Apple vs HTC: a patent breakdown
By Nilay Patel 
posted March 2nd 2010 3:09PM
posted March 2nd 2010 3:09PM
Okay, we'll break these apart like Apple does -- first the ones from the federal lawsuit, and then the ones from the ITC complaint. Remember, though, we're just summarizing the major claims of each patent here to get a sense of the issues, so don't go reading too much into this -- even Apple and HTC have to appear before a judge and have a hearing to determine exactly what these patents mean before the case can go to trial, and we're by no means experts. Click through for the real deal and maybe call a lawyer over for pizza if you want to get super technical. Feds first, here we go:
Patent #7,362,331: Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States
This is an interface patent granted in 2008 -- it's not specifically related to phones. According to the claims, it's a method of moving a GUI object along a path with a non-constant velocity for a period of time -- one of the claims specifically covers minimizing windows with a scaling effect like OS X, and two others describe a row of icons that rearranges itself when icons are added or removed, just like the iPhone's app dock.
Patent #7,479,949: Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics
We did this one at length after it was issued in January of last year -- check out our Palm discussion for more. The big one here is scroll behavior: starting a scroll in a single direction locks you in that direction, but starting it at an angle lets you pan around freely -- just like the Android browser.
Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock ImageThis one's cute 'cause it's brand new -- seriously, it was just granted on February 2. It's almost exactly what it says on the tin: it covers unlocking a touchscreen device by moving an unlock image. It's broad enough for us to say that it covers virtually every unlock behavior we've seen on phones, not just the iPhone's slide-to-unlock implementation.
Patent #7,469,381: List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display
Yep, we covered this 2008 patent in our Palm piece too -- well remembered, friends. Jump back to that for the full details, but the executive summary is that it covers the iPhone's distinctive scroll-back-and-bounce behavior.
Patent #5,920,726: System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device
Granted in 1999, this patent is surprisingly broad -- it flatly covers managing power in a digital camera device to a power manager that sends state information to a processor controlling the camera.
Patent #7,633,076: Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices
This was issued in October of 2009, and it's really quite specific: it covers a phone with multitouch input, a proximity sensor, and an ambient light sensor, which allows input when the sensors indicate one condition and doesn't allow input in others. In simple terms? It's how the iPhone shuts off the touchscreen when you hold it to your ear, a scenario that's specifically called out in the claims.Patent #5,848,105: GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality
The year was 1998, and times were lean in Cupertino. Steve Jobs had just returned to Apple, and although the company's fortunes were turning with the introduction of the iMac, it was clear that a true breakout was needed. "We have the answer!" cried William A. Garnder and Stephan V. Schell, two of the company's employees. "We'll develop an an apparatus for extracting a signal of interest from a plurality of spectrally and temporally overlapping input signals containing digital data having a bit rate!" Years later, this patent would thoroughly confuse a young lawyer simply trying to make sense of this mad, mad world.
Patent #7,383,453: Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor
Another deeply technical patent, granted in 2008. On reading the claims, we're going to hazard a guess and say it covers powering down a processor when told to sleep, but this sort of patent is exactly why this litigation will take years and require many hearing to determine exactly what's covered.
Patent #5,455,599: Object-Oriented Graphic System
This is the oldest patent of the bunch, issued in 1995. (You can really get a sense for how Apple's counsel has changed the way it writes patents over time by reading all of these, by the way. The older ones are really quite terse.) Again, it's technical to the point where we don't feel comfortable saying exactly what it means, but it covers building graphics objects with a processor and outputting them through various means. Given the fact that this predates Steve Jobs' return to Apple, we'd say this one was thrown in because Apple's lawyers think it's particularly strong, not because it has something to do with phones specifically.
Patent #6,424,354: Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And MethodsThis one is actually quite interesting: it's from 2002 and is illustrated with drawing from Mac OS 9, but it covers event notifications passed among objects -- a system specifically described in the abstract as presenting a context-sensitive menu on the screen. That's very much the core of the Android UI, if you think about it. We don't know exactly what Apple thinks HTC is infringing with this patent, but it's one to keep an eye on, since it could have huge implications.
