Apple v. HTC: The Plot Sickens

by on March 5, 2010 · 6 comments

I’m quoted briefly in a story today in E-Commerce Times (see “Apple’s Patent Attack:  This Too May be Overhyped” by Erika Morphy) about the patent lawsuit filed this week by Apple against rival mobile device maker HTC.

Apple, of course, produces the iPhone, while HTC makes Google’s Nexus One and other devices that run on Google’s Android operating system.

So right from the start this case looks less like a simple patent dispute and more like a warning shot over Google’s bow.  The two companies are increasingly becoming rivals.  In August of last year, Google CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple’s board.  Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote at the time, “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished….”

The apocalyptic rhetoric from analysts that accompanied the lawsuit (see Marguerite Reardon’s piece on CNET, “Is Apple Launching a Patent War?”), however, is both under and overselling the story.  It’s both much worse and not as bad as it seems.

The Undersell

The war is actually already going on, and ranges far beyond Apple and HTC.  The mobile device industry is deeply embroiled in prolonged legal battles over patents, with perhaps dozens of complaints and counter-claims flying back and forth.  Nick Bilton of The New York Times this week produced a simplified chart of who is suing whom, which he described as a “patent lawsuit Super Bowl party.”

As I write in Law Eight of The Laws of Disruption, patent litigation has “evolved” from being a last resort in the protection of proprietary technology to the first step in protracted negotiations between industry participants over how to divide up a rapidly-growing pie.  Here’s how it works.  Everyone flood the Patent Office with applications, drafted as broadly as possible.  The over-burdened examiners, who are incentivized to process applications quickly, find it is easier to say yes than to say no, and grant a large percentage of patents that are far too generous and clearly don’t meet the legal requirements for protection.

As I wrote last year in The Big Money, patent grants are out-of-control, one of the many symptoms of what most legal scholars agree is a system that has become utterly broken.  (The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that could see the end of so-called “business method” patents and perhaps even patents for software.  See “Can You Patent a Cat and a Laser Pointer?”)

Meanwhile, the parties all sue each other, and after years of poring over each other’s documents during discovery, figure out, more-or-less, who’s really invented what.  They wind up cross-licensing everything to everybody else and agreeing to mutual defense pacts against future challenges to the good and bad patents.  Apple says it has no interest in licensing its technology, but simply wants to stop competitors from ripping off their property.  We’ll see.

It is very likely that many of these patents, if recent history is any guide, are absurdly overbroad and would not survive full litigation.  (I’ve reviewed none of the patents at issue in this case so far.)  And full litigation is neither likely nor the goal of the parties. The real point of all this legal posturing is to obtain cross-licenses that will ultimately deter new competitors from entering the market.

There is a better way to protect invention without years of expensive litigation.  In some industries, subject to government approval, the major players simply pool their patents and establish open terms under which anyone can license them.  Sprint, Cisco, Intel and Nextel, for example, have pooled their WiMax patents to ensure a single standard emerges.  A mobile device pool would have been harder to fashion, but would also have avoided a lot of bloodshed (and legal fees).  In the end I suspect the results will be the same.

The Oversell

At the same time, the stakes aren’t quite as life-or-death as many commentators believe.  For example, the E-Commerce Times story quotes Greg Sterling on what a loss for Apple in the suit against HTC would mean:  “It would mean open season on any IP — anything could be copied.”  Hardly.  All it would mean is that the particular patents Apple is claiming either don’t hold up under careful scrutiny or, if they do, that HTC is found not to have infringed them.

More to the point, patent protection is only one way—and perhaps the least effective—that competitors secure competitive advantage in rapidly-growing and rapidly-evolving markets for new technology.  Offering superior service, an ever-growing menu of new options and features, and competitive pricing also works just fine.

Apple in particular has a significant advantage that has nothing to do with its patent portfolio:  the thousands of third-party 3G apps it sells to its customers.  The iPhone’s popularity today has little to do with proprietary technology, and everything to do with the enormous network of third-party software developers Apple has wrangled to write apps for its devices.

The apps drives network traffic, of course, but also drives what economists call “network effects.”  The more people use their iPhones the more people who don’t have one feel nudged to get one. Even if Apple loses the litigation, the network is unaffected.

The real winners in the mobile device patent war will be based not on patents but on the ability to build a robust network with compelling consumer offerings.  As it should be.

  • MikeRT

    Speaking of bad patents, this is my favorite one at the moment. It's a patent on Linked Lists from 2006.

  • lrd555

    Had the iPhone not come around things would have been a lot simpler:

    Almost zero innovation as one cell phone manufacturer adds a little different color the keyboards than the others.

    Nokia would have loved it because they got so fat they were happy with the status quo; RIM would have loved it because people would have almost no choice to think of e-mail as a big thing for a cell phone to do.

    Google would have not made Android or for that matter the Nexus One.

    Ah, how Apple stifles competition.

  • individualfreedomtrumpstyranny

    Apple Inc. is little more than a spoiled child screaming, mommy i want that toy also.
    Apple did not create the accelerometer, the microchip, hard disks, flash memory or any other hardware of significant purpose. They did compile existing and emerging hardware into a unified and rather elegant body of work, so, if the lawsuit is saying HTC copied the look and feel/structure of the iPhone the case can be made. If Apple is contending anything otherwise, the suit should be brought to Google, this way we can find how much “open software” Apple incorporates into what it calls proprietary. Safari is a skin for the openWebkit and Apple OSX is a skin for linux. They didn't invent the wheel, they merely polished it. Wake up Apple.

  • individualfreedomtrumpstyranny

    Apple Inc. is little more than a spoiled child screaming, mommy i want that toy also.
    Apple did not create the accelerometer, the microchip, hard disks, flash memory or any other hardware of significant purpose. They did compile existing and emerging hardware into a unified and rather elegant body of work, so, if the lawsuit is saying HTC copied the look and feel/structure of the iPhone the case can be made. If Apple is contending anything otherwise, the suit should be brought to Google, this way we can find how much “open software” Apple incorporates into what it calls proprietary. Safari is a skin for the openWebkit and Apple OSX is a skin for linux. They didn't invent the wheel, they merely polished it. Wake up Apple.

  • Pingback: wRDwgC1HqM wRDwgC1HqM

  • Pingback: 6pm.com coupon

Previous post:

Next post: