I wonder what impact the HTC suit is having on the 2.1 Update

[hippyfish]

Especially when you read an article like this one:

The Behind The Scenes Story Of Apple's HTC Lawsuit

The quote I found interesting was: "Says Yanir, "We believe a lot of software and hardware is being sent back to engineering departments for work-arounds."

Everyday I get closer and closer to pulling the trigger on rooting. Still not sure why I haven't done it yet.

 

[hemi-droid]

This link to a summary of the 20 patents in question conjures an image of the prosecuting attorney making his case in court:

"Does the Droid violate patent no. 7,xxx,xxx?"

<attorney swipes to unlock a Droid.>

"Droid Does."

"Does the Droid violate patent no. 7,yyy,yyy?"

<attorney pulls down the notifications page on a Droid.>

"Oooh. Droid DOES!"

"Does the Droid violate patent no. 7,zzz,zzz?"

"Droid does!"

...and so on.

Of course, a first-blush look at patents in a situation like this is far from definitive. Many specific details come into play. But the OP's speculation seems to at least be plausible.

 

[cereal killer]

Even more alarming is this statement.

"Post-lawsuit, handset makers are wondering if Android is the best way to topple Apple."

 

[dezymond]

Apple is putting all these lawsuits on Google cause they see how much of a "game changer" Android has become.

 

[1linuxfreak]

Sounds like Jay Yarow is either a Apple fan boy or Micro$oft , and has a grudge with Google .
While there is probably some truth to the fact we are not seeing 2.1 because of the lawsuit . Shame to cause I was reeeealy looking forward to some of the features 2.1 has . :motdroidvert:

 

[pc747]

You can patent a name but I doubt you can patent an idea. Example is the copy machine. HP can make one but the cant call it the "xerox machine", but it does the same thing. Apple can not say that another device can not perform similar functions. They can prevent the use of the same name. I think it is a bogus and b.s lawsuit. This lawsuit is turning my respect for apple into disdain.

 

[butch350]

you can patent a name but i doubt you can patent an idea. Example is the copy machine. Hp can make one but the cant call it the "xerox machine", but it does the same thing. Apple can not say that another device can not perform similar functions. They can prevent the use of the same name. I think it is a bogus and b.s lawsuit. This lawsuit is turning my respect for apple into disdain.

example

swype - slideit

 

[unkilbeeg]

You can patent a name but I doubt you can patent an idea. Example is the copy machine. HP can make one but the cant call it the "xerox machine", but it does the same thing. Apple can not say that another device can not perform similar functions. They can prevent the use of the same name. I think it is a bogus and b.s lawsuit. This lawsuit is turning my respect for apple into disdain.

Um. No. You're talking about trademark. Trademark has to do with names and symbols.

A patent is something completely different. A patent protects a *method* of doing something. In a sense, it *does* protect a idea, although strictly speaking it really protects the method of accomplishing that idea. If you can come up with a different way of accomplishing the same goal, you can get around the patent, but only if there really is another way to do it.

All that said, patents have several tests they have to pass before they are legitimately patentable, and most software patents fail those tests. Unfortunately, the Patent Office has done an incredibly poor job of applying those tests, so a lot of ridiculous patents have been granted.

An algorithm cannot be patented, and pure software is essentially just an instantiation of an algorithm. A patent must be "non-obvious" and a lot of software patents have to do with common functions that some "inventors" just added the words "on a computer" and gotten the Patent Office to approve them. A patent has to be new, so a method that has been in use prior to the granting of the patent should not be eligible for the patent. But the Patent Office frequently does not have the manpower to adequately check for prior art, so a lot of those patents get granted as well.

I don't know the state of the Apple patents. There's a good chance that they are bogus, but they have been *granted* and that puts them in a pretty strong position. Bad patents can be overturned, but it's very difficult to do and expensive if it can be done.

 

[RW-1]

That is the heart of the issue, a broad based patent on something that is so widely in use, that it is most likely that it will get thrown out on that factor.

