Post 27: ITC dismisses Motorola patent lawsuit against Apple

On Monday of this week, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) upheld a court ruling that Motorola Mobility’s smartphone sensor patent was invalid, delivering a bow in Google’s patent battle with archrival Apple. ITC only ruled U.S. Patent No. 6246862 on a “sensor controller user interface for portable communication device”. The patent relates to the feature that a touch screen ignores touches if the user if on a phone call and holds the device close to his head.  The technology has been used widely on iPhone and other smartphones. ITC believes that the concept of the patent protection is too obvious.

The latest Verdict states that it is impossible for Apple or Google to give their competitor a fatal blow in the patent litigation. Although such a ruling is a setback for Motorola, Apple does not win completely. Based on what we have seen so far, the patent lawsuit among mobile phone manufacturers will last a long time. What mobile manufacturers saw is not only benefit from the patent but also the market. The configuration standard of smartphones is gradually convergence. Lots of aspects of small differences, such as appearance design, display effect, become essential factors to decide the products’ difference and features. In order to maintain these features and differences and keep the advantage in intellectual property litigation, many smartphone giants start anther invisible competition.

From these ongoing patent lawsuits, we can see the changes in manufacturer’s mind. Their thoughts have changed from just winning the hearts of consumers to take legal action to undermine the competition. I think more and more cases have proved that patents are not innovative, but the stumbling block to impede the innovation of others. The patent lawsuit dispute between Apple and Motorola (Google) will let both companies injured. The patent dispute between the two did not appear to help either side; instead, it losses at both sides as well as damage the while smartphone market. Rather than spending a lot of money and energy for time-consuming sustained action, smartphone manufacturers could use it with regard to research and development or acquisitions to improve the quality of products and services. 

Post 26: HTC and Nokia Patent War: who is the winner?

HTC has raised a lot attention through its New HTC One, which uses MEMS microphone supplied by STMicroelectronics. The Rechtbank Amsterdam(Amsterdam District Court) issued a preliminary injunction on Monday against STMicroelectronics, stopping the supply of microphones to HTC that were meant to be built exclusively for Nokia until March 2014. As of now, in Germany, Nokia has 24 cases against HTC for patent infringement: 2 cases (EP 1329982 and EP 1474750) are still processing due to valid reasons; 3 cases (EP 0812120, EP 1312974 and EP 1581016) have been dismissed by the Court.

According to HTC’s statement to the media, they will not stop the HTC One delivery. In their view, they are just used the parts what are sold by the suppliers. It does not suppose to be HTC’s fault. HTC still do not have any intention to fight with Nokia around although HTC states like that. HTC said that once they use up the purchased STMicroelectronics microphones, they would enable entirely new microphone parts. HTC also states that the injunction Nokia got does not only relate to the new HTC One. From a legal point of view, the injunction only affects both Nokia and STMicroelectronics. It seems like HTC has won the patent case by staying away from the lawsuit. Nevertheless, I think HTC is the biggest loser in this war.

It seems like HTC One is a very important intelligent phone to HTC. I think it will, to a large extent, determine whether HTC can rise successfully or not. However, the injunction Nokia gets has more serious impact on the New HTC One shipment than the patent litigation based on several reasons. First of all, the ban was executed immediately and globally. Thus, when Nokia won the injunction, STMicroelectronics could not sell the product to HTC anymore globally. Second, when HTC changes their design, they will face serious problems in the field of public relations and marketing. After the New One was launched in the market, it attracted lots of consumers because of a number of unique of selling points, which also include its unique dual diaphragm design (one part grab loud radios and another group is in charge o recording requires high sensitivity sound, then combining two parts are to get a clearer and wider range).

It is no problem at all for changing the microphone design for New One, or replacing STMicroelectronics. However, it is hard to find a membrane design in MEMS microphone market that can achieve the effect as New One claimed in their advertisement. If an excellent feature cannot become true because of the injunction, how does HTC explain to its consumers? Does the price need to be fixed? Therefore, I believe the level of anxiety or even panic within HTC certainly has broken the watch. 

