Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Finally Pre
  • 1 Post By kill_dano
  • 2 Post By siobhanellis
  • 2 Post By SnotBoogie
  • 1 Post By jmleese
  1.    #1  
    Why doesn't HP sue the likes of Apple and others? They own all these patents and yet everyone of the makers of Smartphones and tablet type devices infringe on those very patents. If they did sue and won, HP could use those funds to move ahead with WebOS and hardware. They could even say to makers that they will license the patents to you so long as you make the hardware, market it and in return you will make money and we will not sue your company into bankruptcy. There are many more options yet Palm and now HP just sit back and do nothing while these other companies make billions on HP holdings.
    Sprint: 2-TouchPad 32g, Frank.-Pre-2, Pre-, MiFi & 1-LG Lotus with Xlink tied to home handsets. Backups: 650 & 700wx

    HP Please release the CDMA Pre3 phones!
    We want them!!!
    Vistaus likes this.
  2. jdale's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    564 Global Posts
    #2  
    Most likely, while there are HP patents that Apple and others could be interpreted as infringing, there are also Apple patents that HP could be interpreted as infringing. Why start that fight when in the long run it will probably just create ill will and waste tons of money on legal proceedings?

    It's only when there's a clear imbalance and a strategic advantage to be gained that one of these companies finds it in their interest to sue. "Clear imbalance" is subjective, though, since the patent system makes patents almost meaningless until they've been considered by the courts.
  3. #3  
    They really should have sued RIM, though. They were asking for it.
    Vistaus likes this.
  4.    #4  
    At this point HP could sue everyone and have a field day. In return why would anyone sue them. As we all well know, HP doesn't make anything for us anymore. There's nothing left for others to sue HP over.
    Sprint: 2-TouchPad 32g, Frank.-Pre-2, Pre-, MiFi & 1-LG Lotus with Xlink tied to home handsets. Backups: 650 & 700wx

    HP Please release the CDMA Pre3 phones!
    We want them!!!
  5. #5  
    Maybe everyone's already licensed the necessary patents from them, eh?
  6. #6  
    Why not Sue? Because it's Meg!

    *sorry couldn't resist*
    Siobhán

    Palm III, Treo 600/650/680/750, Pre, Pre3, AT&T Pre3, tp 4G, tp 64GB.

    I am an HP Employee. I am not associated in anyway with the development of webOS or associated devices. Opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not in any way represent HP or Palm in any official manner. Any implications derived from my posts are the result of my own point of view and do not indicate any intention or evidence of past, present or future activity or plans of the aforementioned HP or Palm.
    FenrirWolf and Vistaus like this.
  7. #7  
    the only entity that should be sued is hp...by the webos community.

    after all the lies, broken promises, and heartbreak they have created...we all have deadend phones and tablets with no real future and will all be forced to move onto another platform eventually, having to waste time and money again learning a new Os and purchasing new apps.

    I am kidding about the suing part...but you get the gist of my message.
  8. #8  
    Why sue at all? B/c HP just can't resist engaging in a drawn-out lawsuit battle like apple-sammy? Just b/c you can doesn't mean you should.
  9. #9  
    I'd ask which specific patents are being infringed on? What part of what product is claimed to be an infringement and why (i.e. the headphone jack, glass, cpu, etc) Talking in generalities about a very specific area of law doesn't tell us that much. And honestly, half this stuff is beyond anyone that's not an engineer, scientist, etc in the field. It's why nowadays most patent attorneys need to hold other advance scientific degrees in the field they practice.

    Generally speaking patent law is one of the most complicated areas of law requiring admission to a second bar the Patent Bar. To your question why they don't sue. One possible answer is maybe the patents are not likely to be enforced by a court thus they don't test them. Patents have to be defended and it's not unheard of to have patent that get's challenged. Another explanation is maybe certain patents have expired. Patents have limited duration. I think design patents have a duration of 14 years and are not renewable and utility patents i think are 20 from the filing date. (don't quote me on that). Regardless, things like generic drugs exists because patents expire. Claritin got it's patent in the 90s but went off patent in 2003 and because of it you can get the same drug, Loratadine, at walgreens under the generic "Walitin" name.

    Companies are can license patents. Maybe these companies pay a valid license to use "technology." Again without specifics it's speculation.

    You also can't patent and idea. And one area of the that is a sketchy area is user interface patents. It's a very slippery slope as to where an idea leaves off and a tangible invention of an idea starts. only the later is protectable. Would a court find Cards protectable whether they have an issued patent or not? I personally don't think so. It wasn't the first app switching interface on an operating system. The flicking may be but the idea of minimizing a window then switching windows existed with the "Alt-tab" function on desktops. I'd argue it's just an idea that's been around already and you can't enforce patent that. Same as Apple couldn't prevent windows from using the windowed graphical user interface. Could you imagine Apple saying we got a patent on our ipod touch interface thus nobody can have a music app with a scrobbler.

    Also unless we know the specific thing the patent is protecting it's hard to know if the same technology is being used. Like if Corning has a patent for make a special bullet proof glass and someone else makes bullet proof glass but with a completely different method and formula they aren't infringing on corning's product. They can't patent the idea of bullet stopping glass. Regardless, it's possible that companies are making a tech that is just slightly different but different enough to not be infringing.

    Most lawyers are not competent to argue patent law cases since they aren't trained in it. The lay person on all these tech blogs and website surely isn't. Especially when nobody is making a case with specific violations. For the most part it tends to be just conjecture.
    Last edited by SnotBoogie; 12/19/2011 at 01:04 AM.
    You come at the king. You best not miss.
    cgk and sinsin07 like this.
  10. jmleese's Avatar
    Posts
    159 Posts
    Global Posts
    160 Global Posts
    #10  
    Notice no one goes after Palm / HP ?
    They stay above the fray. Even when Palm kept enabling direct syncing with itunes Apple didn't sue them. They know they have a enough ammo to keep others from touching them & it allows them to use others patented stuff with little fear of it turning into a cross litigation.
    Vistaus likes this.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmleese View Post
    Even when Palm kept enabling direct syncing with itunes Apple didn't sue them.
    Thinking about it, wasnt that something? What a bold display of huevos! And then Jon had the nerve to formally complain to the USB Implementers Forum when Apple blocked it. His last name should be Rubenstone. lol

    Funny how almighty Steve would simply suck it up and change the USB ID each time. lol

    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre
    If they did sue and won, HP could use those funds to move ahead with WebOS and hardware.
    They didnt drop the platform due to lack of funds. All the $ in the world wont help if the heart is not in it. It has to be a labor of love.

    I think HP is wise to not start any wars in this case. A bigger gun does not guarantee victory.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmleese View Post
    Notice no one goes after Palm / HP ?
    They stay above the fray. Even when Palm kept enabling direct syncing with itunes Apple didn't sue them. They know they have a enough ammo to keep others from touching them & it allows them to use others patented stuff with little fear of it turning into a cross litigation.
    Apple didn't need to sue. They forced Palm to stop in a much cheaper way. They just made it hard for Palm devices to work with itunes. Worse Palm's public image began to suffer as people said, "Why don't they just make their own software." Palm looking bad and having to hassle with Apple finally gave up.
    Last edited by SnotBoogie; 12/19/2011 at 07:20 PM.
    You come at the king. You best not miss.

Posting Permissions