Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Portables, Apple, iPhone
Does Apple have a case against Palm?
There's been some growling and teeth-baring between Apple and Palm lately, but Engadget wanted to know: does Apple really have a case against Palm for their patented technology? They put their (and our) legal correspondent, Nilay Patel, on the case, and in this long but very interesting analysis piece, he answers: probably.But things, as usual, aren't that simple. Apple's patents don't just cover "multitouch" -- they cover very specific behaviors using the multitouch feature, and if Palm's Pre phone doesn't use those behaviors, there's no infringement. Of course, Patel is only going off of video of the Pre -- they don't have it in hand yet -- so things could change before the unit is released, but they do find significant evidence that Palm may have stepped on some lines it shouldn't have.
Then again, as Patel and patent attorney Mathew Gavronski discovered, Palm's got some tricks of their own -- they've got a whole slew of easily findable patents that the iPhone appears to infringe upon, including using an ambient light sensor to define brightness, looking up contacts just by using initials, and a number of other functions. Then again again, Apple's got pending patents in the fire that it can revise in case they think Palm is really trying to hone in on their business.
So bottom line, this could be really messy or it could be really simple, and Engadget concludes that the ball is in Apple's court -- if there's going to be a war, they say, the first shot will be from them. Personally, I think it's all corporate posturing -- as Patel points out, Palm has much less to lose, not having sold a single unit yet, and Apple is just making sure they know what's what. But there is a lot of money here, and if one side decides it'll cost less to go after the other, the fur could fly.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Luke H. said 10:22AM on 1-29-2009
W.o.a.h. I checked out the entire Palm Pre website. That's a rip-off of the iPhone if I ever saw one. The UI is quite pleasant looking, it has a nice rounded look to it. But, I'd have to feel one in my hand before I judged, it would need to have to snappiness of the iPhone to compete.
However, I think it may be good for the iPhone to have a little healthy competition. :) A little more motivation to improve the iPhone :D We don't want to make things TOO easy for Apple, do we?
Reply
Robert said 10:35AM on 1-29-2009
After a brief look at the Pre (or the Storm, or the G1), it could easily be called a rip off of the iPhone. It's the other innovations (merging contacts from the cloud, gestural area, application cards, webOS in general) that make the Pre stand out from (and stand above, in the opinion of this iPhone user) the iPhone. Yes, it is a touch screen device just like the iPhone. Beyond the basic UI requirements of a (multi-)touch screen device, these two devices aren't very similar.
Robert said 10:29AM on 1-29-2009
I read this hoping to get some additional insight after reading the Engadget article yesterday. Unfortunately, this seems to just be a summary of what was posted at Engadget. It would have been nice to know that this was only a summary before reading the full post.
Reply
Lee said 10:43AM on 1-29-2009
This is getting way over hyped. There is a nice article here http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/01/23/why-apples-tim-cook-did-not-threaten-palm-pre/ That explains why apple probably will not sue. It would be nice to get back to some more productive discussions on this blog imho.
Reply
Gazoobee said 11:51AM on 1-29-2009
The trouble I have with these kinds of analyses by lawyers is that lawyers don't think like regular people, so while they are smart and cognisant of all the legal details, when they speculate over how it will all go down they are almost always dead wrong.
My experience is that Apple usually does what it thinks is "right" for the company and it's products, but also what is generally "right" in a moral sense. Lawyers on the other hand, see morality as highly relative and deeply dependant both on self-interest, and money.
The assessment at the end where the article (and the lawyer) imply that whether Apple goes after Palm or not will depend basically on how much money and time it will cost, is classic lawyer reasoning and not necessarily the way Apple will approach it at all.
IMO, if Apple truly believes that Palm is stealing their IP they will go after them, period. If they don't, they won't. It really is as simple as that sometimes.
Reply
mark said 10:56AM on 1-29-2009
I have to be blunt here, because I don't get "news" like this. This is NOT a slam against the article writer.
Why do we honestly care? And why should we bother to think or debate this for one second?
Does it put any money in OUR pockets if Apple has case?
There are far more interesting things in life to ponder than the riches of any company.
Reply
Maxwell Ash said 11:50AM on 1-29-2009
If you feel that way then why comment? Just because an article doesn't interest you, doesn't mean it won't interest everybody. I think apple shareholders would probably care. So next time, don't be such a dick.
