsoft's acquisitions of some of the Nortel patents, only Apple was named in regards to Novell. There was a big hubbub around Microsoft getting in on a joint bid, and Google getting uppitty because they weren't invited to the party (even though they were).  Eventually, Microsoft had to open-source the patents they acquired, as the Department of Justice saw that they could potentially be used to put Linux out of commission.

It's also interesting to note that Motorola and Samsung may be suing Apple over FRAND patents in complete unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory ways -- with the EU investigating at least Samsung over the potential abuse.

Nortel's patent portfolio may have cost upwards of $4.5 billion, but it includes some very attractive  technologies relating LTE, networking, voice, internet, and semiconductors. Once upon a time, Nortel was the crown jewel of the Canadian tech sector, and though it's sad to see its final remnants being chopped up like this, at least their accomplishments are going to work with the current industry leaders.

Source: Department of Justice; Image credit: Howard Lake

Apple is increasingly playing defense against lawsuits from Samsung and Motorola that seek to take iPhones and iPads off the shelves and out of stores. Apple is trying to do the same to their competitors, of course, but there's a subtle difference -- Samsung and Motorola are suing Apple over FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) patents and are apparently seeking licensing that's anything but fair and reasonable, and may in fact be discriminatory.

FRAND patents are typically typically pledged as part of a standard, which makes them essential to a technology, the organizations that govern those standards require them to be equitably licensed back to everyone. That's the whole point of having standards. If you want your invention to become a standard, you let it be used as a standard.

FRAND vs. non-FRAND

Apple doesn't play the FRAND game with the iPhone or iPad. They don't want their multitouch patents to be a standard. They don't want other companies using them. (Unlike Microsoft, they don't want to make their competitors' products more expensive, they want them to stop being Apple-like.)

Samsung and Motorola did play the FRAND game, however, and did want their wireless patents -- covering core 3G technologies, among other things -- to be standards. However, when Samsung and Motorola infringe on Apple's non-FRAND patents, they then demand outrageous terms from Apple to license their FRAND patents -- which Apple has to use for their products to work on existing networks -- hoping Apple will cave and cross-license their non-FRAND patents as part of the deal.

Put another way, it's like the owner of your local public pool refusing to let you swim there unless you let them swim in your private pool at home. Worse, it's like the manager of your local public pool demanding you pay him $1,000,000 dollars to swim in a pool you're supposed to have fair and equal access too, unless he gets to swim in your private pool at home. Worse still, it's like the manager of your local pool has made agreements that force anyone who wants to swim anywhere to get a license from his pool first, then demands you pay him a fortune for it, and give him access to your private, home pool. (In one case, in a swim-suit that looks surprisingly like yours. Only bigger.)

What can Apple do?

According to Florian Mueller over at FOSS Patents, this means Apple has to be careful, and iterative in their defense.

Apple won't get a deal that meets its needs unless Samsung and Motorola (or Google) are forced to recognize the fundamentally greater strategic and commercial value of Apple's non-standards-related patents, which are the fruit of independent innovation and independent commercialization as opposed to a company's ability to push its patented ideas into industry standards everyone is forced to implement after a collective of major industry players defines them.

Samsung and Motorola (or Google) would like all patents to be treated in more or less the same way. They give nothing more than lip service to their FRAND licensing obligations. They may hope that the law on this isn't sufficiently settled in major jurisdictions. They look for loopholes in the rules -- including certain opportunities in Germany, where the case law on this is more favorable to them than elsewhere. If they realize at some point that this strategy doesn't work out because of a combination of court rulings, regulatory intervention and Apple's determination to stand its ground, then -- and only then -- Apple will ultimately get the kind of deal it wants. Until then, Apple doesn't even have much to talk about with Samsung and Motorola (or Google).

Sure, you can say Apple is being selfish by not licensing multitouch to one and all, but they never agreed to in the first place. (Are you being a selfish by not letting everyone who wants to come swim in your private home pool?) Samsung and Motorola did agree to let everyone use their patents under FRAND terms so those patents would be become essential to the standard.

Enter the European Union

Now Samsung and Motorola are certainly free to do and to sue what and who they want... up to a point. The European Union has already announced they're investigating Samsung for FRAND abuse, and Motorola may not be far behind. With pressure from Apple on one side, and anti-trust action on the other, it puts them in a delicate position.

In the meantime, Apple can't give in to Samsung and Motorola's unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory demands, and they can't risk injunctions like the one that was temporarily in effect in Germany last week, becoming permanent before the EU sorts everything out.

Whether or not there will ultimately be a settlement, like the one they achieved with Nokia over similar FRAND patents, only time will tell. All Apple can do for now is continue the careful, iterative defense.

Mueller's whole article, which delves into the patents and legal issues in great detail, is worth a read.

Source: FOSS Patents, x2

Apple has been forced to remove almost all 3G-enabled iPhones and iPads from its online store in Germany, including the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and iPad 2 WiFi + 3G, but NOT including iPhone 4S due to an injunction won by Motorola Mobility. Foss Patents reports:

The leading German news agency, dpa (Deutsche Presse-Agentur), quotes an official Apple statement according to which the company has just removed, as a result of an injunction Motorola won in Mannheim over a FRAND-pledged patents declared essential to an industry standard, several 3G/UMTS-capable products from its German online store: the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 3GS, and the iPhone 4 (but not the iPhone 4S), and all 3G/UMTS-capable iPads.

This all stems from Motorola's December win around a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) patent pertaining to 3G/UMTS standards. In addition, iCloud users in Germany will no longer have access to push mail over iCloud MobileMe, and will instead need to rely on manually pulling email messages from Apple's servers.

The iPhone 4S was not included because of the difference in the 3G chip configuration. Also, all of the affected units will still be sold through local retailers, including official Apple Stores.

The EU, however, is taking an interest in cases like this, where FRAND patents may or may not be being misused.

The enforcement of a FRAND-pledged standards-essential patent is a major issue. The European Commission is already investigating Samsung because it also "sought injunctive relief" (though unsuccessfully to date) based on such patents. Motorola could be investigated over the same issue, but since the EU is also reviewing Google's proposed acquisition of MMI, it presumably prefers to focus on the merger review, at least for the time being.

Like the injunctions Apple has won and lost against Samsung, this is far from over.

Source: FOSS Patents

[UPDATE]

SlashGear reports the injunction has been suspended, and all Apple 3G-enabled products, including iPhones and iPads, are once again available on Apple's online store.

”All iPad and iPhone models will be back on sale through Apple’s online store in Germany shortly” the company told us in a statement. “Apple appealed this ruling because Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple on reasonable terms, despite having declared it an industry standard patent seven years ago.”

iCloud is still unavailable in Germany, however, as the suspended injunction in question only pertains to the 3G/UMTS patents involved.

Source: SlashGear

Motorola has filed an injunction against Apple, claiming the iPhone 4S and iCloud infringe on six different patents. The six patents included in the suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,710,987 on a "receiver having concealed external antenna"
• U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119 on a "multiple pager status synchronization system and method"; Motorola is asserting the European equivalent of this patent against Apple in Mannheim, with a decision (that will likely be favorable for Motorola) scheduled for Friday of next week (February 3, 2012)
• U.S. Patent No. 5,958,006 on a "method and apparatus for communicating summarized data"
• U.S. Patent No. 6,101,531 on a "system for communicating user-selected criteria filter prepared at wireless client to communication server for filtering data transferred from host to said wireless client"
• U.S. Patent No. 6,008,737 on an "apparatus for controlling utilization of software added to a portable communication device"
• U.S. Patent No. 6,377,161 on a "method and apparatus in a wireless messaging system for facilitating an exchange of address information"

Motorola already has a suit against Apple from the fall of 2010 that's still on-going in the Florida court system. It was too late in the process for them to add these patents to the current case. They've instead opted to file it as a separate case. Since these new filings occurred following Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility, it probably means that Google authorized Motorola to go ahead with the litigation. Since there's already a suit pending on some of these patents, the second trial may move quicker unless new claims are made. It seems typical for companies to go after patents they've already filed for infringement on as the process moves along a lot faster.

All of the above patents are being asserted against the iPhone 4S while two of them are also being asserted upon iCloud.

For more information, follow the source link below.

Source: Foss Patents

Apple had recently flung a slide-to-unlock patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung in Germany, but one very important Android phone was never on the list of complaints: the Galaxy Nexus. As you probably know, the iPhone has a signature way of activating from sleep mode, and many smartphones have since emulated and expanded it to sliding in any direction within a circle, sometimes to unlock directly into an app, as in the case with the Galaxy Nexus. A Samsung official commented, saying:

“We’re aware that there was a hearing involving Apple’s slide-to-unlock feature after our patent infringement case last Friday and a series of products in the Galaxy lineup were accused there, but what we’ve discovered is that the Galaxy Nexus wasn’t one of them.”

You certainly can't help but give credit to Apple for getting all of these smartphone manufacturers to reconsider how one unlocks phones, but it seems like things have progressed so far beyond simply sliding a bar at this point that Apple is going to have a real hard time suing the competition over it.

Source: Korea Herald via Android Central

The Court of the Hague, in the Netherlands, has denied an appeal from Apple to place an injunction on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales on grounds of design patent infringement. The Dutch ruling took into account two out of six potential pieces of prior art, though they may take more into consideration later on. Apple has already been shot down once for this case in the Dutch lower courts, and having the appeal denied as well means this case is pretty cut and dry.

Apple's having some good luck against Samsung in Germany, but that's apparently not setting a precedent for the rest of Europe. It seems like globally, Apple is going to have a hard time enforcing these design patents, despite seeing varied success in a few regions. Even Australia, which had placed a ban on some Samsung products, eventually reversed its decision. Unless Apple manages to get consistent ruling internationally, it will be hard to avoid imports into the few countries that have a local sales ban on devices that look like the iPhone or iPad.

While I certainly appreciate Apple's classy design, it seems a little extreme for a company whose founder openly borrowed good ideas and made them better. You can find the full Dutch court ruling, ripe for Google Translating, via the source link below.

Source: rechtpraak.nl, FOSS Patents

Samsung was hoping to nail Apple for 3G patent infringement in Germany, but a judge has already tossed one of them out the window. Six other patents are still being investigated, but details on that particular case are skimpy for now. Apple has in the same breath shot back at Samsung for infringing on a slide-to-unlock patent with the Galaxy Nexus. Apple had pulled out this patent against HTC two years ago, though it doesn't look like they won on that particular front.

Germany has been a bit of a hotbed for mobile patent cases lately. Apple has most recently attacked Samsung for design infringement on ten phones, and previously earned an injuction against Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales. Of course, Apple isn't winning all of their fights in Germany; Motorola recently won a case against Apple for 3G patents.

It's a messy web of companies suing and counter-suing over arguably broad claims to intellectual property. Rarely do these episodes conclude with the dramatic import bans that are initially threatened, and that's a good thing - we would probably have way fewer phones to play with if these lawsuits ended without some kind of compromise.

Source: FOSS Patents, x 2

The International Trade Commission (ITC)'s Administrative Law Judge has ruled in favor of Motorola Mobility, saying the new Google acquisition and maker of fine, Corellian-styles Android phones doesn't violate 3 of Apple's multitouch patents. Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel for Moto, had this to say:

We are pleased with today’s favorable outcome for Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility has worked hard over the years to develop technology and build an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio. We are proud to leverage this broad and deep portfolio to create differentiated innovations that enhance the user experience.

Apple had claimed Motorola's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, BackFlip, Devour and Charm infringed on tapping, swiping, and pinching gestures. What this means for the viability of the patents moving forward is unknown, but likely not good for Apple.

Steve Jobs considered Android a stolen product and said in his biography that he would spend every last dollar in Apple's massive money bin to destroy it. Results so far, however, have been decidedly hit and miss. Still, the legal wrangling persists and no doubt the lawyers on both sides are already picking out new hypercars in anticipation of the next round.

