AT&T HTC One X shipments indefinitely delayed

[Droid800]

HP invented the contextual menu hyperlink in 1979.
Apple invented it in 1996.
Our government granted the patent to Apple.

You have technologically-illiterate old white men making decisions that involve things they will never understand. Until that changes, this will never end.

Except they're different Jerry. Just because you may not agree doesn't mean the patent shouldn't have been issued.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

Except they're different Jerry. Just because you may not agree doesn't mean the patent shouldn't have been issued.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

You click a link and you're given a dialog with choices of what to do with said link. You can see this today with any number of text based http browsers available for Unix, all of which were available long before Apple invented it. This technology predates the Internet as we know it, let alone smartphones.

Explain to me how Apple's method is different?

The simple fact is that all this technology was not patented or trademarked when it was first written. Had the fellows at Bell labs patented all their ideas as they came up with them, Apple or HTC would not even exist.

 

[Johnly]

Kinda makes ya wonder how much money changed hands to get that patent approved, so it's actually RICH illiterate old white men making those decisions. Cause we all know government entities and governing bodies are above reproach and bribery.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Money changing hands...love it!

 

[nokia4life]

well i am faithful to non of them i buy whats the best to me at that time which is why the HOX is in my lineup i also have a 4s 32gb, galaxy nexus 16gb, nokia lumia 900 16gb, bb 9900, htc surround, and hp veer. i own stock in them all i just want them to keep pumping out great phones so that i can satisfy my phone habit. this holding up the evo's and one's sucks folks want their phones that they pre ordered , i think we phone junkies need to occupy ITC and the patent folks lets dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo this man!!!!!!. lol side note i do eventually sell the oldest or the most disliked to offset my cost since i buy these things off of contract. the only phone i buy on contract is iphones and thats because those things are dam expensive compared to the others oh all carrier branded att, except for the galaxy nexus.. they are all my precious yessssss.:-$

 

[Droid800]

You click a link and you're given a dialog with choices of what to do with said link. You can see this today with any number of text based http browsers available for Unix, all of which were available long before Apple invented it. This technology predates the Internet as we know it, let alone smartphones.

Explain to me how Apple's method is different?

The simple fact is that all this technology was not patented or trademarked when it was first written. Had the fellows at Bell labs patented all their ideas as they came up with them, Apple or HTC would not even exist.

Your gross oversimplification of the patent in question is doing a great disservice to the readers here, let alone for the discussion going on in this thread. To put it bluntly, what you posted above is not accurate.

It is NOT just the dialogue box. It is the detection of structures in data, the turning of them into clickable links, and the association of those links with those dialogue boxes that change depending on what is identified in the structure.

One critical thing, which you completely glossed over in your glib response, is that the patent encompasses ALL of those things. It doesn't matter if elements of the patent existed separately prior to Apple's patent. The patent was granted to Apple specifically BECAUSE what it describes and the actions/elements that are a part of it, DID NOT exist as a complete unit prior to Apple's patent.

I know you guys like to rant about how the patent office is broken and how a patent like this shouldn't have been granted, but when you do so you completely ignore the nature of patents such as this and undermine any legitimate conversation on the topic. There is a REASON this patent was granted; just because you don't like it doesn't make those reasons just disappear.

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

Your gross oversimplification of the patent in question is doing a great disservice to the readers here, let alone for the discussion going on in this thread. To put it bluntly, what you posted above is not accurate.

It is NOT just the dialogue box. It is the detection of structures in data, the turning of them into clickable links, and the association of those links with those dialogue boxes that change depending on what is identified in the structure.

One critical thing, which you completely glossed over in your glib response, is that the patent encompasses ALL of those things. It doesn't matter if elements of the patent existed separately prior to Apple's patent. The patent was granted to Apple specifically BECAUSE what it describes and the actions/elements that are a part of it, DID NOT exist as a complete unit prior to Apple's patent.