Post 25: Google vs Apple: fierce confrontation was forced to partner

On Wednesday of this week, Florian Mueller questioned why Apple would criticize Google, the undisputed leader in the search market, for a “clearly flawed” search methodology? It makes me to think about the relationship between Google and Apple.

Although Google and Apple compete in many areas, they are still forced to cooperate. I think the enemy and friend’s deadlock will continue for some time. The relationship between Google and Apple has undergone dramatic changes in recent years, from as close as brothers into mortal enemies. Google launched the Android operating system made Steve Jobs hates its guts, which can be reflected from his biography. However, the relationship between the two Silicon Valley Giants is much more complex than this. I think up to now, they still depends on each other. Nevertheless, there are some recent indications that Apple may be trying to alienate Google. This sparked my curiosity: Will Google at much greater risk? One of the biggest separations occurred when Apple gave up Google maps and instead use an open map product on its iPad. By then, Apple started to invent its own map system, which got lots of complains from its users.

I think the relationship between Google and Apple is more complex than it appears. Many users believe that Apple is using Google search engine is because the product is the best. Although neither side would not talk about this topic, Google does pay a big fee in order to be Apple browser’s default search engine. Nowadays, Apple starts to criticize Google’s search engine. I wonder if that is anther strategy that Apple use to fight Android operating system, and if it is going to add some weight for the breaking up between Google and Apple.  

Post 24: Microsoft usher their biggest victory: patent licensing agreement with Foxconn

Microsoft and HonHai Precision Industry (also known as Foxconn) stuck a major patent deal on Tuesday of this week. The Taiwan based electronics manufacturer will pay royalty to Microsoft for a huge line of products that run on Google’s Android mobile or Chrome operating systems. Hon hai manufactures 40% of consumer electronics in the world, including smartphones and tablets that will run on Google operating systems. The patent deal is a major coup for Microsoft, which stands to make a lot of money in royalties. Microsoft has always insisted any Android phone manufacturers should get their authorization in order to access their patents. After struggling for many years, Microsoft now has 1,100 pacts with almost half of the world’s contract device manufacturers. The list includes companies like Samsung, LG, Pegatron, Quanta, Acer, HTC and Bames & Noble.

 Android is currently the largest mobile operating system in the world, with the usage of more than 750 million mobiles. According to Chairman of Google, Schmidt, Android smartphone users will exceed 1 billion in a year or two. I think such a high growth rate is mainly because Google’s strong technical capabilities and ability to grasp the mobile Internet, as well as Android’s unique design that is open and free. We have to know that Android is free just for the system itself and its source code, not involve the relevant patents.

Nevertheless, there is never a free lunch in the world. Microsoft, which had been pushed to the awkward position by Google, can do nothing about this turned to launch a “containment” war using its patents. We can see from this patent case that Android is not really free. An operating system involves lots of patents, including file management, communication management, displays, interactive, browser and other aspects. Many of these patents are needed to pay patent licensing fees to the patents owners, such as Microsoft and Apple. Google has indicated that it would not sign any patent license agreement with Microsoft and other companies, nor does it represent their OEM and partners to do these things. It means companies like Huawei and ZTE need to negotiate the patent licensing with Microsoft themselves. 

Based on Microsoft’s strategy above, as well as its determination and efforts when charging patent licensing fee from those Android phone manufacturers. I think after getting money from the big brands and small brand bulk of foundries, Microsoft has no reason to give up the chance to collect money from the rest of Android devices. On one side, Microsoft can increase its revenue from its patent licensing; on the other side, Microsoft thinks it can promotes its Windows Phone System, which I doubt whether it can be succeed. Up to now, Microsoft makes more revenue based on its patent licensing from Android rather than Windows phones. I am about seeing another Nokia, which survive mainly on its patent. I think increasing containment of Android can be seen as a positive counterbalance from Microsoft to Google, but it seems like the strategy cannot form the true meaning of difficult obstacles to Android at this point. Microsoft might need to think about more approaches to enhance its Windows phone in order to survive in the smartphone market.