Source: Motorola PR via Android Central

Kodak will be filing lawsuits against both Apple and HTC related to possible infringements on some of their digital imaging patents.

The claims from Kodak are that both smartphone manufacturers are infringing upon some of their digital imaging patents. While they already have an existing lawsuit directed at Apple, this one brings more devices to the table. HTC meanwhile are being targeted through their EVO View 4G, Flyer, Jetstream, Vivid, Amaze 4G, Desire, EVO Design 4G, Hero S, Rezound, Rhyme, Sensation 4G and the Wildfire S devices. That's a lot of Android. Notably missing from the list are any of HTC's Windows Phone devices.

Florian Mueller from FOSS Patents speculates this may be due to Kodak attempting to gain attention with their patent portfolio while they shop around for a potential buyer.

Source: AndroidCentral via mobileburn

According to Nilay Patel at The Verge, Apple has won an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on some HTC devices. Not much else is known at this point, but if you're following the patent wars the way normal folks follow the soaps, then stay tuned. It's getting serious.

Update: Android Central scored a statement from HTC:

We are gratified that the Commission affirmed the judge’s initial determination on the ‘721 and ‘983 patents, and reversed its decision on the ‘263 patent and partially on the ‘647 patent. We are very pleased with the determination and we respect it. However, the ‘647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.

And Jerry Hildenbrand capped it off perfectly:

While fans on one side will cheer, and fans on the other side will call foul, we all will lose. Justice really is blind, and when it comes to technology and innovation, it also seems pretty damn stupid.

Source: The Verge, Android Central

According to a report from TechCrunch, Apple has entered into some kind of relationship with Digitude Innovations, seemingly one of those delightful non-practicing entities fondly referred to as a patent troll. Based in Virginia, founded in 2010 and working off $50 Million from Altitude Capital Partners, Digitude has filed patent infringement claims with the International Trade Commission (ITC) against the likes of RIM, HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony, Amazon, and Nokia -- but notably not Apple -- all with what appear to be patents previously held by -- none other than Apple. The patents noted are:

• USPTO #6208879 — Mobile Information Terminal Equipment and Portable Electronic Apparatus
• USPTO #6456841 — Mobile Communication Apparatus Notifying User Of Reproduction Waiting Information Effectively

Transferred to a shell company called Cliff Island LLC earlier this year, these patents were then, at some point, transferred to Digitude Innovations whose sole basis of existence seems to be to buy technology patents and then sue companies with said patents until they give into licensing fees or cross-licensing agreements allowing Digitude to sue even more companies over more patents.

Techrunch offers two possible explanations:

• Apple could be hiding behind Digitude to avoid the bad press that's been surrounding patent suits as of late. (Although they had to figure this would become known -- as indeed it has -- and make them look even worse?)
• Apple was forced to settle with Digitude and offer the right to litigate these patents as part of the settlement. (Although why would Apple settle so quickly and quietly when they've fought so vigorously in the past?)

Apple and Digitude Innovations have declined to comment on the situation, but it goes without saying -- it's looking pretty shady on Apple's part right now. Hit the source link below for much more on the situation.

Source: Techcrunch

"Hmm, I'm losing in Germany and Australia, but if I can just secure Canada and Mauritius...!"

Privacy also took a swift, hard roshambo in the rights this year as everything from Apple's poorly coded location recording system to Google, Facebook, and Twitter being forced into decade, or double decade privacy oversight, to lack of disclosure surrounding Carrier IQ making headline. On the flip side, the media earned more than their usual share of fail points for once again never missing a chance to linkbait and headline grab at Apple's expense.

Netflix decided to take one the most successful, most loved brands in modern media and jack up the prices without proper PR, then split the company into Qwikster, then not split the company, then... we got lost. Instead of making streaming more solid and reliable -- and available internationally -- they spun in circles. Twitter likewise decided that poor communications, creating unease and distrust among developers, the #dickbar, and now the #dickapp re-design, and generally putting their user base last is something they're now big enough not to have to care about.

And then there were the patent problems -- Apple and Android makers suing each other, Lodsys suing independent developers, and generally everyone taking the tools of innovation and wielding them for consternation.

Vote up top and tell us why you voted they way you did in the comments! These are your awards, so get to it!

• See all 2011 TiPb Readers' Choice Award polls

We haven't really been keeping up with all the myriad legal maneuverings in the ongoing -- and going, and going -- legal disputes between Apple and accused "copyist" Samsung, as well as other Android manufacturers like Motorola, but there have been some injunctions granted, refused, overturned, and asked for review. If you're thinking there's just too much of this stuff and no one cares who's not a lawyer on one of their payroll, well, fair enough. Here are the highlights/lowlights.

• U.S. Lucy Koh refused to grant Apple an injunction against Samsung. She felt Apple had a case, but not a strong enough one that monetary damages wouldn't sufficiently compensate Apple. [Reuters]
• Sounds like Apple actually licensed one of their precious multitouch patents -- the inertial bounce -- to IBM and Nokia, and at one point offered to license it to Samsung but no deal could be reached. [The Verge]
• New Google acquisition Motorola is still going at it with Apple in Germany, with courts unconvinced of Moto's case, with FRAND issues causing confusion aplenty. [FOSS Patents]

There's a ton more going on, of course, and if you're super-interested in the details, just follow the link above.

Apple is once again taking exception to the counter-charges HTC is filing in their ongoing legal dispute.

• Apple denies that its correct name is Apple, Inc. The correct name of Respondent is Apple Inc.

Things are either getting snarkily passive-aggressive, or passive-aggressively snarky:

Denny Crane!

Source: FOSS Patents

What a difference a week makes. Last we heard Samsung sounded like they had only just begun to fight, now they've signed an agreement to cross-license and pay Microsoft a fee for every Android device they've sold, but according to the Wall Street Journal, they've also offered an olive branch to Apple as well.

It wasn't clear what benefit Apple would gain from any agreement, as details of the proposed deal were not discussed in full in front of the court. But Apple's attorney, Stephen Burley, conceded there was some potential benefit from an agreement on the matter. "(Samsung's) inconvenience would be diminished and we would be comforted" by such a deal, he said.

Microsoft's benefit was easier: money.

“Microsoft and Samsung see the opportunity for dramatic growth in Windows Phone and we’re investing to make that a reality,” said Andy Lees, president, Windows Phone Division, Microsoft. “Microsoft believes in a model where all our partners can grow and profit based on our platform.”

“Through the cross-licensing of our respective patent portfolios, Samsung and Microsoft can continue to bring the latest innovations to the mobile industry,” said Dr. Won-Pyo Hong, executive vice president of global product strategy at Samsung’s mobile communication division. “We are pleased to build upon our long history of working together to open a new chapter of collaboration beginning with our Windows Phone “Mango” launch this fall.”

Apple doesn't want money from Android ODMs, however. They don't want to make Android more expensive. They want to stop Samsung from "copying" them in order to make it less usable -- they want what they consider to be Apple patented technology taken out.

Google called the Microsoft deal "extortion", if Samsung does come to terms agreeable to Apple, what would Google call that?

Hopefully "done". Overly violating and overly litigating patents are too extremes I for one have had about enough of. Restoring some respect and balance to the equation might just allow everyone involved to stop investing in lawyers and start re-investing on the innovation that brought us iOS, Gingerbread, and Mango.

Source: Wall Street Journal, Microsoft, TechCrunch

Florian Mueller from FOSS Patents reports on Verizon's filing of an amicus brief in the long going Apple vs. Samsung legal dispute, claiming any injunction would harm Verizon's ability to deploy LTE, and no doubt otherwise decimate small children, candy, and puppy dogs:

This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market. I'm sure that Apple will view this move as a self-serving attempt to game the system in Android's and Samsung's favor, as another sign of Verizon being staunchly Android-aligned in exchange for market-distorting favors from Google, and as an attack on the intellectual property-centric business model of Apple and other innovators.

Apple gives them a shiny, best-selling box Verizon isn't allowed to touch, Samsung gives them carte-blanche to swap out Google for Bing, install crapware, stamp logos everywhere, and otherwise control the experience to their user-hostile heart's content. What's so hard to understand?

Source: FOSS Patents

Samsung has already sued Apple over patent infringements and now they're attempting to get a full out ban of iPhones and 3G iPads in the Netherlands. They've sued Apple on infringement of four patents and not only want a ban but a full retail recall of any device that uses 3G technology.

The patents involved are standards-essential patents. They are incorporated as internationally excepted standards and the patent holder (Samsung) is obligated to grant licenses to third parties. Florian Mueller, an active patent consultant, believes that an injunction won't happen unless Apple refuses to pay up if royalties are owed to Samsung.

“Should it turn out that Apple entered the market without taking licenses to essential patents, then that’s indefensible and Apple should pay,” ..."However, it doesn’t justify an abuse of standards-essential patents. Asking for an injunction is an abuse unless the request for the injunction is limited to the scenario in which the defendant doesn’t accept to pay FRAND royalties.”

Samsung may be growing more aggressive with Apple due to the fact that Apple has taken some of their display business elsewhere. Apple was Samsung's number two customer last year so that could have a lot to do with why Samsung hasn't filed patent suits in the past.

But at the end of the day Apple will probably just pay the royalties if ordered to and there will still be iPhones and iPads equipped with 3G for all.

Macworld

According the Korea Times, rival smartphone maker Samsung is eagerly anticipating the Korean launch of Apple's next generation iPhone 5 handset -- so Samsung can try and sue it off the shelves.

`Just after the arrival of the iPhone 5 here, Samsung plans to take Apple to court here for its violation of Samsung’s wireless technology related patents,’’ said a senior executive from Samsung Electronics, asking not to be identified.

``For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents. We will stick to a strong stance against Apple during the lingering legal fights.’’

While almost two dozen lawsuits are already pending between Apple and Samsung, Samsung remains a major manufacturing partner of Apple, though there are signs Apple is moving to diversify and diminish that dependence as well.

``Apple is Samsung’s biggest customer. Hewlett-Packard (HP), Nokia and Sony were Samsung’s previous big clients, however, Apple is now a primary one. From our perspective, we are not entirely happy (about the litigations),’’ Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung said.

Apple originally took issue with Samsung, whom they dubbed a "copyist", over perceived similarities between Samsung Android phones and tablets and the iPhone and iPad. Unlike other Android manufacturers who established their own looks, Apple contends Samsung deliberately copies Apple to confuse customers and unfairly benefit from Apple's brand and marketing. Apple has already succeeded, at least temporarily, to get Galaxy Tabs banned from sale in German and parts of the EU.

While Microsoft, who is also going after Samsung, seems content on getting licensing fees to make Android more expensive to manufacture, Apple's appears to want to make Android less friendly to use, demanding removal of features, not licensing deals.

Patent portfolios are often compared to nuclear arsenals, held as deterrents. Of course, if everyone ever lets them all fly, everyone loses.

[Korea Times]

According to Bloomberg, Google -- who previously never missed an occasion to whine about patents and patent litigation -- seems to have been quietly buying patents of its very own from Palm, Motorola, and Openwave Systems, then sold them to HTC so HTC to use them to sue Apple. Pretty slick.

The lawsuit contends the Mac computer, iPhone, iPod, iPad, iCloud and iTunes are infringing patents for a way to upgrade software wirelessly; a way to transfer data between a microprocessor and a support chip; a method to store user preferences, and a way to provide consistent contact between application software and a radio modem.

HTC also amended a complaint with the International Trade Commission today, adding five of the former Google patents to a case that targets many of the same products. Three of those patents Google bought from Openwave and two others had been owned by Palm, which was acquired by Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) last year.

