Summary: Apple’s patent lawsuit against HTC is a carefully planned manoeuvre, that some speculate is in fact  a proxy attack on Google.

However, with the rivalries and lawsuits aside it could have a more drastic effect on the consumers. If the courts rule in favour of Apple it could well kill a huge range of HTC produced handsets, and send a drastic blow in the face of Google and the Android platform.

Introduction

On Tuesday 2nd March, Apple announced that they have filed, with the US District Court and the International Trade Commission (ITC),  to sue HTC for infringing 20 patents.

The patents involved range from somewhat straight forward (‘Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image’), to seemingly complicated (Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices), and incoherent (Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods). Thankfully Nilay Patel, over at Engadget, takes a walk through each of the 20 patents and explains them in ways understandable to all.

As Patel notes, Apple has been very careful in planning their attack – filing for the more rooted and stronger patents with the ITC and the new, weaker ones with the District court.

The more important question is what the effect of these patents, whether the courts agree with Apple or not, is on HTC and perhaps more importantly on the consumers.

Diving deeper

It’s been speculated that Apple’s feud against HTC, is in fact more to do with Google, and the Android platform, than it does with HTC.

Understandably Apple aren’t happy with Google encroaching on their territory, as the NY Times reported Mr. Jobs saying “We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business”.

However, we can argue that Apple has to embrace competition rather than just sue. On the other side Apple is a largely creative and innovative company and if they aren’t able to protect their creations, then they maybe lose the essence of their business. With the latest 74 day sales figures showing the flagship Android phone (the Motorola Milestone – I’m not counting the nexus one as it wasn’t advertised at the same level as, say, the iPhone) selling more than the iPhone; and, the Android platform gaining platform quickly, it’s certainly would be enough to concern Apple.

Google, of course, is not a company that is easily intimidated (if its even possible), and they will certainly not back down from a fight. So far, of course, they are not party to the lawsuit, but this is more of a question of time then anything else. In any case Google at least support HTC. A Google spokesman confirmed Google’s support to Techcrunch, “We are not a party to this lawsuit. However, we stand behind our Android operating system and the partners who have helped us to develop it”.

Two sides of the coin

All the “healthy” competition and rivalry aside, an important question arises – so what does this all mean for consumers?

On one side, by Apple aggressively protecting their patents, this should (theoretically) lead to more innovative technologies.

So instead of the utilising ‘swipe to unlock’ mechanism, it forces manufactures to develop a new method. From that perspective, better innovation means better technology, and happier consumers.

On the other side, using the same example of ‘slide to unlock’ – what if the steering wheel was patented or the handlebars on a bike, and manufactures were forced to come up with something different? I can see the point of fighting for a unique patent for an operating system or microprocessor but it doesn’t make sense to argue for something so versatile.

This has the opposite effect, where consumers are denied choice – why can’t we have the best features from one phone also available on another. Not to say that we shouldn’t have unique products, but instead to have the common best features available to masses.

Of course only time will tell what will happen, a ruling in favour of Apple could mean that HTC may have to kill certain phones. For now though, we just have to wait – as it’s become almost customary in these cases – it’s most likely that HTC, or even Google, will file a countersuit.

In any case this one is one to watch.

Reading around:

• Engadget – Apple vs HTC: A patent breakdown
• NY Times – HTC ‘Disagrees Strongly’ with Apple’s patent claims
• NY Times – Apple’s spat with Google is getting personal
• Ars Technica – Apple vs HTC: proxy fight over Android could last years

I recently read Scholarship in the digital age by Christine Bergman, and I found it to be quite a thought provoking book.

Image by ArtNow314

Note: this is not a review, just a discussion of some ideas raised by the book and others that occurred as a result!

Though I am sure the thoughts that came to my mind reading this book weren’t the kind the authored (probably) intended. The book “explores the technical, social, legal, and economic aspects of the kind of infrastructure that we should be building for scholarly research in the twenty-first century.” You may be thinking – why should I care?

That’s a perfectly good question. The truth is I don’t care about that. I do care about some other issues that came to mind as a result of the book. For example, consider the original use of the internet – it was to communicate research finding amongst scholars. Obviously, over time the internet has developed to much more than that, and as a result the internet has become full of both verifiable and unverifiable data.

The problem for most people is in distinguishing between that verifiable and unverifiable data. This is something that, I believe, we should all care about. And it is something that pops up each time I research an article or topic. Is the information I’m reading concrete or just based on loose opinion?

Of course, there is nothing wrong with opinion, but opinion labelled as factual data can do great harm.

As Bergman argues, with the ever increasing complexities of the modern society we need equally advanced infrastructures that are able to support and manage this vast amount of data.

The second interesting point that is brought up is whether printed publications will remain practical. Though the author is specifically talking about scholarly publications this is something that is affecting pretty much all printed media.

More and more printed material is being digitized. The burning question here is – will printed publications go extinct in the next few years?

As someone who loves technology, I still love to hold a book in my hand and read it. The physical appeal is too strong for me. I believe this is the case for many others. However with the release of devices such as the Amazon Kindle, the tide may soon turn.

Overall the book, though primarily aimed at policy makers and information scientist, was a interesting read that bring forth many thought provoking topics. It is clearly a well researched book that will become a good reference point for future developments and debates.