I know you guys like to rant about how the patent office is broken and how a patent like this shouldn't have been granted, but when you do so you completely ignore the nature of patents such as this and undermine any legitimate conversation on the topic. There is a REASON this patent was granted; just because you don't like it doesn't make those reasons just disappear.

There's a reason you think it should have been granted. Let's get that straight from the beginning. There are many reasonable people, including the European Union, who think granting software patents on ideas, rather than source code and methods, is utter garbage.

Right click a file on your computer. Look at the list of choices you have and operations you can perform on that file -- all of which are dependent on the changing data structure of the file itself, as well as installed applications on your computer. Apple did not invent this. Ever. MC does exactly this. It was written and distributed in 1994 under the GPL. It is not the only example, just one of the ones from the period Apple was "inventing" this. Apple does not deny benefiting from open source development and ideas. They used to say they were the good guys, remember?

Apple made the icons pretty. And they got a patent for it.

 

[Droid800]

There's a reason you think it should have been granted. Let's get that straight from the beginning. There are many reasonable people, including the European Union, who think granting software patents on ideas, rather than source code and methods, is utter garbage.

Right click a file on your computer. Look at the list of choices you have and operations you can perform on that file -- all of which are dependent on the changing data structure of the file itself, as well as installed applications on your computer. Apple did not invent this. Ever. MC does exactly this. It was written and distributed in 1994 under the GPL. It is not the only example, just one of the ones from the period Apple was "inventing" this. Apple does not deny benefiting from open source development and ideas. They used to say they were the good guys, remember?

Apple made the icons pretty. And they got a patent for it.

Way to completely ignore what I actually posted. Read it again. What apple patented did not exist, as a whole, prior to the patent. Period. There is a 'back end' to the patent that you have completely ignored. Perhaps you should go read the actual patent, and then you'll understand why it was granted. There's a reason they were granted the patent, and its a reason that seems to elude you. And here's a hint: it isn't because of some idiotic idea that the people in the patent office are gray-haired luddites that don't know anything about technology.

YOU don't seem to like the fact that this patent was granted. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But you shouldn't be casting yourself as someone that knows everything about what's being discussed. You're here, not a member of the USPTO team. I'll trust their judgement over yours, thank you very much.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[ladyhaly]

Originally Posted by jpb07<br />
Apple ought to do like most other segments do and demand damages. Holding up product at Customs does nothing but hurt the end user. That is my issue with it and this episode has completely sealed my household off from anything Apple. As far as the patents themselves...they ought to just call it a wash and start over. All of them have stolen from each other BUT whereas Apple is holding up EUs over petty BS, the others have some fairly sizable claims (notification bar being a biggie.)

<br />
<br />
Would you be saying the same thing if it was Google or Samsung in apples position. That is my biggest issue with statements like yours; you sure as hell wouldn't be saying that if it was any other company. <br />
<br />
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Yes, I would. The fact is that people like you do not see the core issue on the matter: No one OWNS an idea. Ideas that people have as of today are products of previous ideas and knowledge in the past. So all of this is just technological evolution. An article pinpointing this in detail has been posted in phonearena.com months ago. You DO NOT patent the action; you patent the code. The same way you do not patent the genre of a book; you patent the exact writing.

What I fail to comprehend is why should anyone use their patents--- patents that are a product of a flawed patent system --- to halt the sales of another. This is an offensive action. Patents are supposed to protect, but during these days they can be used to cause offense. The vague nature and the idiocy of people also adds to this legal mess.

"Oh hey. Apple is allowed to do that. It's okay to be a PITA about it and legally attack others, not defend itself, and inconvenience consumers because the patent allows them to. It's nature that companies think of consumers as brainless idiots whose wallets should be drained, preferrably in a monopoly wherein they have no choice because companies naturally only care about profit."

Is this the kind of "intelligent" reasoning that is going to save humanity?



Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e using Tapatalk 2

 

[ladyhaly]

Way to completely ignore what I actually posted. Read it again. What apple patented did not exist, as a whole, prior to the patent. Period. There is a 'back end' to the patent that you have completely ignored. Perhaps you should go read the actual patent, and then you'll understand why it was granted. There's a reason they were granted the patent, and its a reason that seems to elude you. And here's a hint: it isn't because of some idiotic idea that the people in the patent office are gray-haired luddites that don't know anything about technology.