Apple originally sued HTC, and HTC has countersued before. The part that caught my eye is that HTC says they "will continue to protect its patented inventions" when Google just bought said inventions for HTC last week? Apple buys patents as well, from Fingerworks for multitouch to Nortel for LTE, and no doubt won't waste any time asserting them, it's just interesting wording on HTC's part.

With Apple still suing Android manufacturers instead of Google directly, and Google now supplying arms to those manufacturers instead of going after Apple directly, one thing is for certain -- we're going to need a lot of popcorn.

[Bloomberg]

Long title, longer legal filing, but the gist is Apple seems to be claiming Android founder Andy Rubin was working for Apple and reporting to the man who filed for a patent on Apple's behalf that Apple is now suing HTC for violating in their Android phones. Even longer:

Android and Mr. Rubin's relevant background does not start, as HTC would like the Commission to believe, with his work at General Magic or Danger in the mid-1990s. In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed. [...] It is thus no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be "highly customizable and expandable" as HTC touts. [...] While Mr. Rubin's inspiration for the Android framework may not be directly relevant to the pending petitions for review, that HTC felt compelled to distort this history is illustrative of the liberties it takes in attacking the ALJ's [initial determination] and the substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's findings.

FOSS Patents Florian Mueler says that since Rubin works for Google, not HTC, this would be far more meaningful if Apple eventually sues Google directly, or if/when Google's Motorola purchase goes through.

Google (or a Google subsidiary like [Motorola Mobility) would almost certainly be found to infringe the relevant patent intentionally, and willful infringement would greatly increase Apple's chances of obtaining an injunction as well as triple damages.

Mueler also points out Rubin and co. may have willfully infringed Oracle (formerly Sun) Java patents in Android as well.

Regardless of where you fall on the whole Apple vs. Android and patent system issues, right now it's just more fuel for the legal soap opera.

[FOSS Patents]

No, you didn't read the headline wrong -- Samsung is claiming their Galaxy Tab 10.1 couldn't be a copy of Apple's iPad because... it was copying the earlier movie prop from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Well, okay, not copying -- more like maintaining the design elements were commonplace in pop culture, especially science fiction. One of the ways to invalidate a patent is to prove prior art -- that someone had the idea before the company who was awarded the patent.

Since everyone from HAL's buddy Dave to the Enterprise D's Captain Jean Luc Picard used tablet-like devices, Samsung seems to be asking, how could Apple possibly have been granted the design patent?

Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents stops short of calling it either genius or a stunt.

It would be amazing if the court agreed with Samsung that this constitutes prior art for that particular iPad-related design patent. Whether or not Samsung will succeed, the mere fact that they proffer this kind of evidence is remarkable and will be exciting for many fans of movies in general -- and of that movie in particular -- to find out about.

Hopefully Samsung hasn't seen Dick Tracy or Apple's nano watch might be next!

[FOSS Patents]

Apple sued HTC, HTC counter-sued Apple, and now HTC has sued Apple, again over 3 additional patents in both Mac, and iPhone/iPad platforms. (HTC currently pays Microsoft a reported $5 per Android device licensing fee.)

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware seeks to halt Apple's importation and sale of infringing products in the United States. It also seeks compensatory damages, triple damages for willful infringement and other remedies.

It comes a day after Google announced its intent to purchase Motorola Mobility and their 17,000 and growing patent portfolio.

Time to flex a little green robot muscle, is it?

[Reuters]

Google has filed a request with the United States Patent on Trademark Office (USPTO), asking that 2 of the patents Lodsys is using the troll iOS and Android developers be re-examined.

“We’ve asked the US Patent Office to reexamine two Lodsys patents that we believe should never have been issued,” Google senior vice president and general counsel Kent Walker told Wired.com in a statement. “Developers play a critical part in the Android ecosystem and Google will continue to support them.”

While re-examination could get the patents thrown out, the more common result seems to be a narrowing of focus. Likewise, while the ongoing Lodsys lawsuits could be paused pending the re-examination, there's no guarantee of that either.

It's nice to finally see Google take some action, though Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents seems non-plussed:

While I agree with Google's senior vice president and general counsel Kent Walker that those patents should never have been issued, I don't consider those reexamination requests -- unless they will be accompanied by more forceful and useful measures very soon -- a serious commitment to supporting Android app developers against trolls. If this is all that Google does, it's too little, too late, and calling it "half-hearted" would be an overstatement.

Apple, by contrast, has filed a motion to intervene in the cases. Apple, Google, Microsoft and others are already licensed under an agreement with previous patent holder, Intellectual Ventures. There was a theory that the Intellectual Ventures license might prevent Apple et al from trying to invalidate the patents, so either that's not the case or Google is going for it anyway.

Meanwhile, the whole situation continues to cost developers time, money, attention, and sanity. (Which is part of why this matters.

[Wired, FOSS Patents]

No sooner did Apple win a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany (which carries over to most of the rest of the EU), then they've gone and sued Motorola over the same trade dress/design infringement grounds for the XOOM tablet. (And a local German company called JAY-tech for good measure.)

It's generally considered a more noble, Zen-like achievement to grow your own line rather than cut the line of a competitor. Apple seems to think it's smart to do both. To innovate AND litigate, and unlike Microsoft, they don't seem to want to make Android more expensive -- they want to make it less usable.

It's clear that Apple is determined to assert its different intellectual property rights -- hardware patents, software patents, and design-related rights -- against Android device makers. While Apple appears to place particular emphasis on lawsuits over tablet computers in its European design-related lawsuits, I believe the reason is that a preliminary injunction can't be requested in Germany if the right holder has been aware of an infringement for too long. There isn't a clear statutory limit, but German lawyers usually discourage such motions unless they are filed within one month of finding out about an infringement. It's possible to get permanent injunctions even against older products, but for preliminary ones there must be a particular sense of urgency. It's possible that Apple has also been aware of the Xoom for too long to file for a preliminary injunction at this stage.

Preliminary injunctions seem easy to get, settlements usually harder to negotiate. We'll see what happens.

[FOSS Patents]

When patent troll Lodsys started suing App Store developers, Apple filed a motion to intervene on developers' behalf and, not surprisingly, Lodsys objected. So now Apple has doubled down, insisting on a hearing and answering all of Lodsys' objections. If the court sides with Apple, Lodsys won't be staring down rag tag legals teams of assorted sizes. They'll be stared down by Apple legal.

Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents outlines Apple's 6 areas of response, which he says "tears into pieces" Lodsys' arguments.

In today's reply brief, which I have uploaded to Scribd, Apple still requests a court hearing on its motion. Things may still take some more time, but there will be no more written pleadings unless the court asks the parties to address particular questions in more detail. At this stage it's possible that the court decides very quickly, and I continue to be reasonably optimistic that Apple's motion will be granted.

By contrast, despite a blog post rant against Apple and Microsoft last week, Google still remains utterly and depressingly silent when it comes to Android developers being sued by Lodsys.

Read the full breakdown via the link below.

[FOSS Patents]

Paul Thurrott of Windows Super Site is never one to let a good piece of anti-Apple link bait go by, but this time he's turned his attention towards Google's Android, and how Google "dumping" it on the market for free could be a greater anticompetitive act than Microsoft or Apple patent litigation.

Arguably, by "dumping" Android in the market at no cost, Google--which has unlimited cash and can afford to do such a thing--is behaving in an anticompetitive fashion. In fact, one could argue that Google is using its dominance in search advertising to unfairly gain entry into another market by giving that new product, Android, away for free. Does this remind you of any famous antitrust case?

From which, 10 years later, Microsoft is arguably still reeling. Thurrott's point, and it's worth noting, is that no one is innocent here.

John Gruber of Daring Fireball raises a similar point.

Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively. But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates? How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold? And, let’s not forget, give Android away for free.

Which Gruber boils down to hypocrisy, a theme increasingly present in Google coverage.

Which is not to say Google is doing anything different than any other public company seeing to it's own self-interests (and I'll repeat -- any company sufficiently large is indistinguishable from evil). It's just that Google feels so smug about it right now, which is ironic given smugness is usually a quality ascribed to Apple.

In Apple's case, the smugness comes from their sense that they know better than us, that they have better taste, and that we'll take what they tell us to take. In Google's case, however, the smugness now seems to come from a feeling that they think we're too dumb to see the hypocrisy. It's as if they think they can shout "open" and "free" and not actually be open or free (or be open and free on the backs of manufacturers and developers), and everyone from FOSS faithful to Google fanatics will rally to support them, no questions asked. It's as if they think they can shout "un-fair" and "anti-competitive" when faced with trademark and patent litigation from authors and rivals, while continuing to file their own trademarks and patents.

But user trust is a currency and a finite one. You can't spend more than you earn. It's not our job to blindly support companies; it's their job to support us.

That's a lesson Apple's learned painfully with everything from MobileMe to Steve Jobs' health to location-gate and antenna-gate. It will be interesting to see how Google learns it and addresses it.

[WinSuperSite, Daring Fireball]

Microsoft General Council, Brad Smith tweeted out a response today to Google's open letter on an alleged anti-Android patent conspiracy, basically calling shenanigans on their whole patent conspiracy act:

Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no.

Which makes very little sense, given how angry Google reportedly was about not winning the bidding (regardless of the silly way they went about it), and their interest in having the DoJ investigate Microsoft, Apple, et. al on anti-competiveness grounds.

Jon Fingas at Electronista hypothesizes that:

His remarks if accurate imply that the bidding group, which named itself Rockstar BidCo and also included companies like RIM and Sony, is primarily intended as a defensive mechanism to prevent lawsuits from patent trolls and other, usually smaller firms from suing anyone involved in the coalition. Many have presumed that the group was united with the aim of further suing Google and slowing down the adoption of Android.

UPDATE: Frank X. Shaw, from Microsoft Communications has posted a copy of the email to Brad Smith of Microsoft from Kent Walker, Google's General Counsel. Along with this sharply worded tweet:

Free advice for David Drummond – next time check with Kent Walker before you blog. http://t.co/PfKle9H

[@BradSmi via Electronista, @xfshaw via WPCentral]

Google SVP and Senior Legal Officer, David Drummond has blogged about the recent trouble Google and their manufacturing partners have had over patents with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle.

Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.

He also complained about Apple and Microsoft teaming up to out-bid Google for Novell and Nortel patents and calls for a Justice Department investigation into anti-competitive behavior while at the same time indicating Google would beef up their own patent portfolio.

He didn't seem to indicate Google would be filing to intervene in the Lodsys lawsuits against developers, which Apple has done. With Samsung delaying the launch of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia due to litigation with Apple, and HTC paying Microsoft $5 per Android handset in licensing fees, Google does have a lot to worry about.

While Android is fast approaching majority share of the smartphone market, Apple enjoys 66% of the profits, and as we've said before, while Apple seems content at making Android uglier, Microsoft wants to make an already less-profitable Android platform even costlier.

We called our most recent podcast with FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller, World War Patents for a reason, and it seems the battles are just beginning.

[Google Blog via Android Central]

The US Patent and Trademark office just published fourteen new patents recently awarded to Apple. Among them are design patents for the MacBook Air, iPhone 3G, Apple remote, their battery charger design, and many more.

Considering Apple recently sued Samsung for copying the iPhone and iOS look and feel, these patents could end up with many other manufacturers in court. Lots of notebooks have recently mimicked the design of the MacBook Air or other variations of the MacBook line. None of the patents seem too design specific. If Apple has the ability to sue based on the overall appearance and design, I definitely think we'll see more lawsuits springing up sooner rather than later.

Patently Apple

Lodsys, the troll previously suing independent iOS and Android developers for infringing on a fax-machine era patent they claim covers in-app transactions such as upgrades and upsells, has now modified the suit to go after Angry Birds developer Rovio, SIMS developer Electronic Arts, Atari, Final Fantasy maker Square Enix, and 2K sports developer Take-Two Interactive. That takes the number of developers involved in the suit from 7 to 11.

