Apple sues HTC for patent infringement (Updated with specifics)

Seth Weintraub
|
March 02, 2010
|
Share

Updated with exact claims from Engadget below:

You were wondering why Google was hesitant to put multi-touch on those HTC Android handsets in the US?  

Apple's lawyers.  

Today Apple announced they were suing HTC for infringing on 20 Apple patents related to the iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture and hardware.   Google wasn't mentioned but this is just the latest (and biggest) escalation of the battle of Silicon Valley behemoths. 

Steve Jobs said: “We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

Zing!

CUPERTINO, California—March 2, 2010—Apple® today filed a lawsuit against HTC for infringing on 20 Apple patents related to the iPhone’s user interface, underlying architecture and hardware. The lawsuit was filed concurrently with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and in U.S. District Court in Delaware.

“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

The specifics of the complaint (PDF):

  • The '331 Patent, entitled "Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States," was duly and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
  • The '949 Patent, entitled "Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics," was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
  • The '849 Patent, entitled "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image," was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
  • The '381 Patent, entitled "List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display," was duly and legally issued on December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
  • The '726 Patent, entitled "System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device," was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '726 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
  • The '076 Patent, entitled "Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices," was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '076 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
  • The '105 Patent, entitled "GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality," was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '105 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
  • The '453 Patent, entitled "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor," was duly and legally issued on June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
  • The '599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
  • The '354 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods," was duly and legally issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

    • Apple vs HTC -

    Comments (43)

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 7:18am

    Is the the same company that hung the pirate flag and famously said, "great companies steal"?

    Chris Dunn (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 7:36am

    Yes, but that Apple fired Steve over 25 years ago. Meanwhile, big, big companies (Microsoft) lifted UI elements for years from Apple.* I don't like software patents but the line between that and hardware patents is razor thin.

    Frankly, I was expecting this for a while now.

    *Apple hasn't sued Microsoft, because that's not a fight they can win.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 7:48am

    in fact apple did sue microsoft.

    Chris Dunn (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:12am

    Zoinks, I forgot about that! And the court found the elements in question were too basic to find original.

    Hm...

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:15am

    And microsoft paid them 400,000,000 bucks to drop the suit.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 7:30am

    I'm for Apple, but this software patents often end up being of the like of
    "a new technology to make some gadgets perform some task"...
    The whole patent thing is BS IMHO

    Stets (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 7:42am

    The basic title of a patent often is very general and vague, but it's the actual specific details within the full patent that will determine the outcome.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 7:50am

    Apple derides HTCf for "stealing", but commits labor violations in China. Which is the greater sin, abuse of companies or abuse of human beings?

    the Cappy (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:01am

    "Caught" vs "commit". Learning that very important distinction might make you less you a troll.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:25am

    What a bunch of gibberish. Nothing practically differentiates "caught" vs "commit". Both empirically establish the act of wrong doing.

    You cannot be "caught" unless you first "commit".
    If you "commit" an act and it is known, you have been "caught".

    Is this simple enough for you?

    9to5Mac Noob | March 02, 2010 - 9:00am

    Apple was not caught, Apple caught it's suppliers.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 9:10am

    Apple didn't "respond" until reports surfaced about the violations. At this point Apple had to admit it had contracted business relationships with persons who were abusing and neglecting their workers.

    You could argue that Apple has little to no control over their contractors except to withhold payment or cancel the contract. Obviously, Apple retained the contracts and paid money despite the abuse. Apple made a conscious decision to continue business as usual - including providing aid and comfort to the Chinese bosses.

    Apple determined that profit was more important than people. Al Gore thinks so, too.

    Follow the money.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 10:19am

    At what time did these reports arise? Do you have a link? Apple did not do some sort of quick PR response, they conducted a thorough audit of their suppliers. If that audit was in response to criticism, then maybe it was late but better late than never.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 10:41am

    Reports of Chinese worker abuse, corruption, and blatant violation of the most basic labor laws and business ethics have circled the globe for decades.

    How many more decades of reporting do you or Apple need to make the conclusion that Chinese workers have been and continue to be abused and neglected?

    All of this begs the question why Apple permitted these behaviors when China's shameful history is so well known. Also, why didn't Apple act proactively to ensure that workers rights were protected?

    9to5Mac Noob | March 02, 2010 - 11:49am

    Apple is the first one I've seen to really step up the game like this. I'm sure that they and others have asked their suppliers about these things and contractually required them to not do them, but of course the suppliers will just lie and lie in an attempt to keep their lucrative clients. The only real solution that emerges is a boots-on-the-ground audit, which is exactly what Apple has done.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 10:35pm

    Apple acted only when abuses were found out and reported by others. Apple is a day late and dollar short on this deal.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 9:46am

    Without fail, whenever a fanboi fails the tests of logic and reason, the fanboi responds with the lame and familiar "troll" cannard.