Okay, that's it for the federal case. Ready for the patents claimed in the ITC complaint? They're even more dryly technical, it's going to be a blast.
Patent #5,481,721: Method for providing automatic and dynamic translation of object oriented programming language-based message passing into operation system message passing using proxy objects
This one's fun -- it's actually an old NeXT patent from 1996. And we're talking old-school NeXT -- the inventors are listed as Betrand Serlet, Avie Tevanian, and Lee Boynton. Anyway, this one is large, broad, and technical: it covers passing objects in an OS between processes by way of a proxy object. Again, given that this is primarily an OS patent and that Apple claims all of HTC's Android phones infringe it, it's hard to shake the impression that this case is anything but a proxy for a larger fight to come.
Patents #5,519,867 and #6,275,983: Object Oriented Multitasking System and Object-Oriented Operating SystemApple lumps these older OS patents together, so we are too. '867 is from 1996 and covers accessing OS level services in a multithreaded way; '983 is from 2001 and describes an OS in which apps can access native system services and those services can make use of data associated with an object. Again, dry, technical -- and totally aimed at Android, not HTC itself.
Patent #5,566,337: Method and apparatus for distributing events in an operating system
Another OS patent from 1996, this time relating to passing event notifications between objects -- like changing app behavior based on battery status. If you're not getting that Apple is targeting Android with the ITC case in particular by including low-level patents like these, there's really nothing more we can do. Oh, wait -- we can drop another six patents on your head.
Patent #5,929,852: Encapsulated network entity reference of a network component system
This one is also interesting because of it's age -- it's from 1999, and describes a way for users to get at remotely-stored resources more effectively by using software "components" that deal with different data types.
Patent 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
Seriously, we're almost impressed at how deeply Apple is pulling here. '647, issued in 1999, is what you might characterize as the "data detectors" patent -- it covers parsing data for known structures like phone numbers, address, and dates, and then taking action with that data. The model described is client / server, though, so it remains to be seen how Android handles similar tasks.
Patent #5,969,705: Message protocol for controlling a user interface from an inactive application program You're going to love this one: '705 is a 1999 patent covering a form of multitasking. Specifically, it hits on the idea that a foreground app can direct a background process to go do some task while the foreground app remains responsive. The actual implementation is a bit more specific, but in the end, it's just another OS patent that's aimed directly at Android. Apple's also claiming this one against Nokia.
Patent #6,343,263: Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data
Hey, a patent claim that's aimed at HTC's WinMo phones as well as its Android phones! That's a new one. This 2002 patent covers using a separate real-time API to control low-level systems like digital signal processors. This is the one and only claim in the ITC complaint that touches on non-Android HTC devices. It's like that, people. Apple's also claiming this one against Nokia.
Patent #5,915,131: Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O service
A 2002 patent hitting on multiple API usage in operating systems. Guess which Google-designed OS Apple says infringes on this one? Oh, and yes -- Apple's also claiming this one against Nokia.
Patent #RE39,486: Extensible, replaceable network component system
This patent was originally issued in 2001 and then reissued in 2007, and it covers -- surprise! -- OS-level software. Specifically, RE '486 covers organizing modular software "components" into a network layer with an API. It's more specific than that, but again, what's important for our purposes here is that this is about low-level software, not devices -- and the HTC devices that Apple says infringe this patent all run low-level software from Google. This is another one that Apple's claiming against Nokia.
Okay, that's all 20 patents. Everyone still with us? Good. So here are the takeaways: as of right now, it's impossible to predict what's going to happen in this case -- Apple and HTC could settle tomorrow, or it could turn into a ten year courtroom monster. But what we do know is that Apple's specifically gone after HTC's Android devices, and it's organized its attack very carefully: it's gone before the ITC with a collection of older patents on very deep OS-level functionality, which traditionally would be considered stronger patents, and it's gone before the federal court with a different set of patents that include some very new claims on user interface features. Both courts have the ability to stop HTC from selling devices and issuing fines, but none of that is going to happen anytime soon. The real question now is how HTC is going to respond -- and whether or not Google is going to get involved.