FOSSPatents points out that this might mean:

• Lodsys isn't afraid to go after "deep pocket" developers.
• Is content targeting Android as well as iOS
• Isn't intimidated in the least by Apple legal
• Due to their existing licenses, Apple and Google might be precluded from trying to invalidate Lodsys' patents as a means of interceding.

Apple is still trying to intervene based on patent exhaustion, though that may or may not prove successful. Some developers, meanwhile, have removed their apps from the US App Store to avoid any potential suits.

For more, listen to our special edition iPhone Live 160: World War Patents.

[FOSS Patents]

An administrative judge at the International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued an initial determination that HTC is infringing on 2 Apple patents, which -- in a worst case scenario -- could result in an import ban of iPhone-competing HTC Android smartphones. HTC's stock has taken a hit since the ruling, obviously, but it's important to remember it's an initial ruling and a lot can change between now and any final decision, including an agreement between HTC and Apple, similar to HTC's existing agreement with Microsoft.

Florian Mueller from FOSS Patents doesn't think that's likely, however.

For Apple this is not just about money. They're not going to let HTC build fully functional smartphones and tablets in exchange for $10 or $20 per device unless HTC owns patents that Apple absolutely needs to license.

It's a fallacy to assume that Apple v. HTC is just the usual patent dispute between two large players, and therefore going to have the same kind of happy end. This one is different. From a shareholder value point of view, what Apple needs to achieve -- even if it costs a lot of time and money -- is as much of a technological gap as possible between its own products and the Android-based products offered by HTC and other vendors.

In other words, as Florian discussed in our World War Patents podcast, while Microsoft seems to want to make Android more expensive (through licensing fees), Apple wants to make it less usable.

HTC meanwhile, could be fighting back using a company called S3 as a proxy. HTC's chairwoman is a major S3 shareholder, but S3 has to do what's best for S3 and that could end up being a licensing agreement with Apple that doesn't end up providing any cover for HTC.

I could imagine a situation in which Apple might agree on a partial cross-license that would grant Apple access to all of HTC's and S3's patents while HTC would get access to only some of Apple's patents: maybe just enough so that HTC can at least continue to sell Android-based products of some kind, but those products could be limited and there might be substantial degradations of the user experience.

Google, for their part, is continuing it's terrifying silence on all things patent related, including a remarkable non-answer by Larry Page during the latest financial results conference call. This probably means they're either playing their cards very close to their ninja vests, or they're just not concerned with how this might play out, including the unlikely possibility of HTC switching to Windows Phone exclusively, just to avoid any more patent-related headaches.

Check the link below for Florian's full rundown and his excellent "battlemap" visualization of the dispute.

[FOSSPatents]

As expected Lodsys was but the first highly publicized patent troll to try its hand at getting licensing fees from small, independent iOS developers, and as more come creeping out of the woodwork, some international devs are considering leaving the US App Store to avoid the costs and potential legal nightmares.

Simon Maddox on Twitter:

All my apps removed from US app stores (all platforms). 0.575% of total revenue put in a spare bank account. Screw you, Lodsys.

While leaving the US market now may not prevent claims of past infringement, it certainly shows the increasing frustration experienced by developers whose livelihoods are threatened by an increasingly incomprehensible and irreconcilable system. Basic concepts of patent law, like obviousness and prior art, seem not longer to be consider when patents are granted, only when they're litigated. Expensively.

Florian Mueller on FOSS Patents:

The patent troll problem gets worse by the day, and it's turning into a think-global-sue-local business. Today, an Indian company named Kootol distributed a press release announcing that it sent "a notice" to a long list of companies large and small, claiming that they sell products and operate services on which a patent application pending in different jurisdictions around the globe reads.

At what point will Apple (and Google, among others) have to step up and offer support, perhaps even indemnification for code included in their SDK, or bend their billions towards reasonable patent reform in the US, or face the decimation of the app ecosystems that are at the heart of their collective mobile profit centers?

[@simonmaddox via The Guardian, FOSS Patents]

There have been a few interesting developments lately in Apple's ongoing patent disputes with HTC and Samsung, and a switch up inside their own legal team. First, Reuters reports that Richard "Chip" Lutton Junior, the man who was responsible for managing Apple's patent portfolio, is no longer with the company. Now, BJ Watrous, former deputy council for HP, is lists himself as the new guardian of iPhone, iPad, and Mac IP.

Lutton's voicemail was still set up at Apple on Monday, but he will be leaving Apple soon, perhaps in the next month, said the source familiar with the situation. Watrous was deputy general counsel at Hewlett-Packard in charge of IP licensing. An HP spokesman declined to comment. Apple's intellectual property team has been on a hiring spree lately, snapping up litigation specialist Noreen Krall from Sun Microsystems.

Meanwhile Samsung, whom Apple has sued for being a "copyist", thinks just one lawyer leaving isn't enough and, according to FOSS Patents now wants Apple's external lawyers disqualified over purported conflicts of interest.

Samsung's motion is 20 pages long. The gist of it is that Samsung wants the recently-founded law firm of Bridges & Mavrakakis barred from the case because at least five of its lawyers -- including one of its founders, Kenneth Bridges -- previously represented Samsung while they were with another firm, Kirkland & Ellis. Samsung then goes on to argue that this fact "taints all attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis through imputation". But not enough: Samsung additionally demands that Apple's two other law firms involved with this federal lawsuit (Morrison & Foerster and Wilmer Hale) "provide affidavits confirming they have not received any Samsung confidential information from attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis" while those firms were coordinating Apple's representation so far or, absent such assurance, be disqualified as well.

Apple's outside counsel, of course, deny any such conflict.

Lastly, a couple more salvos have been fired in the ongoing Apple vs. HTC dispute, with Apple filing a asking the International Trade Commission (ITC) to ban imports of HTC devices... again. The devices targeted this time are the HTC Droid Incredible, Droid Incredible 2, Wildfire, T-Mobile mytouch 3G, T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide, T-Mobile G1, T-Mobile G2, Evo 4G, Aria, Desire, Hero, Merge, Inspire 4G, Evo 4G, Thunderbolt, Thunderbolt 4G, and the HTC Flyer tablet. Apple's goal might be to get those new devices into litigation, and bring new patent infringement charges along with them. HTC was nonplussed.

"HTC is disappointed at Apple's constant attempts at litigations instead of competing fairly in the market," said HTC general counsel Grace Lei in a statement. "HTC strongly denies all infringement claims raised by Apple in the past and present and reiterates our determination and commitment to protect our intellectual property right."

For more on all of this, check out our special edition iPhone Live podcast from Saturday, World War Patents with guest Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

(And yes, I still think Judge Judy should be given juris-her-diction over all Apple and Android patent lawsuits. For our sake.)

[Reuters, FOSS Patents, AFP]

Florian Mueller from FOSS Patents has put up a heart-breaking yet pragmatic set of recommendations for developers on how to cost-effectively deal with Lodsys and other patent trolls who target small, independent app makers. (If you're a mega corporation with billions of dollars in the war chest this obviously doesn't apply to you.) While Apple has filed a motion to intervene, there's no guarantees that it'll work, and it's unknown what, if any, support they're providing iOS developers beyond that. Google has yet to do or say anything, leaving Android developers entirely in the lurch. So...

1. Get legal counsel
2. Keep legal counsel on a tight leash: finding out what, if any coverage Apple or Google will provide you, and potentially working out the licensing agreement with Lodsys (or other patent troll)
3. Pooling resources and sharing legal fees with other developers, where there's overlap and it makes sense
4. Patent litigation is incredibly expensive
5. Future patent trolls may show up, Lodsys is the problem now.

Mueller breaks it down in a lot of detail and sites a lot of examples, so if this is an area of particular concern, hit the link below and start reading.

[FOSS Patents]

Some more information has come to light about the Nortel patent auction, which saw a consortium that included Apple win big, and Google get frozen out. According to Reuters, however, Google had some fun along the way:

"It became clear that they were bidding with the distance between the earth and the sun. One was the sum of a famous mathematical constant, and then when it got to $3 billion, they bid pi," the source said, adding the bid was $3.14159 billion.

"Either they were supremely confident or they were bored."

Brun's and Meissel-Mertens constants aside, it came down the the Apple "Rockstar" team, which included RIM, Microsoft, and others, and Google's Rangers. Google stayed in until the price rose above $4 billion. While they won't say much on the record, Google is privately furious according to TechCrunch's MG Siegler. Compared to Apple and the other mobile platforms, Google has an incredibly weak mobile patent portfolio and, if the Nortel deal goes through, this puts them in an even more vulnerable position.

Robert Cringely thinks Google will try to stall the deal through litigation and anti-trust complaints, and while citing anonymous sources, says:

Apple put up $2 billion for outright ownership of Nortel’s Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android.

FOSSpatents reminded me that there's a hearing scheduled for July 11, and it's possible more solid information will become available at that time.

[Reuters, TechCrunch, Cringely, @asymco @FOSSpatents]

According to Reuters, a consortium of tech companies, including Apple, BlackBerry maker RIM, Microsoft, EMC, Sony, and Ericsson have won the auction to acquire Nortel's mammoth $4.5 billion dollar mobile patent portfolio. How much of that will come from Apple is currently unknown, though RIM is on the line for $770 million and Ericsson, $340 million. The companies are expected to pool the patents and use them both to protect against patent lawsuits and, of course, launch lawsuits of their own.

The patents cover "wireless, wireless 4G, data networking, optical, voice, Internet and semiconductor technologies", with the LTE 4G patents expected to become extremely valuable as networks and devices are upgraded to that standard.

If you noticed one major mobile company conspicuous by their absence, you're not alone. Google appears not to have been part of the winning bid, which is perplexing since, as a new entrant in mobile, they have one of the weakest existing patent portfolios.

"Google lost an unprecedented opportunity to acquire a major bargaining chip that would strengthen it at the mobile industry's intellectual property negotiating table."

"I'm afraid it won't get a similar opportunity in quantitative and qualitative terms any time soon."

Android manufacturers are already paying Microsoft licensing fees for Android, and are being sued by Apple. Android developers are being sued by Lodsys and while Apple has filed to intervene in the iOS-related lawsuits, Google is still missing in action.

What that means going forward is hard to say, but manufacturer and developer confidence is part of the currency of any platform and it needs to be invested in and protected.

[Reuters]

Just because Apple files for a patent doesn't mean we'll ever see an Apple product using or based on that patent. Just because Apple is granted a patent doesn't mean we'll ever see an Apple product using or based on that patent. It certainly doesn't mean every patent filing deserves a "...for the next iPhone!" or "...in the next iPad!" headline. We've been just as guilty of that at TiPb as anyone, so I'm certainly not jumping on a soapbox here. (I'm slumping against the side of it in exhaustion.)

Apple, like any large corporation, patents everything they can just a) in case they want to use it one day, b) to preserve the idea in case someone else patents or implements it, and c) so it can go into their patent war chest for current and future litigation.

They're fun to look at, to be sure. They're interesting insight into what's going on in Apple's labs, beyond question. But they're very poor indicators of what Apple will be doing in the next iPhone, iPad, or product in general. Primarily, because Apple is secretive and they're not going to let anything get published that spoils the next big product reveal or tips their hand in any way. Either they'll wait until after release to file, or implementations will come long after filings that have since been lost amid hundreds and thousands of others.

So TiPb will still be covering Apple patents in the context of "interesting ideas from Cupertino" and "future of technology" pieces, but we won't be investing any "next iPhone" or "next iPad" hype into them, or casting the content of them as news.

Because that's not what they are.