YOU don't seem to like the fact that this patent was granted. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But you shouldn't be casting yourself as someone that knows everything about what's being discussed. You're here, not a member of the USPTO team. I'll trust their judgement over yours, thank you very much.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

What do you think a patent is and what it should be?

Should actions be patented?

Do you think that the nature and system of patents are excellent and should be left alone at present? Why?

Because from what I can garner from your responses, you base your responses on the fact that the patent system just IS and because it IS, everything that Apple or any other company that has similar practices IS justified--- ideas stolen and patented as their own or not. Nothing needs to be changed. We should all just accept that patents are what they are at present and companies should continue doing what they are doing to each other and further hurt the users because the patent system is just, perfect, and there are no problems with it.

Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e using Tapatalk 2

 

[Texas.dre]

I'm new to this forum and still an IOS user until HTC One X comes back or Galaxy S 3 comes online.

But reading these piss & moan comments are depressing. Some folks act like Android or IOS is putting food on their table. It's a lousy phone folks. It will not solve famine in Africa or elect the next president.

As far as the patent wars, well get use to it. The US patent system is broken and issues like this will continue to occur for the near future. Apple won this round but they are getting their teeth kicked in in other parts of the world regarding patents. Everyone is suing everyone else. Why do u think Google acquired Moto Mobility?? For its patent portfolios!!!

Now Android vs. IOS is so 3rd grade!! If you love your Android phone then God & Google love you and if you love eating the Apple then let God & Jobs ghost enjoy it!!!

Frankly, I an not going to use 1 millisecond of stress on fighting about which platform is better. You know which is better? Which ever phone at the time I want. I have a iPhone 4 now and so I'm eating my apple but when my HTC One X is available I will be making sweet love to my Ice Cream Sandwich. If a year from now Mango is wetting my appeitite then I'm loving me some Microsoft.

I drive a Jeep but I don't care or judge those who drive a Chevy or Ford, I drink Pepsi but I won't insult a guy that only drinks Coca Cola. I value my time too much to worry about fanboys and fangirls. Mind your own business and spend your money on whatever dang phone u want. Stop judging folks that don't agree with your decision and move on.

This isn't global warming or terrorism it's a funky butt phone!!!

 

[ladyhaly]

Actually yes I would. Most companies handle business in a way that puts it on the infringer to piss off their customers...either pay damages or suspend shipments of the product if they don't want to pay them. What Apple has done here is like a kid running to an adult to whine because they aren't getting their way. They either don't have the balls to fight or are just using this as a sleazy tactic to hurt HTC. Once the phones are cleared I hope HTC sues the hell out of Apple for unfair business practices.

Edit: And for the record,I would have an iPhone if it didn't have such a small screen, a draconian OS that gives the user little flexibility, and high price.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I agree with everything--- down to the edit about the iPhone.



Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e using Tapatalk 2

 

[ladyhaly]

Overreacting drama queen much?


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Yes. We should all be emotionless zombies.

Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e using Tapatalk 2

 

[icebike]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2012/05/21/2003533313

Looks like the delay is over, and the HOX, both versions, is cleared for entry.

When the smoke clears you will find Apple demanded this inspection, in spite of HTC's assertion that they had removed the offending features back in December.

Sent from my HOX

 

[achacon77]

I can't help but think that HTC is baiting Apple into some type of backfire. I'll be waiting patiently for the EVO LTE. But not past July.

 

[Mercury81]

I can't help but think that HTC is baiting Apple into some type of backfire. I'll be waiting patiently for the EVO LTE. But not past July.

That's very simular to blaming the victim game..... Would you deliberately lose customers and Money as a business to make another look bad? Is your first name Willard?


sent from Evo4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Droid800]

I can't help but think that HTC is baiting Apple into some type of backfire. I'll be waiting patiently for the EVO LTE. But not past July.