Come to think of it, I think Microsoft has a patent case they could bring up against Volkswagen. The one-touch auto-down of their vehicles' driver's-side windows directly infringes upon Microsoft's patent of their window minimizing feature in Windows.
(P.S., I have no knowledge of Windows actually holding that patent or not)
Got to love Apple.....nothing new under the sun there.
Quote: "That's a pretty big gap, and most of the patents are pretty dry and technical -- and none of them cover anything like pinch-to-zoom. In fact, you might remember #7,479,949, "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics" -- we blew apart the myth that it was Apple's "multitouch patent" back when Cupertino was making noise about Palm."
#7,469,381 @ http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=n7WxAAAAEBAJ&dq=7,469,381
Page 21: "Detect a gesture (e.g a de-pinching gesture) on or near the touch screen display corresponding to a command to zoom in by a user-specified amount"
I think someone at Engadget dropped the ball...
@DeFlanko
It's a trap!
i'm not a lawyer but most of the patents seem so basic and rudimentary (i may just be an uber nerd) that they seem RIDICULOUS! The patent office needs to the issue here not an unlock screen.
this is absurd but also entertaining, little ole iphone is feeling threatened by android. can they file suit against Google? the software is technically free ware.
@epompeii They don't have to sue google, just sue all the manufacturers and nobody will make phones with Android just to avoid being sued.
@Atkins You are right. And while not patent fights, people should look at what Microsoft has tried to pull over the years.
Remember when they sued Lindows and lost. (MS said that the Lindows name infringed on the Windows trademark.) The judge disagreed ruling that windows was a generic name and MS had been using the term to describe the windows that would pop up on screen.
Yes, later they brought out the product, but that did not make Windows a name that could be trademarked. While waiting for a retrial MS settled the case by PAYING THE DEFENDANTS $20 million. Think of the irony of that, suing someone then end up paying the people you sued.
Then there was MS's attempt to trademark the finger that pops up whenever you hover over a link. WTF? Everyone was using that finger and MS steps in to say they own it. Yeah right. That attempt at "dibs" failed too.
Just a couple examples to confirm you are right, everyone plays these kinds of games.
The really malicious companies go a step further and include a request for a TRO (temporary restraining order) and preliminary injunction request with the filed lawsuit.
Those are requests for the court to stop a company from continuing to engage in the alleged unlawful conduct until the lawsuit is resolved. While difficult to obtain, if a judge friendly to the moving party grants those request, the order and injunction can put small businesses out of business. If a company like MS, Apple or whomever can get a TRO and then preliminary injunction they can resolve a case without ever having to resolve the case through trial, especially if one cannot afford to stop operating their business and/or pay for five years of litigation.
For example of this in action, let's use Apple suing HTC. Apple could have filed a request for TRO and PI (I don't think they did). Apple could have said "We want HTC to stop sales and distribution of all products that are infringing on our patents, including the HD2, the Nexus One, the Behold II,...." If the court granted Apple's request this would halt all sales of HTC flagship products.
By the way, the reason Apple did not file such requests is because they have an adequate remedy at law, namely, dollar damages. Moreover, there's not a sense of urgency to all this. It looks to me like Apple has been sitting on all this and has been somewhat lax in protecting its patents.
I'm a UI developer and most these patents you could sue any UI developer for doing their jobs on a daily basis. Patents need to be awarded for true ingenuity and not just the first guy who can implement a programmatic standard invented in the 70's and patent it. Utter, utter trash, all of it. I hope this blows up in their faces.
It's utterly ridiculous the comments people are making here, bashing Apple when they have absolutely no clue about the patenting process or the basic structure of patents. Everyone looks at either the title or abstract of the patent and reacts saying, "How on Earth did that get a patent?" Yet, has anyone looked at the claims of these patents? Has anyone looked at the prosecution history? If this whole story makes you so anti-Apple, I challenge any one of you posters to find prior art to knock out the limitations specified in the independent claims of these patents.