Update: Shawn King beat me to it. [Loop]

Apple has upped the stakes in their look-and-feel "copy cat" lawsuit against Samsung, taking the complaint from 38 to 63 pages, and now accusing Samsung of "products that blatantly imitate the appearance of Apple's products to capitalize on Apple's success." According to FOSS Patents, Apple goes so far as to quote the media to help set up its case:

The copying has been widely observed in the industry and has been mentioned in multiple articles reviewing Samsung products. For example, a writer for Wired wrote that Samsung's "Vibrant's industrial design is shockingly similar to the iPhone 3G." [...] "First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design." Another Wired writer wrote, "[L]et's settle one of the biggest arguments surrounding this phone. Yes, the Vibrant closely resembles a certain best-selling smartphone." [...] "Samsung Vibrant Looks Like an iPhone, Has Battery Life to Match." [...]

[A] Business Insider review of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 stated that, "[f]rom the front, it looks like an iPad." [...]

A recent CNET reviewer remarked: "Taking another page from the iPad 2's school of sexy tablet building, the 10.1 has one of the cleanest designs we've seen on a tablet. [...]"

[Fast Company:] "Samsung’s Anti-iPad 2 Policy" – "[To] Clone the Heck Out of It"

While the original complaint listed the the Samsung Captivate, Continuum, Vibrant, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G, Indulge, Mesmerize, Showcase, Fascinate, Nexus S, Gem, Transform, Intercept, and Acclaim smart phones and the Samsung Galaxy Tab tablet, the amended complaint adds Droid Charge, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000), Gravity, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, Sidekick, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy S II (aka Galaxy S 2), Showcase i500 and Showcase Galaxy S. (For more on those devices, see our sibling site Android Central)

Says Florian Mueller:

In the very near term, Apple will have to decide on whether to request a preliminary injunction. Like I said further above, that's reasonably likely. If the court appeared to give serious consideration to this measure, it could put enormous pressure on Samsung and greatly increase the likelihood of a near-term settlement in Apple's favor. But this can also become another epic battle like the one between Apple and Nokia...

Samsung remains the manufacturer of many key components for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.

[FOSS Patents]

Even though Apple has now filed a motion to intervene, Patrick T. Igoe, Esq., writing for Groklaw, gives his opinion on how developers should deal with a lodsys patent claim made against the iPhone or iPad app (or Android, or other platform).

1. Read the patent, not the blogs. He questions how well the actual patent has been reported to date.
2. Focus on the claims. He's not convinced Lodsys' patent covers what they allege it does.
3. Question the claim chart. He thinks Lodsys is cherry-picking.
4. Consider an active defense. He thinks Lodsys' business model is ripe for disruption, namely:

However, if transaction costs rise through legitimate defenses or declaratory judgment actions, the business model is strained. Lodsys needs developers to think it is cheaper to settle than it is to fight. Developers should consider, however, whether filing a declaratory judgment action in their own district might have the possibility of creating a less costly and more satisfying resolution. With a declaratory judgment action, it is Lodsys that is faced with a dilemma. For a small or medium sized target, it may be more economically sensible for Lodsys to drop the demand for the small licensing fee even if they somehow feel they could win. It may be especially compelling if major weaknesses are identified in the infringement case, as I believe they could be here.

He also stresses you should talk to an attorney. (Of course.)

[Groklaw via @chronic]

It looks as though Nokia and Apple have finally come to an agreement over the lawsuit they have been involved in since late 2009, with Apple agreeing to pay licensing fees for key Nokia patents. Originally, Nokia claimed that Apple had infringed on almost two dozen of their patents for mobile technologies. Apple argued that Nokia was demanding "unfair" licensing fees and didn't want to pay more than other companies licensing the same technology, then counter sued for UI and computer-related patents. Complaints flew back and forth, and now the end result of the lawsuit was that Apple has to pay Nokia a lump some of of cash on top of royalties for the term of the agreement with Nokia.

The financial structure of the agreement consists of a one-time payment payable by Apple and on-going royalties to be paid by Apple to Nokia for the term of the agreement. The specific terms of the contract are confidential.

"We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees," said Stephen Elop, president and chief executive officer of Nokia. "This settlement demonstrates Nokia's industry leading patent portfolio and enables us to focus on further licensing opportunities in the mobile communications market."

Apple having to pay Nokia was never really in question. The argument was over how much. Nokia's patents were in a pool that was supposed to be freely and fairly licensed to everyone. Apple felt Nokia was violating the letter and spirit of that by asking more of Apple. Whether or not Apple eventually got the same terms as other licensees, or whether they did have to pay up more, is still a question.

Apple also remains in litigation with the three top Android makers, HTC, Samsung, and Motorola. For now, Nokia is no longer in litigation with anyone.

UPDATE: Apple has issued a statement to the New York Times [NYT]:

“Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other’s patents, but not the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique,” Apple said. “We are glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.”

[Nokia via FossPatents]

Lodsys has decided to ignore Apple's strongly worded demand they cease harassing iOS developers, and instead decided to file suit against 7 of them, including Combay Inc. (Mega Poker Online Texas Holdem), Iconfactory (Twitterrific), Illusion Labs (Labyrinth), Shovelmate (69 Positions), Quickoffice, Richard Shinderman (Hearts), Wulven Games (Shadow Era). Says Lodsys:

Apple and Lodsys were in confidential discussions and there was clearly disagreement on the interpretation of the license terms of Apple’s agreement. Before, during and after these interactions, Lodsys has carefully considered this issue and consulted several legal experts to consider Apple’s claims. We stand firm and restate our previous position that it is the 3rd party Developers that are responsible for the infringement of Lodsys’ patents and they are responsible for securing the rights for their applications. Developers relying on Apple’s letter do so to their own detriment and are strongly urged to review Apple’s own developer agreements to determine the true extent of Apple’s responsibilities to them.

In a private communication, simultaneous to this posting, Lodsys has sent a detailed legal position on the license interpretation issue, in writing to Apple that has been previously only verbally communicated. Apple has our permission to publish that letter, in its entirety, should developers wish to review our dispute and evaluate the risks with their own counsel. While we have nothing to hide, we cannot unilaterally publish the letter because it refers to information that was obtained with an obligation of confidentiality to Apple and we do not have their permission to do so.

They've also promised $1000 to each developer if they're in the wrong. Says Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents:

Obviously, $1,000 is not much to gain considering that even an initial analysis of a patent assertion letter by a qualified attorney will typically cost much more than $1,000. And a lawsuit can cost millions. However, the fact that Lodsys publishes such a promise shows that it really doesn't believe in Apple's representations (concerning the scope of the license) at all.

The ball is now back in Apple's (and Google's, as one developer is being sued for the Android version of his app as well). Will they indemnify developers, offer to take on the litigation on their behalf, counter sue Lodsys to invalidate the patent, or all or none of the above?

[Lodsys, FOSS Patents]

According to The Loop, Apple has sent a letter to patent holder Lodsys, asking them to stop threatening iOS developers with patent infringement letters.

“Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patents and the App Makers are protected by that license,” wrote Bruce Sewell, Apple Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

Best smiting since Gandalf cast the Balrog's ruin upon the mountainside?

[The Loop]

UPDATE: Macworld has the full text of Apple's response letter. Here are some good bits. [Macworld]

Because I believe that your letters are based on a fundamental misapprehension regarding Apple’s license and the way Apple’s products work, I expect that the additional information set out below will be sufficient for you to withdraw your outstanding threats to the App Makers and cease and desist from any further threats to Apple’s customers and partners.

Through its threatened infringement claims against users of Apple’s licensed technology, Lodsys is invoking patent law to control the post-sale use of these licensed products and methods. Because Lodsys’s threats are based on the purchase or use of Apple products and services licensed under the Agreement, and because those Apple products and services, under the reading articulated in your letters, entirely or substantially embody each of Lodsys’s patents, Lodsys’s threatened claims are barred by the doctrines of patent exhaustion and first sale. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[t]he authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder’s rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008).

Therefore, Apple requests that Lodsys immediately withdraw all notice letters sent to Apple App Makers and cease its false assertions that the App Makers’ use of licensed Apple products and services in any way constitute infringement of any Lodsys patent.

UPDATE 2: FOSS Patents weighs in with Florian Mueller's analysis [FOSS Patents]

I don't mean to be negative here. I just want to make all app developers fully aware of the issues they may still face. Since Lodsys is already suing a group of large players, which is collectively even more powerful than Apple, it would be irresponsibly optimistic to assume that Apple's letter all by itself is going to make Lodsys give up. Unless Apple settles the deal with Lodsys (neither the terms of such a deal nor the mere fact might ever be announced -- Lodsys might simply never follow up on its original infringement assertions), there will be some next step in this process, and things could still get nasty. So let's be optimistic today, but let's also be cautious.

UPDATE 3: Nilay Patel offers his thoughts as well [This is my Next]

The big question now is whether Lodsys is willing to take Apple to court in order to challenge that license interpretation; Lodsys would be fairly foolish to have not considered exactly this situation when they formulated their business plan. We’ll see what happens, but for the moment things have taken a promising turn.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has called on Apple to be developers' knight in shining armor in face of threats from patent trolls. As TiPb covered in our special edition iPhone Live podcast with FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller, iOS developers including James Thomson of PCalc and the Iconfactory, makers of Twitterrific have received letters from patent holding company, Lodsys, asking for licensing fees for the use of in-app purchases for in-app upgrades. The EFF sees that position as untenable:

This is a problem that lawyers call a misallocation of burden. The law generally works to ensure that the party in the best position to address an issue bears the responsibility of handling that issue. In the copyright context, for example, the default assumption is that the copyright owners are best positioned to identify potential infringement. This is because, among other reasons, copyright owners know what content they own and which of their works have been licensed. Here, absent protection from Apple, developers hoping to avoid a legal dispute must investigate each of the technologies that Apple provides to make sure none of them is patent-infringing. For many small developers, this requirement, combined with a 30 percent fee to Apple, is an unacceptable cost. Even careful developers who hire lawyers to do full-scale patent searches on potential apps surely would not expect to investigate the technology that Apple provides. Instead, they would expect (with good reason) that Apple wouldn't provide technologies in its App Store that open its developers up to liability – and/or would at least agree to defend them when a troll like Lodsys comes along.

The golden bullet would be indemnification by Apple for any use of the SDK, but given Apple's inability to predict every contingency a developer could come up with, that may not be realistic for a public company. Neither is hoping patent holding companies will restrict their demands to deep pockets, or that the system itself gets overhauled in anything approaching a reasonable time frame.

What's left for developers to do?

[EFF via Daring Fireball]

• Our podcast feed
• Download Directly
• Subscribe via iTunes

Rene Ritchie and special guest Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents discuss the situation and climate of uncertainty surrounding Lodsys threatening iPhone and iPad developers with patent infringement. What's happening, what options developers have, whether or not Apple will get involved, and what could come next. This is a special edition of iPhone Live!

Read on for show notes...

Previously on TiPb

• iOS developers being threatened with patent infringement over in-app purchase system [Updated]
• Lodsys “responds and clarifies” their patent threats against iPhone, iPad developers
• What developers need to know about Lodsys and similar patent threats

Hosts

• Rene Ritchie (@reneritchie)
• Florian Mueller (@FOSSpatents)

Credits

Thanks to the TiPb iPhone accessory store for sponsoring the podcast, and to everyone who showed up for the live chat!

Our music comes from the following sources:

• I Called You -- iPhone Remix by Pete Leidy
via Sneakmove iPhone Ringtone Challenge

FOSS Patents has put together an excellent write up on what iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad developers need to know about patent litigation threats, like those Lodsys began making last week against apps like PCalc and expanded upon today, sending letters to Icon Factory among others.

Lodsys has explained their side of the argument, and according to The Guardian, Apple's legal department is actively investigating the situation. But to be clear Lodsys is just an example -- there are many, many patents floating out there and many companies assembling portfolios with perhaps the exact same intentions.