    You know, this puerile and Pavlovian response is so unerring accurate in corroborating stupidity that it has become an undeniable means of validating the mental midgetry of fanbois. In academia it is called the cretin constant or the doofus factor.

    Thanks, Crappy.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:14am

    Maybe you should do some reading, they are the ONLY company to investigate the factories and demand changes, lol at violating labor laws. Every other company builds there in the same factories and worse ones yet have never bothered to even talk about the labor practices, apple has.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:31am

    1. Then you admit that Apple has confessed.
    2. If Apple has confessed, Apple admits culpability.
    3. If other companies do not confess then they are:
    a. not culpable
    b. culpable but not admitting so

    Are you suggesting that if other companies are also violating workers rights and human rights it is acceptable, reasonable, or permissible because this abuse is common practice?

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 9:42am

    DO you really read your non-sense? Apple has found violations from its suppliers and they are the first company trying to pressure suppliers to fix that. Almost everything you own now was manufactured in China. Do you think Nike cares about who is sewing your shoes? Idiots like you and some journalists take things in the wrong context to either, get noticed, or make a quick buck, because there are other idiots, like you again, who just follow like sheep.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 9:55am

    Corruption and abuse have been reported in China for decades. To presume that Apple was ignorant is a sham.

    To admit that Apple did not initially structure their business contracts to protect and preserve the human rights and dignity of the Chinese workers demonstrates that Apple was willing to profit from the abuse and neglect of the workers.

    Apple preferred profit to people. Apple's claim to moral superiority (i.e "greenness", Al Gore, etc.) is a joke. Apple cannot win this PR battle.

    Would you be willing to pay 20 to 30% more for an Apple product if you knew that workers were not abused or neglected?

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 1:42pm

    Stop the nonsense! European companies in general have much tighter control over their suppliers then US companies.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:36am

    Does Apple own the vendors who supply and assemble it's products? If not, you can't claim that Apple is committing labor violations. Also, the violations you're referring to are Chinese labor violations or US violations?

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:53am

    The fact that Apple has contracted with companies that abuse their workers means that:

    a. Apple has colluded with these companies to deny these workers their rights.
    b. Apple was unaware of the violations, implying corporate neglect and/or malfeasance.
    OR
    c. Apple was aware of the violations and didn't care, and only "responded" when reports were leaked.

    Well, which explanation best fits?

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 9:03am

    B. That's kinda the whole point of them undertaking the audit of all of their suppliers, publishing their findings, and making sure that the practices were stopped.

    If it were C, they could have just continued their silence and it wouldn't have gotten nearly so much (often incorrectly spun) news attention this week.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 9:24am

    So, you believe that Apple was completely ignorant of the abuses. That Apple hadn't a clue that such nefarious practices were occurring. That Apple knew nothing of the history of human rights abuses and corruption rampant in China and reported for the past two decades.

    Where was Apple's head? Shoved firmly in its ass?

    Apple responded not out of a sense of duty, but having these practices exposed from other independent sources. Apple cannot petition the Chinese government, Apple is not a Chinese company nor is Steve jobs a Chinese citizen. Apple's only recourse is to structure business contracts that ensure workers rights are protected for fear of loss of income.

    If you are aware that Apple's contracts include clauses that workers right will be protected and promoted, that violations will be corrected, and that if violations are not corrected that the contract is null and void - please reveal your sources.

    Sorry, your hope is ill founded and the evidence is clear. Apple profited from workers' abuses and has to share in the shame. Apple cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 9:45am

    As a skater said recently, are you stupid? more than 90 % of the things you own were made in China. Why do you buy that and support these horrible companies who manufacture in China, when you, captain obvious, know what is going on there?

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 10:02am

    How do you know what percent of the things that I own were made in China? Talk about stupid, you're the perfect example of the integration idiocy and irrationality.

    If all companies abuse their workers then, logically, it makes no difference which product I buy, does it?

    Of course, I could boycott, do you?

    Are your moral standard better than mine or Apple's? If not, what does it matter to you? If so, explain.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 9:03am

    "Does Apple own the vendors...?

    Nonsensical question. If Apple contracted with these companies, is paying them money, and is profiting from the relationship Apple is also ethically, legally, and/or morally accountable. Apple doesn't have to own a company to be guilty of malfeasance, neglect, abuse, or other crimes and misdemeanors.

    "If not...".

    Again, another illogical, stupid, and irrational though. See above.

    "Are the violations..."

    OK. you agree and admit that violations occurred. Good for you.

    "Chinese or US"

    I'm referring to basic human rights.

    9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | March 02, 2010 - 8:08am

    mac is nazi anyway!