Because Apple's IP is so strong, particularly in the UI field, people are just taking this for granted (an obvious progression they say!). Simply put, everyone is relying on hindsight here in attempting to diminish the value created by Apple's IP. If HTC, Motorola, Nokia, heck even if Google is so inclined in, they should design their own work-arounds to circumvent Apple's patents.
@BrianJ0608
I looked at a couple of the software patents and I thought they were a bit overly broad and in many cases based on alot of prior research and implementations that were non-Apple. And from what little I've read I can't say that Apple contributed to the state of the art to the point that others are reaping the benefit of their intellectual property (ie, from the few patents I've read I find it hard to say that Apple is being ripped off). Here's a quick summary of my take on some of the patents:
Patent #5,455,599 - Object-oriented graphic system issued Oct 1995
This patent puts forth the idea of using object-oriented techniques (inheritance, polymorphism, using classes to encapsulate data, etc.) when creating a graphics system. While certainly a valid way to create a graphics system, much work was already being done at the time to advance and standardize graphics processing. For example Open GL was introduced in 1992, and while it's essentially a 'flat' API and not an object oriented one, there were soon alot of C++ wrappers around Open GL such as GLUT and GLT, which provided an object-oriented graphics system. Microsoft's own DirectX was introduced in 1995 (based on its previous Game SDK work). If Apple honestly feels their IP is being ripped off then then should have been suing every single game maker that has been using a C++ wrapper or library around DirectX for the past 14 years. And actually a much earlier example of an object oriented graphics system was introduced by Commodore on their Amiga computer, with the release of Amiga OS2 in 1990. That release used a system called BOOPSI (Basic Object Oriented Programming System for Intuition).
In any event it seems odd that all of a sudden Apple is concerned about other people using object-oriented graphics systems when they have been so prevalent for well over the past decade. And especially in a phone (again, a game maker or 3D modelling package would be making much more extensive use of this patent).
Patent 5,519,867 - Object-oriented multitasking system Issued May 1996
Despite the title this patent is more oriented to using an object oriented system, but still being able to access procedural operating system calls (ie, non-object oriented) through that system. (The title is also a bit ironic given Apple's reluctance to implement true multitasking in some of their products). There are obviously many OS services you can wrap in OO code but this lists the following: threads, tasks, virtual memory, interprocess communication, scheduling, faults, and security. When I first read this one I immediately thought of the java jvm. This patent describes how a library can be used to access other libraries providing OO service interfaces to the OS (hmmm sounds a little like jar files, packages, class loaders, etc). Java implements some things by itself, for example it manages and creates its own threads, but obviously file system requests do go to the OS, and java's heap has to be taken from the OS's memory manager. Java was introduced at about the same time as this patent, in 1995.
However there was a lot of work done in this field prior to this. One notable example is Smalltalk pioneered by Xerox's PARC (remember PARC? they are the ones that showed Apple how to create a GUI). They did alot of great work in the 1970's while Steve Jobs was still a teenager (Alan Kay, Dan Ingalls, Adele Goldberg, and many others -- people that did the hard research work that actually advanced the state of the art).
Again, if Apple really has the balls to claim this patent represents their own blood, sweat and tears and no one else's then basically they should sue anybody that has ever written a Java program. I guess it makes sense though since Android development is Java based.
One ironic (okay, very nerdy ironic) note is that in the figures depicting fault handling classes it looks like they use the 680x0 family of CPUs (which makes sense since that was the original CPU of the Macintosh). And who made the 680x0 family of CPUs? None other than Motorola, manufacturer of that Android phone called the Droid.
Finally one more: Patent #6,424,354: Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods. Issued July 2002
Although the title indicated object oriented event notification and listener registration, this patent also covers things like using objects as part of a GUI so for example, they can maintain state, and store commands (as well as commands executed which can be used for Redo functions). Again, Apple seems pretty ballsy in maintaining that listener registration (as well as the idea of not using a queue and only registering for certain events) is theirs and no one else's. Certainly java applets use this technique, javascript uses this (and yeah, I would consider javascript object oriented -- no classes, but certainly objects, but I digress), and this is the idea of alot of OS callback functions (call me directly when this event happens, and I'll execute this code). Callbacks like this were in Microsoft's WinSDK going back to the late 1980's and early 1990's. Yes those APIs were not object oriented but you could argue that it was easily enough to wrap them in C++.