While users shouldn't be worried about patent companies suing anyone for using apps, users should be worried that it could become prohibitively expensive to produce the apps users if every holding company under the sun suddenly wants a cut of every app in the App Store. (Insert your own "first they came for PCalc's upgrade button, then they came for..." cautionary cliché here.)

Read the entire breakdown via the link below, it's a good one.

[FOSS Patents, The Guardian]

Lodsys, the company threatening to sue iPhone and iPad developers for infringing on in-app purchasing patents, has put up a series of blog posts in order to "respond and clarify" their position. For example, why are they going after small, independent iOS developers?

The economic gains provided by the Lodsys inventions (increase in revenue through additional sales, or decrease in costs to service the customer) are being enjoyed by the business that provides the product or service that interacts with the user. Since Lodsys patent rights are of value to that overall solution, it is only fair to get paid by the party that is accountable for the entire solution and which captures the value (rather than a technology supplier or a retailer).

Why aren't they going after Apple?

Apple is licensed for its nameplate products and services.

As are Microsoft and Google, apparently, though none of them are licensed to pass on those services to 3rd parties.

So for those who don't speak patent blog, here's the bottom line:

Lodsys is going after iPhone and iPad apps because they can (they bought the rights to these patents), and they don't want to leave any money on the table. Even tiny iOS developer tables.

[Lodsys blog, thanks @jhoove09!]

Developer James Thomson reported on Twitter this morning that he's been threatened with patent infringement for his use of in-app purchases in PCalc Lite.

Just got hit by very worrying threat of patent infringement lawsuit for using in-app purchase in PCalc Lite. Legal docs arrived via fedex.

No idea what to do... They seem to be effectively claiming the rights to in-app purchase, but going after me, not Apple.

Talking to Apple now, may go quiet on this for the short term until I know what's happening.

So, have talked to Apple contact - currently scanning everything in to send. Sorry folks, no PCalc 2.4 happening today.

To be clear, I haven't been sued yet - I've been told that I am infringing their patent, they want me to license it, and I have 21 days.

Thomson isn't the lone target of these threats, his UK timezone might just have gotten them to him sooner. Already Patrick McCarron has reported the same thing.

Anyone else get a patent threat via FedEx for in-app purchase use in their iOS app? So far @jamesthomson and I got hit.

I can now check off being threatened by a patent troll off my bucket list.

There are likely other developers who simply haven't chosen to come forward yet. If you've gotten a FedEx patent threat today, let us know.

UPDATE: The company claiming infringement is Lodsys and they seem to be targeting iOS apps that have free/lite versions and full versions, and link to or allow updating within app from free/lite to full. Rob Gloess of Computer LogicX was hit yesterday [MacRumors]

Our app, Mix & Mash, has the common model of a limited free, lite, version and a full version that contains all the features. We were told that the button that users click on to upgrade the app, or rather link to the full version on the app store was in breach of US patent no 7222078, we couldn't believe it, the upgrade button!?!

UPDATE 2: Apparently, according to the iOS SDK license, developers are not allowed to settle these kinds of lawsuits. [TidBITS]

In no event may You enter into any settlement or like agreement with a third party that affects Apple’s rights or binds Apple in any way, without the prior written consent of Apple.

[@jamestomson, @McCarron]

The latest patent filed by Apple shows a possible Ping-like social networking tool for the retail shopping world. It would allow for iPhone owners to share comments, opinions and recommendations for different products from different stores for their friends to view. Like any patent there's no telling when, if ever, this particular one will find its way into a real, shipping product, but it does hive us a glimpse at what Apple is working on.

Basically what it would entail is using your iPhone while shopping to gain product lists from a kiosk located inside the store. Those products and any information about them would be viewable in the proposed social networking app. Once you view a product you could ask your friends their opinions on the item to help you decide if you should make the purchase or hold off for the time being. Your friends can rate, review, or check yes or no for the products you share.

Apple feels it is a lot of work trying to coordinate shopping with friends or gaining the attention of a salesclerk. Personally I think I can handle shopping for myself but what about you? Do you need Apple's help in deciding what to buy in the form of yet another social network?

[ Apple Insider ]

According to Reuters Apple and Google might be in a battle for the once mighty Nortel Networks patent portfolio, an acquisition that could help either of the two companies gain an edge in the mobile industry.

Nortel filed bankruptcy back in January of 2009 and the vast majority of their business has been sold off with the exception of their large number of patents that could aide in the improvements of mobile communications. There is said to be over 4,000 patents with a suspected value of around $1 billion and sources are saying Apple and Google both want a piece of these patents to protect themselves from giants such as Nokia in the courtroom.

There has been one round of bidding on those patents, this has been completed, said one source, who declined to be identified because the process is private. And what Nortel has done is divide the patents up into different lots covering different kinds of technologies.

The big draw for Apple and Google mainly seems to lie with Nortel's patents on third and fourth generation wireless technology which include the coveted LTE (Long Term Evolution). Other patents that would greatly aide in either companys future include patents for wireless handsets and infrastructure, as well as optical and data networking, Internet, Internet advertising, voice and personal computers.

It is certainly a very significant stockpile of potent weaponry, and whoever lays their hands on it is going to gain significant advantage, said Alexander Poltorak, chief executive of General Patent Corp, which advises companies on intellectual property strategy and valuation but is not advising anyone involved in the Nortel patent auction.

Bids for these patents are due within the next few weeks and it will be interesting to see if either one of these giants companies ends up walking away with these patents in their hands. Can either company afford to allow the other to gain all of these seemingly important patents or might they both wind up maybe splitting some of the patents? We will have to wait and see what unfolds and hopefully whoever wins these patents will make good use of them and improve devices and operating systems for all of us consumers to enjoy.

[ Reuters via MacRumors ]

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has dropped the patent suit hammer on Apple, Google, Facebook, AOL, eBay, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube, accusing them of violating his lab's innovations in internet commerce. According to the Wall Street Journal:

For Mr. Allen, the lawsuit marks new terrain. He is aggressively going after companies, including many of Silicon Valley's biggest names, that he thinks are violating technology that was developed at his Interval Research Corp., a Palo Alto, Calif., lab and technology incubator he financed with about $100 million during the Internet bubble.

Here are the patents in question:

• Patent #507 “Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data.”
• Patent #657 “Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device.”
• Patent #314 “Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device.”
• Patent #682 “Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest.”

Google has responded with:

“This lawsuit against some of America’s most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace. Innovation — not litigation — is the way to bring to market the kinds of products and services that benefit millions of people around the world.”

And Facebook says:

We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously

What do you think, pure patent trolling or does Paul Allen deserve compensation?

[Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch]

Apple has begun filing patent applications for 1st party (i.e. Apple produced) iOS apps that include screen drawings of well known 3rd party (i.e. independently produced by developers for the App Store) apps.

Is Apple trying to steal the hard work and shatter the good will of App Store developers? Is Apple merely showing how App Store apps could hook into future Apple apps/hubs? Is it something in between?

Let's take a look after the break...

[Venomous Porridge, Thanks Dev for the tip!]

Venomous Porridge originally posted the image up to and this commentary:

one of the diagrams in Apple’s patent application for a travel app is a direct copy, down to the text and the positions of the icons, of an existing third-party app that’s been available on the App Store for years.

I can’t see how this is even close to OK.

The image is chilling for developers, especially since it doesn't appear like Apple contacted them to let them know they were using it, and doesn't appear to really explain the context of the usage in the application. That Apple would use an exact rendering of an existing app, when they could easily make their own, far more defensible artwork, is curious. That they show it clearly labeled as "Where To?" is more than curious.

FutureTap, the makers of Where To? said they did not have any deals in place with Apple for the patent and posted the following:

We’re faced with a situation where we’ve to fear that our primary business partner is trying to “steal” our idea and design. So how to deal with that? — As some of you know, we’ve always been more than grateful for the platform Apple created. And, in fact, still are. However, we can’t ignore it if the #1 recognition value of our (currently) only app potentially is under fire.

This is where a lot of coverage has ended to date. A few excellent comments have kept it moving forward, however. Macro Arment of Tumblr and Instapaper added:

Is it possible that Where To is being intentionally and innocently used as an example of a related app as an inconsequential portion of the much larger and more complex patented concept that wouldn’t interfere with it?

Brian Ford adds:

The other clue that this isn’t about an underhanded attempt to patent the Where To app is that various pictures showing several completely unrelated app designs are all used to describe this same patent. None of the other drawings are consistent.

Venomous Porridge subsequently updated with a second post

I think it’s more likely that the people involved in drawing up this patent simply didn’t think about the message it would send to developers. I’m sure it’s not Apple’s practice (or intention) to plunder the App Store submissions bin for new things to patent. But there remains a conflict of interest in Apple acting as the sole steward of the iOS software universe while also filing patents in areas that have long been staked out by third-party developers. If those developers suddenly get cold feet toward submitting innovative apps for fear of their ideas suddenly appearing in Apple’s patent filings, it will be hard to blame them.

Which is pretty much how this reads. Apple is the giant in their forest and sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally they'll step on the far, far smaller villagers who inhabit it. If enough villagers pick up torches and pitchforks and make enough noise, the Apple giant might pause, shrug, say "my bad" and be try to be more careful for a while, but it will always be the giant in their own forest.

It would behoove Apple none the less, especially since developer relations have been tense over the years, to try and create a preemptive strategy in terms of reaching out and assuaging developer fears. If they're going to include Where To? or other app screens in their patents, create a process where that's noted in draft and the developer is contacted and given context.

Ultimately it doesn't look like Apple is being evil here, just inconsiderate.

Patently Apple discovered a recently published Apple patent detailing an "Add Contact" workflow and "Social Networking" workflow that specifically uses Facebook as it's main example. Now that does not mean this patent will not work with other social networks, but Facebook is the current king of the mountain and it makes sense considering that it was just last week heard Apple was looking to integrate Facebook into iPhone OS 4.

With the deep integration of social networking sites on various Android-based devices Apple does have some catching up to do. We all know, when Apple takes their time the final product usually tops all other implementations out there. Cut/Copy/Paste ring a bell? Good things come to those who wait.

[Patently Apple]

HTC has just announced that they're counter-suing Apple for infringement, claiming Apple treads on 5 specific HTC patents.

“As the innovator of the original Windows Mobile PocketPC Phone Edition in 2002 and the first Android smartphone in 2008, HTC believes the industry should be driven by healthy competition and innovation that offer consumers the best, most accessible mobile experiences possible,” said Jason Mackenzie, vice president of North America, HTC Corporation. “We are taking this action against Apple to protect our intellectual property, our industry partners, and most importantly our customers that use HTC phones.”

Apple originally sued HTC for patent infringement on April 2, citing 20 patents in a move widely speculated to be directed towards Google's Android platform in general. HTC had since agreed to license patents from Microsoft -- counter-intuitively -- for Android, again speculated to me a move directed towards Google.

Just like the Nokia vs. Apple suit and counter-suit, these types of suits can take months if not years to resolve, especially in the still forming smartphone space.

[HTC via Android Central]

Nokia has just filed a second patent infringement suit against Apple, adding the iPad into the mix. The new suit covers:

five patents related to "enhanced speech and data transmission, using positioning data in applications and innovations in antenna configurations that improve performance and save space, allowing smaller and more compact devices." [...] by our count, Apple and Nokia now have some five pending legal actions between them, including one that's been placed on hold pending an ITC decision.

This one has been filed in a so-called "rocket-docket" which means, unlike previous suits, it could go to trial in less than a year.

Now we'll just sit back, grab some popcorn with our good friends over at NokiaExperts.com, and wait for Apple to counter-sue. Again.

[Engadget]

Big week for Apple patent pr0n, as in addition to getting a patent for the original 2007 iPhone 2G design, Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive, et al are not being granted a patent for the 2008/2009 iPhone 3G/iPhone 3GS design as well. And not content with hardware alone, Apple has filed for patents on almost all their Home Screen and App Store icons (we couldn't find Calendar, which means its either too generic or we just couldn't find it).