HTC has no control over it.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[metz65]

I can't help but think that HTC is baiting Apple into some type of backfire. I'll be waiting patiently for the EVO LTE. But not past July.

I don't see HTC baiting Apple into anything with the phone line they are relying on to jump start slumping sales for a company that has seen a declining market share lately. HTC wants this phone on the market just as much if not more than all the people that pre ordered it. Any kind of stall tactic by HTC would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

Way to completely ignore what I actually posted. Read it again. What apple patented did not exist, as a whole, prior to the patent. Period. There is a 'back end' to the patent that you have completely ignored. Perhaps you should go read the actual patent, and then you'll understand why it was granted. There's a reason they were granted the patent, and its a reason that seems to elude you. And here's a hint: it isn't because of some idiotic idea that the people in the patent office are gray-haired luddites that don't know anything about technology.

YOU don't seem to like the fact that this patent was granted. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But you shouldn't be casting yourself as someone that knows everything about what's being discussed. You're here, not a member of the USPTO team. I'll trust their judgement over yours, thank you very much.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I didn't ignore it. It just didn't tell me anything I haven't heard a hundred times before.

You tell me how Apple pieced together existing ideas, none of which they came up with first, and made it work just like those existing ideas already worked. I understand that. I think that's insane. Patent # 5,946,647 covers the detection of certain data, e. g. email addresses and phone numbers, in text on the screen and presenting options for dealing with it. This is not a new idea. Doing it on the Newton, after it had been done on PC's, does not make it a new idea. Making it pretty does not make it a new idea.

Taking something that already exists and editing it is basis for getting a patent. Until that changes, innovation is artificially slowed. This is what I have a problem with. Had the multi-touch patents stood in court, I'd be fine with it. Obtain proper licensing fees and move on. The "coverflow" style gallery is another good example. Apple did that first. Anyone who uses it should pay for the opportunity to use it. Patents like these OTOH, an aggregate of existing methods to parse data, should never be granted.

I've filed for, and have been granted, several patents on behalf of my prior employer (electronic sizing and sorting related). I understand the review process, and it's shortcoming is that it's far to easy to have one granted. Blindly trusting the judgement of the USPTO, as you stated you will do, only furthers the issues.

 

[Droid800]

I didn't ignore it. It just didn't tell me anything I haven't heard a hundred times before.

You tell me how Apple pieced together existing ideas, none of which they came up with first, and made it work just like those existing ideas already worked. I understand that. I think that's insane. Patent # 5,946,647 covers the detection of certain data, e. g. email addresses and phone numbers, in text on the screen and presenting options for dealing with it. This is not a new idea. Doing it on the Newton, after it had been done on PC's, does not make it a new idea. Making it pretty does not make it a new idea.

Taking something that already exists and editing it is basis for getting a patent. Until that changes, innovation is artificially slowed. This is what I have a problem with. Had the multi-touch patents stood in court, I'd be fine with it. Obtain proper licensing fees and move on. The "coverflow" style gallery is another good example. Apple did that first. Anyone who uses it should pay for the opportunity to use it. Patents like these OTOH, an aggregate of existing methods to parse data, should never be granted.

I've filed for, and have been granted, several patents on behalf of my prior employer (electronic sizing and sorting related). I understand the review process, and it's shortcoming is that it's far to easy to have one granted. Blindly trusting the judgement of the USPTO, as you stated you will do, only furthers the issues.

So basically, you're sticking your fingers in your ears going 'lalala I can't hear you' because others, that have a legitimate point mind you, disagree with you.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[icebike]

Can anyone with an HTC One X check if HTC removed the option to select an action after clicking on a linked phone number?
See the following article for more info on how HTC thought they were going to avoid infringement of Apple's patent: HTC: Data-Tapping Feature Will Remain on Phones | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

On my international one x, tapping a phone number found in a Web Page pops the number into the dialer, waiting for you to press enter.

That works even if the phone number is not a link in the true sense of the word.



Sent from my HOX