Apple sues HTC for infringing 20 Patents... - Page 8

heydr · #1 (**permalink**) 03-03-2010, 07:46 PM

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19074...tc_phones.html

Slack3r · #2 (**permalink**) 03-03-2010, 10:48 PM

http://forum.ppcgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=112717

Nicaragüense · #3 (**permalink**) 03-03-2010, 10:53 PM

who cares, by the time anything happens the imagio will be old news along with all the other handsets in the list.

heydr · #4 (**permalink**) 03-04-2010, 12:05 AM

they are trying to prevent htc devices from being imported into america, this is not limited to those cited on the list.

sprintgirl · #5 (**permalink**) 03-04-2010, 01:01 AM

so what? nokia sued apple, apple counter sued, now apple suing htc, cisco suing apple...welcome to america...what else is new everybody sues everybody... highly doubt if we will seeany major results out of the ordeal.

engadget.com/2009/10/22/nokia-sues-apple-says-iphone-infringes-ten-patents/

**Maxx134** · #6 (**permalink**) 03-04-2010, 10:54 AM

Apple is worse bully than M$ because they dont allow customization of OS, interface, apps, phone iz locked down to carrier, cant even change battery.
Its like they so scared about their technology, like they dont want you to know anything about it.

Look at their laptops... I had to install parallels for my nice on her dam apple laptop.
I thought it was supposed to be as good or easy as windows and I find out how the interface is so much less user friendly I got fusgtrated & so pissed offf.
No right click? folder options not in folder, but top of screen? WTF no start menu, but an ednless stream of non-organized icons? WTF-WTF-WTF!!!
I had tried Linux before and it was more straight forward and actually seemed like what apple mac shoul/will be in future..
Apple OS may be powerful for video, but without those softwares, there is no reason for the fustration.

Only good thing I like about anything apple is that cute lil magnetized A/C power adapter plug.
Edit: It is vey unassuming, but genius because there is no wear/stress on socket to motherboard because there is none.
And no stress on plug end because the is none, just some pins, kinda like how battery contacts are.
Too bad, they probably patented that too.

keentech · #7 (**permalink**) 03-04-2010, 03:46 PM

Apple is suing everyone. This company sells licensed copies of Apples operating system on generic non-branded computers. But apple wants it only on their hardware...

check it out

http://www.psystar.com/

bkrodgers · #8 (**permalink**) 03-05-2010, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keentech

Apple is suing everyone. This company sells licensed copies of Apples operating system on generic non-branded computers. But apple wants it only on their hardware...

check it out

http://www.psystar.com/

Actually, Psystar is a very different situation, and one that's defensible. And believe me, I do NOT like Apple's business practices one bit. Psystar was taking something Apple actually created -- the actual bits in OS X -- and selling them in direct violation of the licensing terms. Apple has every right to set the terms of sale and use of their actual product the way they want. Psystar decided they didn't like those terms and tried to build a business around violating them. The appropriate response if you don't like Apple's refusal to allow their OS to run on an open hardware platform is to NOT BUY IT! That's one of many reasons I don't own a Mac. You have that choice, and there are great alternatives.

What they're trying to do with patents though is different. They are using overly broad patents to try to keep you from having any choice. Similarly to the example above, I despise Apple's heavy handed approach to telling me what applications my phone can run. So I don't buy one. Apple's trying to keep me from being able to do that, and that is evil. But I don't think it's fair to say it's the same thing as what Psystar tried to do.

**BlackDynamite** · #9 (**permalink**) 03-05-2010, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrodgers

Actually, Psystar is a very different situation, and one that's defensible. And believe me, I do NOT like Apple's business practices one bit. Psystar was taking something Apple actually created -- the actual bits in OS X -- and selling them in direct violation of the licensing terms. Apple has every right to set the terms of sale and use of their actual product the way they want. Psystar decided they didn't like those terms and tried to build a business around violating them. The appropriate response if you don't like Apple's refusal to allow their OS to run on an open hardware platform is to NOT BUY IT! That's one of many reasons I don't own a Mac. You have that choice, and there are great alternatives.

I have to disagree with that.

If Apple doesn't like what you are doing with OSX, they have every right to stop selling it to you. But they have no right to tell you how you can and can't use it after you buy it. Once you buy it, it's yours. They have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own property.

Apple has every right to void the warranty, cut off support, and stop selling it to you. But they have no right to force you to use it a certain way.

I hope the courts put a stop to all of this "Apple rules the world" madness. They are seriously getting out of hand.

BeefJerky · #10 (**permalink**) 03-05-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

I have to disagree with that.

If Apple doesn't like what you are doing with OSX, they have every right to stop selling it to you. But they have no right to tell you how you can and can't use it after you buy it. Once you buy it, it's yours. They have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own property.

Apple has every right to void the warranty, cut off support, and stop selling it to you. But they have no right to force you to use it a certain way.

I hope the courts put a stop to all of this "Apple rules the world" madness. They are seriously getting out of hand.

This is wrong on so many levels. Simply put, you do not own the software, you only buy a license for it. As such, you are subject to the terms of the license agreement (or EULA). If the license says that you cannot install it on 3rd party hardware, than you cannot. As an analogy, a software license is akin to having a drivers license. You can get one, but you are subject to very specific terms and conditions regarding what you can do with it. You are limited in what rights you have, and can also also get the license revoked. The reality is that this is a very cut-and-dry case, and no court of law will take Psystar's side in this.

On the other hand, using overly broad patents to try to eliminate competition is more of a gray area. While there are laws regarding anti-competitive behavior, I'm not aware of any that specifically refer to patents. At the same time, I'm quite sure there are precedents set from previous court cases of this nature. These are quite often decided unfavorably for the business that chooses to employ these kinds of tactics. The likelihood of Apple actually being the victor in one of these lawsuits is very small. Apple doesn't necessarily care about winning, and may simply hope to force the other business to concede to licensing agreements for fear of bankruptcy.