So fair warning to all the iClone manufacturers without prior art or $40 billion in the bank -- start visual differentiation plans now.

As to the icons, at almost 1000x1000 pixels and with detail to match, it shows just how obsessive Apple is when it comes to their products and while other OS and devices may use the same app-launcher paradigms, they don't seem to be slaving over every last detail -- in art, consistency, multitouch panel quality, and touch detection software quality -- Apple is putting in. Just amazing. (Except for those diagonal stripes).

Gallery after the break!

[Patently Apple, GoRumors via Engadget]

Apple has sued HTC for patent infringement with Android almost certainly being the target, now it turns out Microsoft believes Android also infringes on their patents and HTC has just paid up.

That means the free-as-in-Google smartphone OS isn't free anymore -- it's just Microsoft who's getting the money for it, and from the maker of the Nexus One, Desire, Legend, and Droid Incredible no less. That hurts Android.

How the deal affects HTC's position in the Apple patent infringement case, however, is unclear. If HTC can point to a licensed Microsoft patent for technology Apple claims HTC is infringing upon then that no doubt helps HTC and hurts Apple and the iPhone.

With Windows Phone 7 series fast approaching, it looks like Microsoft took the opportunity to get more than a little Sun Tzu on their smartphone rivals last night.

Now lets see how Google -- and Apple -- respond.

[CNET via Android Central]

While Apple vs. HTC is getting a ton of press this week (TiPb a culpa!) the New York Times blogs provides the above graph to show us it's just another strand in the growing web of mobile patent pugilism.

Although patent litigation is not new in the technology world, these suits, specifically around mobile, point to the drastically changing mobile landscape. Lawyers I spoke with explained that mobile technology was still in its infancy and these large computing companies were trying to stake their claim to the future of computing.

So far only Microsoft, Google, and Palm have remained uninvolved. (That's actually quite a list of prominent names, isn't it). Meanwhile:

Apple was sued by the Taiwanese company Elan Microelectronics over alleged infringement of touch-screen patents. Nokia went on a lawsuit spree, suing Apple, Samsung, LG and a variety of other mobile handset companies. Kodak sued several companies over patents related to the companies’ digital-imaging technology.

And, of course, the aforementioned Apple vs. HTC. Here's our question, and it's one we've asked before -- does it matter to consumers? Are we spectators watching Godzilla battle King Kong, or are we the city folks running for our lives as buildings drop around us?

While precious little new information is coming to light about Apple's just-announced lawsuit against HTC, a lot more specu-nalysis has been hitting the blogsphere, ranging from "Apple is seeking a cross-license to get HTC's patents" (shades of the accusations facing Nokia about their lawsuit against Apple), to "Steve Jobs feels personally betrayed by Eric Schmidt and is using HTC to get at Google's Android".

• Niley Patel over at Engadget has done his usual, spectacular job digging through the patents in question and surfacing what looks to be behind them. 10 are for US court, 10 for the ITC. He also points out that these lawsuits can be settled tomorrow or can drag out 10 years.

• Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo tackles the love affair and nasty breakup between Apple and Google, positing that after Apple made Google CEO Eric Schmidt a board member, and Google saw the iPhone dominating mobile web browsing, they "betrayed" Apple to try and seize that market for themselves. Having lost out to Microsoft in the Mac vs. Windows last-generation war, Giz thinks Apple has $40 billion ways to try and make sure the same doesn't happen to the iPhone in the upcoming next-generation mobile platform war.

• John Gruber, the Daring Fireball, repeats his "if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em" quip from when Nokia sued Apple, and thinks Apple is making a "terrible mistake" suing HTC. He also despises the idea of UI patents.

• Erick Schonfeld of TechCrunch think Apple is suing HTC for the same reason Nokia sued Apple: to get a cross-license on patents. What could HTC have that Apple would want? (Aside from 480p screens, but it's mostly TiPb who wants those...!)

• Our own editor-in-chief Dieter Bohn, writing for PreCentral.net, thinks that if Apple is engaged now with Nokia and HTC -- who have significant patent portfolios all their own -- maybe the threat of mutually assured destruction is no longer enough to keep Palm out of the patent pugilism. That does raise the question of who is next?

The US Patent Office seems to be granting everything up to and including Facebook's recent win for ridiculously broad "the feed". So we're guessing we'll be seeing more rather than less of these lawsuits as time goes on (unless there's some unlikely software patent-shaking decision spillover from the Supreme Court over Bilsky...)

For most of us, however, just like Nokia vs. Apple, it will remain a spectator sport. About all we can do is pass the patent popcorn and watch. First round no-contest, or 10 slobberknocker, we'll have to wait and see...

Previously, on Patent Wars, Nokia escalated their lawsuit against Apple by requesting a US import ban on virtually every product Apple makes with the International Trade Commission (ITC), and now Apple has responded in kind against Nokia phones.

Yes, phasers and disruptor fire is criss-crossing the legal heavens and photon torpedos are exploding in the silence of judicial space.

We could joke that Apple has more to lose here, since their products are far more popular in the US than Nokia phones are, but again this is just what giant electronics companies with billion-dollar legal war chests do. It's "negotiations", and we hope all the lawyers enjoy the new unibody aluminum Ferraris they'll be getting out of this.

[Bloomberg via Engadget]

Engadget confronted Android Founder Andy Rubin -- by all accounts a brilliant and passionate guy who really wants to make great products -- about why the US versions of the Droid and Nexus One don't use the Android 2.0 supported multitouch keyboard and gestures, while the non-US versions do. The response:

"It's not an America versus outside America kind of thing. It's a decision that is a result of the OEM model. I personally don't like two-handed operations... there is no conspiracy."

Both TiPb (because Apple's name keeps come up on the suspect list) and our sibling site, Android Central have been covering this story and it still makes the kind of sense that doesn't. "Like" or "dislike" seems an odd way to talk about something that so affects usability (pinch-to-zoom is intuitive and ingrained enough that it should just be a standard). There were rumors that Google didn't want to violate Apple's multitouch patents in the US, but Engadget looked and couldn't find any that applied to these specific implementations.

Perhaps, as otherwise rumored, there's a gentleman's agreement between Apple and Google, and since Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board of directors (even though he reportedly recused himself from iPhone discussions), Google could be playing it extra super safe.

Whatever the answer is, however, the founder not liking something is an odd answer as to why it doesn't exist only in his own country. Remember, RIM's CEO doesn't like typing on glass and even he made the BlackBerry Storm...

Nokia, massive if alien-to-North America, sued Apple for WiFi/GSM/HSPA patent violation, at which point Apple spun around and counter-sued for iPhone patent violation, and now Nokia has yelled the legal equivalent of "fire everything!"

According to PC World:

Nokia fired the latest salvo in its ongoing patent dispute with Apple, saying Tuesday that it has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission charging that Apple infringes its patents "in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players and computers."

The complaint involves seven patents that Nokia says Apple is using to "create key features" in products related to the user interface and camera, antenna and power management technologies. Nokia wants the ITC to investigate its claims.

So, if we can piece the story together as we've heard it rumored, Nokia is supposed to license it's pooled patents to Apple under the same equitable and reasonable terms as everyone else, but decided they wanted Apple to counter-license their iPhone patents to Nokia. Apple declined, Nokia sued, Apple counter-sued, and now Nokia is seeing them and raising the stakes -- to the very roof.

Nokia is huge, Apple has billions, this could drag on for years and years. We're guessing the execs don't care and neither do the lawyers.

[Thanks Icebike for the tip!]

Remember when Nokia sued Apple for infringement over essential wireless patents? Us neither, but Apple sure does -- in a counter-suit which says Nokia is copying the iPhone interface. Says Bruce Sewell, Apple SVP and General Counsel:

"Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours"

And in the complaint:

"Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, the market has changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it. In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface."

They remind Nokia of their EVP, Anssi Vanjoki's statement about the iPhone in 2007:

"[If] there is something good in the world, we copy with pride"

To which Apple responds:

"True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple's iPhone ideas as well as Apple's basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia's purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior."

Whether or not this leads to a quick(er) settlement and cross-licensing deal on both sides, it's interesting to note the "mutually assured patent destruction" strategy we (and PreCentral.net regarding Palm vs. Apple) have spoken about before seems to be holding true. If one sues, the other(s) sue back. Boom. Merry $&@#ing Christmas indeed.

UPDATE 1: Engadget reveals:

Apple also says Nokia wanted to cross-license Apple's various iPhone device patents as part of any deal, which Apple clearly wasn't will to do.

UPDATE 2: Official Apple PR on the lawsuit.

UPDATE 3 & 4: Roughly Drafted explains in good detail a theory under which Nokia wouldn't license their pooled patents to Apple under "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms,” and instead wanted a cross-licensing deal with access to Apple's private (non-pooled) patents. Apple refused, Nokia sued, Apple sued back. (Thanks to JK in the comments).

[NokiaExperts and Apple Insider]

Verizon and Motorola's upcoming Droid handset is getting a lot of press, here, there, everywhere, and one of the negative points that's come up -- in relation to the iPhone -- is the Droid's lack of multi-touch gestures like pinch-to-zoom. (TiPb mentioned it a couple days ago as well).

Some might complain about Verizon nickel-and-diming users by charging an extra $15/month for Exchange support, or that given Verizon's CDMA technology the Droid can't multitask a phone call and a data connection (so if, for example, you're using the new Google Maps Navigator and a need to talk on the phone at the same time, you're only as good as your last cache). Others are honing in on the Android app space limitations, or just the limited apps (NSFW). But what makes multi-touch so intriguing is that it's a bit of a mystery as to why the Droid doesn't support it. Of course, the G1 didn't support it either, but Android 2.0 is supposed to contain the API's to do it, and the non-Verizon (GSM, for sale outside the US) version -- called the Motorola Milestone seems to do it, if not smoothly (yet?).

Apple's massive multi-touch patent portfolio is cited as a reason, both now for the Droid and then for the T-Mobile G1. Either Google, while CEO Eric Schmidt was still on the board, agreed not to violate them, or fears litigating them. So, they build in the functionality and let 3rd parties take advantage -- and the risk that goes with it -- if they so choose.

But why then does the Palm Pre have multi-touch gesture support on Sprint in the US? Wouldn't the same patents apply? Sure. However, patents are like nukes. They can be deadly unless the guy you're pointing yours at is pointing equally deadly ones back at you. As both TiPb and PreCentral.net have posted for a while -- and Palm has explicitly stated -- Palm has a heckuva mobile patent arsenal.

Blustering about lawsuits aside, Apple suing Palm (or vice versa) brings mutually assured patent destruction down on the both of them. While Apple is arguably filthy rich and Palm pauper poor, they might not want the expense or the hassle given Palm's current market position. Verizon and Google, however, is another matter, especially since Google has been in the mobile space nowhere near as long as Palm, and likely doesn't have the same type of core mobile patent portfolio in their pocket to assure the same type of stalemate.

At the end of the day, only the top executives (and their lawyers) at Apple, Google, and Palm know for sure, but that's our guess.

It's a shame, of course, because the iPhone's multi-touch gestures are natural to the point where they should arguably be considered default for all capacitive touch screen devices. Apple settled "look and feel" lawsuits with Microsoft over the windows/mouse/pointer interface over a decade ago. They likely consider multi-touch a similar competitive advantages, however, and Steve Jobs said as much at Macworld 2007 when he introduced Apple's implementation of it:

"And boy, have we patented it."

We all know Steve Jobs sculpted the iPhone from unicorn tears through a sheer act of singular will and hutzpah -- along with buying FingerWorks and winning a glove-full of multi-touch patents of their own along the way (which may or may not still result in several rounds of pugilism with Palm's Pre).