The Dude said 1:48PM on 1-29-2009
If you feel that way then why comment? Just because comment doesn't interest you, doesn't mean it won't interest everybody.
Since when is saying you don't like an article something bad? If no one posted that they didn't like an article, how would the editors know? Get off it.
Reggie said 11:14AM on 1-29-2009
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I might have read a long time ago that if you release a product before a patent has been approved, you are not liable to license anything. Only those who use the technology after the patent has been approved is liable for a license. If this is the case, Palm should be safe.
Reply
Jon said 11:38AM on 1-29-2009
Nope, because the Pre hasn't been released yet.
VanillaSpice said 10:31PM on 1-29-2009
And it is wrong anyway, you can be sued no matter when you made the infringing product, before or after the granting of the patent.
Tom said 2:10AM on 1-30-2009
That's not 100% true, you can release a patent as long as you have a provisional patent. That means you can put patent pending on your product. Some products take years before they are awarded the patent.
After the patent is awarded. The patent holder (if someone infringes upon it) has full legal right to provide terms to either terminate the use of the product or provide the patent holder with some sort of compensation (this is an agreement between the patent holder and the user of such patent).
In other words, Apple has full legal right to pursue such an infringement if BlackBerry does not comply with Apple's patent agreement and/or the Patent is found to be similar to BlackBerry's usage. On the flip side, I bet apple has better lawyers than BlackBerry :) In that case, the better lawyers might be good enough to sway any judge or jury with a very compelling case.
Jer said 11:23AM on 1-29-2009
After Microsoft's coup of the 'interface' from Apple so many years ago, I have very little confidence in our legal system to protect the creative entities of our time from those that would otherwise be snowed under by progress.
Reply
spdrcr5 said 11:41AM on 1-29-2009
you do realize that Apple didn't create/invent that interface but instead swiped it from Xerox. Just as just about every other major PC creation was created by Xeroz in their PARC Lab in the 60's and 70's.
Both Apple and Microsoft stole the interface using icons instead of text from Xerox. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Woz all at various times had been invited to see some of the things that were being worked on at PARC by the BoD who ignored the warnings of the employees that said the ideas would be stolen... the BoD didn't care.
Look what was created at PARC at that time and what companies were created or profited from it...
Laser Printers (HP)
Mouse (Logitech)
Ethernet (3COM, Cisco, etc)
GUI (Apple, Microsoft, etc)
There are many other technologies that were created in a 10 yr period that Xerox never sold but instead the people who created them at PARC left and started their own companies or in the cases of Apple and Microsoft stole the ideas and made billions.
The ultimate slap in the face that was given to Xerox can be found in every word processing software program ever created. The little icon that you click for a "new document"... is the Xerox corporate logo.
Meatleg said 8:39AM on 1-30-2009
Actually, I thought that Xerox invested money into Apple, which meant that Apple didn't "copy" Xerox. Microsoft however got no such endorsement from Xerox, this cementing their reputation as rip-off artits. Am I remembering this right?
andrew said 11:25AM on 1-29-2009
nicely done image: apple v. palm = a v. p = alien v. predator!
Reply
oliver hart said 2:07PM on 1-29-2009
Ya tuaw didn't create that image, I believe nilay and others at engadget did it. I know tuaw is a sister site, but why post the exact same thing the next day? Why not link it? Engadgets crew deserves all the credit. And apple doesn't have a case. Apple stole a ton of palms patents (ambient light recog, conference call feature-verbatm!, and a slew of others) if apple sues, they'll be risking losing in court once those issues come to light. Go read the engadget post. It's in depth and totally on point.
huos said 11:36AM on 1-29-2009
APLien v PREdator. In 2009, one still needs cut-n-paste cheats.
Reply
Gazoobee said 11:52AM on 1-29-2009
@ spdrcr5: You are wrong about Apple "stealing" from Xerox Parc.
This has been gone over time and time again on hundreds of blogs and documentaries. Look it up. No one at Apple "stole" anything from Xerox Parc.
This is just a fantasy in broad strokes that people who don't care to look into the details tell themselves about what happened.
Microsoft on the other hand *did* purposely steal a lot of ideas from the Mac.
Reply
Steve said 1:29PM on 1-29-2009
That's correct. The Smalltalk system that was demonstrated to Steve Jobs by Dan Ingalls and Adele Goldberg was actually later licensed to Apple, and other companies for $1.