Okay, sorry for such a long, tedious post. Also to be fair to Apple I only started looking at the software patents since I figured I probably had at least an outside chance of understanding them. And this is only 3 out of 20 so it's just a small sample. However I guess my point is is that first of all these patents (and the few others I skimmed over) were based on work for alot of other people. I'm not trying to start a flame war but it really would be a stretch to say Apple advanced the state of the art in the areas mentioned above, and it does a disservice to those people in academia and the industry that really did alot of exciting and innovate work but whose first priority was not to patent that work to prevent others (like Apple) from using it.
Finally (honest, this is it) all of these software patents seem pretty tangential to cell phones. All of these techniques have been used in tons of other applications. To me, anyway, it's pretty clear Apple just wants to use any means to stop the growth of Android. And these patents are a legal way to go about it.
@anotherguy
Thank you for an informative breakdown. I wish somebody would do a breakdown of all the patents and discredit them. Endgadget should make that the next article.
It would end the debate once and for all about how apple has a right to defend its absolutely horrendous patent claims.
The apple microsoft lawsuit was a copyright one, after apple lost that one they changed their strategies to patent litigation.
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
Here is an interesting history of touch user interfaces and their history.
Pinch and zoom is ancient as are other multitouch features CLAIMED by apple
This is nothing but a way to get a bargaining chip to use against nokia, coz there is no way they will win the nokia lawsuit.
All of nokias patent claims are hardware related. Yes nokia is obligated to license them, but to all those people who claim that nokia should charge apple the same licensing fees as it does to the all the other phone companies i would just like to say apple products have the highest profit margins therefore the licensing should reflect that.
Nilay, good job on this one.
I just burned all my itunes to audio disk, pulled them back on my PC as mp3 files to kill the DRM's that will only allow those files to work on apple products, cancelled my itunes account, threw my nano in the trash, and picked up a zune.
Finally done with you apple, I know you will not miss 1 customer,
The snobby commercials were one thing, but this, is quite another. I mean, when are we all going to get sued by Apple for Steve Jobs patenting breathing air.
@savytech
I am doing the exact same thing. Except iPod touch, and I'm throwing in all my accessories (docks etc.).
Props to the author of this article for putting the work in here. This makes the so called "journalists" that put up stupid, poorly written blurbs ripped from other sites look pathetic.
The biggest problem with Apple is all they do is go around finding other peoples innovations(open source or private/university research projects) then claiming them as their own and sueing the original creators or anyone else who tries to use the stuff they stole.
Just bought a Nexus One and one Google share, and now I'll advise my friend not to buy the iMac he is planning to... and wait for the Chrome OS computer.
I just cant believe so many people are pissed that apple is protecting IP that they have rightfully patented...
This is an american company that actually innovates.. say what you will about them, but it is at least 1 company in America that seemingly does it better than the japanese or europeans etc... why do we then want to just let them take the ideas and use them for profit? its like the auto industry all over again.
Authorities say Apple has sued HTC, accusing their biggest rival of violating patents relating to the iphone. Apparently many features loved about the HTC (or android) were originally taken from iphone software. Actually Samsung is in turn suing Apple for other technologies. I think these companies are abusing the way we are supposed to use patent laws. Such a “dog eat dog world”. In the end they will all lose, either money or reputation. But I guess I would also be pretty upset if a company stole my inventions and said they were theirs. I got some facts here. http://ketiva.com/Computers_and_Internet/apple_fights_htc.html
Great list of the patents involved.Needless to say I'm not impressed by Apple. The patents listed are so broad in range I highly doubt any serious court will take this serious,at least I hope not. As for this comment :
"Maybe some nice Anti-Trust attention will come Apple's way too from EU and DOJ."
I can think of a few violations of EU regulations by Apple right now - without any real effort :
- tie-in of Apple hardware with Itunes/Apple app store , excluding 3rd party developers or resellers from catering for the device .