But who knew they might not have done enough? Elan Microelectronics of Taiwan, that's who. Elan claims the iPhone, iPod touch, and Macbooks -- basically everything featuring multi-touch functionality -- is in violation of their patents, and they've filed suit in Apple's home turf of San Francisco to prove it. (No word yet of litigation friendly Texas will sue over not being the venue of choice...)

A previous lawsuit from Elan against a company called Synaptics, who counter-sued resulted in a dismissal and cross-licensing agreement. This time? We're calling Apple wins by (frenzied) tap-out due to guillotine choke near the end of the second round.

Anyone got the popcorn, hot dogs, and spicy drink?

[NY Times via iLounge]

We know the score. Apple now holds a veritable smorgasbord of multi-touch patents, some dating way back before the iPhone, and some coming from their 2005 acquisition of a company called Fingerworks, and the innovative talents of Wayne Westerman and John Elias. But from whence did they draw their inspiration? MacRumors pulls the relevant quote from a University of Delware article:

"I had an ergonomic problem and I paired it with a motivation," Westerman said of the early inspiration. "I'd always felt that playing the piano was so much more graceful and expressive than using a computer keyboard, and I thought how great it would be if I pulled some of that expression from the piano to the computer experience."

Having suffered plenty of joint/wrist injuries, I know from personal experience how difficult it can be to type with traditional, hard smartphone keyboards. I abandoned my old Treo 680 when it was too physically painful to push in the tiny keys anymore. The iPhone, however, is nothing but a pleasure, so the above comments truly resonate with me.

It's also interesting to note that history aside, Apple is also looking towards the future, with job listings for multi-touch ninja "gesture algorithm" wizards.

So anyone else going to jump on the piano and try to figure out what iPhone 3.0 might hold for us?

Another week, another iPhone lawsuit or three. If it isn't American's complaining about AT&T's 3G "network" (so bad, it's made (Giga)Om Malik abandon his iPhone), it's owners of white iPhones complaining about cracks in their plastic casings (which is effecting other, non-iPhones as well, making us suspect someone spike a plastic factory somewhere in China). This time, however, it's a patent dispute, and it's not Apple going after Palm, but Picsel Technologies taking it to Apple. According to Apple Insider:

By using particular techniques to speed up panning and zooming for images and other documents, Apple is effectively borrowing Picsel's own acceleration to make the iPhone work as smoothly as it does, the complaint reads. [..]Unlike many of these suits, the plaintiff already has major customers for its software that primarily include Japanese firms like KDDI and Sharp but also include American phone manufacturers such as Motorola and Palm.

So even though Apple now owns multi-touch(ish), they may not be allowed to show it working on screen? Gotta love patent poker...

• Our podcast feed
• Download Directly
• Subscribe via iTunes

News

• iPhone margins are huge, AT&T is happy, Apple had a decent quarter themselves
• Deets on apple and music companies
• Flash saga, part ...whatever part it is now
• Papermaster is in
• Shiny: Apple's design studio
• 2.2.1.meh
• CES overtaking MacWorld
• Mobile vid chat?
• 3rd gen iphone and again with the 3rd gen iPhone iPhone. iPhone Nano rumors have finally abated
• Podcaster happy-ish ending
• App Store Cracked
• iPhone v Pre, development edition
• iPhone v Pre, patent edition, and Apple gets patents, Palm comments, Apple's original threat

Community

Thanks to Paul contacting us! Don't forget about the Reader's choice awards

Credits

Thanks to the the iPhone Blog Store for sponsoring the podcast.

Our music comes from the following sources:

• I Called You -- iPhone Remix by Pete Leidy
via Sneakmove iPhone Ringtone Challenge
• Relaxation Spa Treatment by Dan the Automator via Wired 12.11: Sample the Future
• Wataridori 2 by Cornelius via Wired 12.11: Sample the Future
• DC 3000 by Thievery Corporation via Wired 12.11: Sample the Future

What was once but an administrative possibility has become the most sublime of legal certainties: Apple has been granted the multi-touch patents.

Credited to the one, Steve Jobs, and the many, Scott Forstall and the iPhone team, the news patents are simultaneously as wide ranging as they are specifically crafted towards the implementation of one or many fingers interacting on the screen in a mobile device, with the most subtle of heuristic interpretations.

Apropos the heretofore mentioned anomaly; ergo Palm Pre's exacting duplication of the iPhone's multi-touch gestures and behavioral interactions and Apple's deliberately obscure threats in their direction, these new patents provide a single, potentially catastrophic result of a singular equation: Apple has grounds to sue.

Vis a vis Palm's own far-reaching patent portfolio in the mobile space: these remain a perplexing, perhaps equation changing variable. Through one door, a cross licensing agreement. Through the other, years if not decades of litigation.

In sum, the situation remains predictably uncertain.

(Thanks to David, Chad, and everyone who sent this in!)

Patent filings sometimes clue you in to the direction a company is headed with their devices. Sure, some are crazy and others are ridiculous, but you can get a general sense of what the company is trying to accomplish in those stencil-like drawings and comic-like blurbs.

Well, Apple has filed a patent that strongly hints toward developing an add-on/dongle/hub/dock-type device that will accept AM, FM, HD, or satellite radio along with cable TV, satellite TV, antenna, or IPTV. The multiple connecting devices, as shown in the patent filing, could range from being a dock, a stereo, or even a computer.

What makes this Apple patent unique is its ability to "tag" information about the current movie, TV show, or song, allowing you to save the information presumably to let iTunes develop a list of movies, shows, and music you might be interested in.

Honestly, I'm lukewarm about this "media extender" device coming into fruition partly because I would hate to have a dongle attached to my iPhone and more importantly, can't imagine Apple pushing media that isn't sold through their iTunes pipeline.

Either way, this patent filing makes for good conversation. What do you think?

ReadVia

Patent-mania running wild from Apple is nothing new, though these recent filings do seem a tad focused on enabling new form factors, don't they? To go along with the iFlip and iPhone Nano, and the iSlider, comes a little something that just might allow for an iStylus:

Another interesting possibility raised is the use of both capacitance (finger tip) and resistance (fingernail) to provide secondary functionality in future touch screens. [...] Apple suggests the addition of pressure sensitivity to provide additional functionality. For example, touching an item in a list with your fingertip would select it, while pressing it with your fingernail (or otherwise shielded finger or stylus) could bring up a pop-up menu (see picture above).

It's suggested that the patent could make things like text selection and -- wait for it -- cut and paste much easier to multi-touch, with the resistance input being akin to a right-button action on a mouse. Of course, we all know how much Steve Jobs loves buttons, never mind his audible YUCK! at the concept of a stylus.

However, resistance touch could be a blessing to those with long nails, who have complained that they have trouble getting the fleshy part of their finger to properly make contact with the current capacitance sensors. No matter how outdated (--cough--Treo 600--cough--) the technology is.

But never mind what I think, are you hankering to get your iStylus on? And if so, why so?

Read

Your plane's landing in the middle of nowhere. Scratch that. WAY past the middle of nowhere -- that little state on the other coast you've never been to, where the people have funny accents and McDonald's has menu items you've never seen before.

The pilot flips off the seatbelt light, you whip out your iPhone to make a quick call, and before the bars come up you're greeted with a screen that lists off all the local service providers complete with up-to-the-minute rate information. You flick-scroll to the cheapest one, tap to select, the bars pop up, the network springs to life, and you start your call.

What? Your iPhone doesn't do that? You don't get to pick your service provider? You don't get to choose just-in-time data rates? You're stuck with AT&T 24/7?!

Yeah. That's because you're in the real world, not the world of what might-have-been. Not the world Apple could have created had they gone ahead with a little patent just recently brought to public attention...

Tale of Two Telcos

If you make a cell phone you have to have a telco behind it to provide voice, data, SMS, and other network services. In the United States, there are currently two types of telco providers.

1. Mobile Network Operators (MNOs), which include the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile. These monoliths own their own bands of frequency and have pushed out their own hardware infrastructures to support them. They have the towers, the cables, and the oligopoly.
2. Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs), which include (or have included) Virgin, Helio, AMP'd, and other discount, niche, localize, or otherwise boutique operations.

Dealing with the Devil

Apple, of course, ultimately chose option one: a locked-in, carrier-exclusive agreement with AT&T (then Cingular). For an estimated 5 years from initial launch, anyone who wants an iPhone in the United States has to sign a 2-year service contract with AT&T or be unable to activate their device, much less make calls or use EDGE data.

This agreement gave Apple carrier-cooperation in the form of Visual Voicemail and low-cost unlimited data plans. It also gave them revenue sharing with estimates as high as $15 per user per month ($360 over the course of the 2 year contract, on top of hardware and potential retail sales profits).

What Might Have Been

Even though Apple went with option one, a recent patent application shows they had a plan for option two ready as well -- and in typical Apple fashion, it's as slick as it is revolutionary.

Right now, when you pick up your iPhone, slide to unlock, and tap the Stocks widget, you get relatively up-to-date (within 20 min.) quotes. Right now, when you pick up your iPhone, slide to unlock, and tap the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store, you get a list of songs you can flick-scroll through and tap to purchase through your iTunes account. Come June, you'll be able to do similar with the App Store.

In a different world, similar functionality would have existed via an "iCarrier" Store. Unlike traditional MVNOs, however, the patent filing indicates Apple may not have bought minutes in bulk from an MNO and simply resold them to iPhone users. Rather, they proposed a model combining the previously mentioned Stocks widget's near realtime price quoting with the iTunes Wi-Fi Store's (or App Store's) near instant transactional processing and purchasing system.

With this system a (presumably WebObjects-based) server would store up-to-date rate information for all regional, affiliated networks and then select whichever provided the best option at the moment, or -- in an even more utopian service -- allow the end-user to select for themselves as simply and easily as buying a Tune or downloading an App.

Apple Insider quotes Apple's iPod chief, Anthony Fadell:

"Bids can be received from multiple network operators for rates at which communication services using each network operator can be obtained. Preferences among the network operators can be determined using the received bids, and the preferences are used to select the network operator."

"Preferences may be further based on a location of the mobile device, the quality of service offered by the network operator, and/or type of communication. Bids from multiple network operators for rate information relating to rates at which communication services using each network operator can be obtained and the rate information can be sent to the mobile device for use in selecting the network operator."

And What Still Could Be

A system as described in the Apple patent could benefit consumers in many ways. Ars Technica sums them up as follows:

To borrow from AT&T's adage, it would mean more bars in more places at lower prices. Apple would also clearly benefit by the greatly expanded coverage of the iPhone, and the end to sale-stunting exclusivity agreements. Unfortunately, telecommunications companies like AT&T would be forced to actually compete for customers on price every minute of every day. One need look no further than what happened to the record companies when they relinquished control of pricing to the iTunes Store to see how that looks from the perspective of a faceless multinational corporation. Of course, the technical and business issues associated with becoming an MVNO would also be a hurdle for Apple, but getting the telcos to go along with this idea is a stone wall a hundred feet high.

Sound like a dream come true? Probably not for the oligopolistic telcos desperate not to become "dumb pipes" and gorged on over-priced service and subscription revenue ($0.20 to send 140 character text message?! Do the math for a megabyte at that rate and then shout "clear" and reach for the paddles!) For them it probably sounds like a nightmare.

Differences in technology in some countries, like the United States where MSOs are split between GSM and CDMA (which would require a broader spectrum radio), and lack of competition in others, such as Canada where there is but a single GSM provider, could limit these benefits in the short term. And as we said, Apple is currently locked-in to telco deals in the US, UK, France, Germany, and other countries. But Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook himself recently said:

"We're not married to any business model. What we're married to is shipping the best phones in the world."

Indeed.

Personally, I would love to see this system manifest for disruptive reasons alone. How does the idea grab you?