I can't patent waving my hand from side to side from the elbow, but if approved, I'm sure something would happen if I were suing others to stop waving from the elbow...

 

[Bob Dammit]

The biggest impact was the HTC 2.1 update being "leaked" within 6 hours of the lawsuit story breaking. Reading Apples claims, I see where a couple of the claims seem to be valid, but many of them are broad claims to patents that never should have been granted. It will be a long time in court, and some things will have to change, and I have a feeling some patents will be changed over this. IIRC, an inventor only has to make a set number of changes to a patent (7 sticks in my head) before they can claim the idea as their own, and apply for a patent.

 

[deputc26]

This is just a distraction tactic by apple to throw a wrench into the rapidly developing android machine, it will be years before we see a settlement of this case but I've no doubt that it is causing HTC to take a second look at stuff which likely just wastes their time and gives apple a temporary advantage.

 

[DurangoJim]

I would not be surprised if two things come from this:
1. The manufacturers and Google still go ahead with their plans to make and update whatever they were doing before the lawsuit becuase this will take years to decide
and
2. Manufactures tell Google that if Google wants them using Android Google will have to pay 50% or greater of their legal fees in the future should they be sued by Apple over these patents.

I doubt seriously than manufacturers are going to drop Android due to fear of possible lawsuits. After listening to the Engadget podcasts regarding this subject, it seems that many of Apple's patents are far too broad to prevent Google or anyone else to use similar actions (slide to lock being an example) and also unless a judge issues a cease and decist order things should be business as usuall.

 

[Enter]

Software patents are and always will be retarded. I like how Apple *****ed for so many years about Microsoft stealing some visuals from its OS. Apple couldn't do anything because Microsoft is 100 times bigger and Apple actually gained a fan base off this because anyone who was Apple, stood up to "the man" and thought different. Now that Apple has a monopoly in the phone market, they take the role of Microsoft and now pushing the "little" guy around (Android/Google). Apple has had more negative PR since Android has taken off then they had before. Instead of their old mentality of people having a choice between OS's it seems now that they don't want anyone to have a choice.

 

[Jages16]

Say the lawsuit does go through in favor of Apple eventually....does this mean they could retroactively pull things? e.g. Kindle taking '1984' off users equipment?

On the subject...does anyone have any update on a 2.1 release?

 

[pc747]

I am sitting here looking to get an ipad for my mom. Personally i do not care for it; but I realize apple makes a product that is simple. You turn it on and it just works, nothing fancy but a few bells and whistles but nothing too fancy where it could cause the user issues.
For my mother, it is the perfect device because she just want some thing that works. Apple has a good product and for those that want something that work; they do not care too much about tweaking or learning about the ins and out, they just want something that works its for them.
I may catch some heat for this statement but not everybody care or want to spend part of their day customizing and reinventing their phone. They want it to turn on, send pics, send texts, and make calls. The iphone does that well with restrictions that may or may not effect the optimal performance of the device. It does not make you any better or smarter/dumber because you want something simple.
The droid is a device that is meant to be tweaked and has fewer restrictions.
I understand if apple is protecting itself from a competitor ripping their ideas and using the same selling point; but that is not the case. A competitor is taking an idea that has always been out their and they are using it. Because apple has made commercials advertising that their device can perform certain functions should not be a basis to prevent other companies for incorporating those feature on their device.
If that is the case then apple is contradicting them selves, they were not the first to have a touch screen phone, was not the first to have an online web browser, and I can go on until I turn blue.
Apple should just step up and allow fair competition to play out, because it is best for every one. Competition keeps a company pumping out optimal devices to compete with its competitors.
Before I think alot of us may not care for apple, but at least had respect for what they was doing; now I think people is starting to hate apple because they are arrogant and that pride is what is going to make it a crappy product. I dropped my iphone because of the idea that apple care had that their product never breaks or fail unless user error, and that people love their device so much that they would put up with their crappy customer care.