- exclusive sale of iphone from 1 provider only ( or very few ), i.e. exclusive deal .Prohibiting consumers from getting the subscription they want with the phone .
- voiding warranty when consumer decides to jailbreak the device due to to one or both points made above.
The EU is very strict when it comes to exclusive deals or anything hindering free market mechanisms ( ask Microsoft , Intel and recently also Google,they learned this the hard way) or in any way ,shape or form hindering consumers in their freedom of choice .
I'm also suspecting Apple would immediately get slapped with a lawsuit from Google ( most definitely a procedure before the EU commission) and probably several other companiesif they would win this frivolous thing against HTC .
Authorities say Apple has sued HTC, accusing their biggest rival of violating patents relating to the iphone. Apparently many features loved about the HTC (or android) were originally taken from iphone software. Actually Samsung is in turn suing Apple for other technologies. I think these companies are abusing the way we are supposed to use patent laws. Such a “dog eat dog world”. In the end they will all lose, either money or reputation. But I guess I would also be pretty upset if a company stole my inventions and said they were theirs. I got some facts here. http://ketiva.com/Computers_and_Internet/apple_fights_htc.html
I think if Apple were around when the wheel had been invented they would have tried to patent that. Then all the other manufacturers wanting to use wheels would be screwed.
Sometimes seems that really basic actions are being patented disallowing others to take the same idea and develop it further. So much innovation comes from taking an idea and seeing what more they can do with it.
Just ordered Droid. In two days, I will not use iPhone anymore. IMO, very stupid move from Apple. I was planning to buy a Macbook Pro when it comes with i7, but not anymore.
in all honesty if I were a judge I would say, is it an iPhone? No? Does it use any iPhone components? No? Was the iPhone reverse engineered and used in the development of your products? No? Case dismissed.
Checkout this article about Apple adding 'new' gestures to it's iPhone OS.
http://www.9to5mac.com/long-press-3tap-iphone-gestures-435983467#comment-70878
I bought my Nokia N900 back in Novemer and it has all of those gestures:
Rotate clockwise to zoom in, rotate counter-clockwise to zoom out, hold/long press to bring up a right-click menu, swipe from right to left to go back (in the browser), swipe from left to right to bring up an on-screen mouse, & triple tap to hilight all text.
I find it hypocritical for Apple to sue companies like HTC for gestures like 'swype to unlock' when other companies have clearly pre-dated them in adapting many other gestures into their OS without getting upset over it.
I'm just excited that gestures are being integrated across all platforms so natural motions will function similarly on many devices regardless of the manufacturer.
A door lock can be turned with a key clockwise/counter-clockwise, swiped with a card vertically/horizontally, thumbprint scanned, rfid tagged, but is eventually judged by the consumer based on quality, price, support, longevity, usability, and security. Not by the gesture it requires to use them.
My N900 swype to unlock screen is jittery while my sister's iPhone's unlock is fluid. I am envious of her iPhone's smoothness-Everywhere, the sick amount/variety in the app store, and constant development/OS updates; she is jealous of my N900's ability to view Adobe Flash on web pages, my ability to not only open a video or mp3 from Gmail but save that file to any folder I choose, play music over her FM car radio with no wires or accessories, connect it over non-proprietary USB to the PS3 and watch a video stored on it, send any file I choose from it to any other Bluetooth device (apart from her iPhone) without paying for an app, changing channels on the TV over IR without an adapter, and being able to use widgets.
People should be able to choose a device based on their own personal needs, but all devices should share some commonality in natural functionality (i.e. laptops all have keyboards for text input, or laptops all fold up). Certain companies will do things better. Always. I am just happy to see a start toward unification of usability.
If Apple wins this it will cripple the advancement of computing technology, mobile or otherwise, as we know it. These patents are so broad and so relied on at this point that if they come out on top it will force every other party that has used anything that Apple has ever called "dibs" on to redesign and 'Apple-proof' everything they have from that point forward. Window animations? Gesture based input? Imagine the entire world forced back to DOS style computing. Also, cell phones that rely solely on button input.