Apple faces two-pronged patent lawsuit assault

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A recent pair of lawsuits filed by two relatively small firms target the core Apple's businesses -- including general computer technology and the emblematic iPod scroll wheel.



While the Cisco iPhone lawsuit continues to draw the greatest amount of attention from the press, less publicized suits revealed only in the past few days threaten both its technical foundations and its cash reserves.



British touch sensor chip maker Quantum Research Group says it filed a formal complaint against Apple in December 2005 over alleged patent infringements based on the iPod's scroll wheel. The suit had remained out of the public eye until Monday, when it was revealed that Apple vehemently denied "all material allegations" involving its interface and had filed a countersuit claiming the invalidity of the patent.



At the heart of the suit is a concern over the control mechanism at the basis of some of Apple's music players. Certain iPod models, including the first- and second-geneartion iPod nanos as well as the iPod with video, use Cypress programmable system-on-chip controllers that Quantum frontman Hal Philipp claims infringes on a patent his company holds for touch sensors. Earlier iPods that use wheels from Synaptics aren't affected, the executive was quick to say.



Philip was equally rapid in his attempts to dismiss notions that the patent was merely opportunistic, expressing hope that the iPhone didn't also contain his firm's technology (which is also present in touchscreens) and affection for his lawsuit's target. "I think Cypress? PSoC is a fine chip and we are fans of Apple products," he told reporters. "Within hours of the iPhone announcement our phone began to ring. iPhone itself is going to drive specification in terms of capacitive touchscreens."



The lawsuit could still be resolved through an out of court settlement, but the Quantum chief fully expects the case to reach a trial in light of Apple's staunch opposition.



More recently, Apple was also served with a second but far less benign lawsuit by controller chip maker OPTi, which late last week revealed that it was suing the Cupertino company for patent infringement, claiming that Apple violated patents OPTi had been granted for "Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses."



Although seemingly complex, the patent has raised many eyebrows for its overly-broad relevance: the description covers a common technique of cutting overhead from data transfers between a computer's CPU and other components, effectively making just about any CPU or system builder the potential victim of OPTi's legal action.



Indeed, the press release for the lawsuit has suggested that the Mountain View-based controller chip designer is making as vast a claim as possible. OPTi argued that virtually every Mac sold infringes on the patent, describing the offenders in one fell swoop as "desktop and portable computers and servers." Apple has only been indirectly involved in the development of the chipsets in newer Macs, whose parts are largely Intel reference designs reshaped to match Apple's exotic designs.



OPTi has also developed a recent track record of dubious claims, say reports. The company filed a suit against processor maker AMD in the same Marshall, Texas court, claiming that it too was misusing predictive snooping. A third, earlier suit against an unnamed company was eventually settled out of court.



Neither the OPTi nor the Quantum cases are likely to reach their respective conclusions in the near future.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    I just hope that the lawyers at Apple -- who have been less than impressive on a whole host of fronts, lately -- are up to the task. Such drive-by lawsuits seem to be getting worse and worse.....
  • Reply 2 of 18
    Typical.
  • Reply 3 of 18
    shaminoshamino Posts: 527member
    That's what happens when you're successful. Every two-bit lawyer smells money in the water and files suits for whatever they can think of.



    Which is why big companies need to maintain massive patent portfolios. The only good way to fight these nuisances is to respond with a litany of patents that the other party is violating. Then the two parties come to some kind of cross-licensing agreement that amounts to "you drop your suit and I'll drop mine."
  • Reply 4 of 18
    I have bad news for you guys. I just patented breathing.



    You guys are screwed.



  • Reply 5 of 18
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John the Geek View Post


    I have bad news for you guys. I just patented breathing.



    You guys are screwed.







    Son of....



    Well, then I just patented the word "patented" and all the legal hooey that goes with it! So if you type it I want my credit!



    I have noticed that Apple is really the target nowadays and if they even think about something new, a freaking law suit follows. Man, it must suck to be in the legal department of Apple.
  • Reply 6 of 18
    What's really needed is another case like NTP vs RIM that threatens to shutdown government emailing. Then we might get some patent reform.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr.Scott View Post


    Man, it must suck to be in the legal department of Apple.



    Job security is great, and you're always working on new things. I would guess that the Apple legal dept love their jobs!
  • Reply 8 of 18
    the only good news from all the patent woes Apple has is that it keeps downward pressure on their price, now maybe if the ?Phone is delayed a bit and some more gold-diggers come out...

    in july i will be in the market for aapl shares,

    what! me selfish??
  • Reply 9 of 18
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by michaelb View Post


    What's really needed is another case like NTP vs RIM that threatens to shutdown government emailing. Then we might get some patent reform.



    Like that matters... because the government will just claim it is too important to be affected and shutdown everybody else except. That was the BS talk that was going on during that Blackberry scare last year.
  • Reply 10 of 18
    elixirelixir Posts: 782member
    when will this maddness end? seriously, this is insane
  • Reply 11 of 18
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iconsumer View Post


    in july i will be in the market for aapl shares....



    Um... YOu better get in now on $86 It's only upwards from here
  • Reply 12 of 18
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post


    Um... YOu better get in now on $86 It's only upwards from here



    i can't, cash flow and all

    but it could be cheaper, what with all those money grabbers coming out, the market can be fickle,but i'm not trying to jinx any aapl share holders, honest
  • Reply 13 of 18
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    More recently, Apple was also served with a second but far less benign lawsuit by controller chip maker OPTi, which late last week revealed that it was suing the Cupertino company for patent infringement, claiming that Apple violated patents OPTi had been granted for "Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses."



    Although seemingly complex, the patent has raised many eyebrows for its overly-broad relevance: the description covers a common technique of cutting overhead from data transfers between a computer's CPU and other components, effectively making just about any CPU or system builder the potential victim of OPTi's legal action.



    Indeed, the press release for the lawsuit has suggested that the Mountain View-based controller chip designer is making as vast a claim as possible. OPTi argued that virtually every Mac sold infringes on the patent, describing the offenders in one fell swoop as "desktop and portable computers and servers." Apple has only been indirectly involved in the development of the chipsets in newer Macs, whose parts are largely Intel reference designs reshaped to match Apple's exotic designs.



    OPTi has also developed a recent track record of dubious claims, say reports. The company filed a suit against processor maker AMD in the same Marshall, Texas court, claiming that it too was misusing predictive snooping. A third, earlier suit against an unnamed company was eventually settled out of court.



    Neither the OPTi nor the Quantum cases are likely to reach their respective conclusions in the near future.



    I think the broadness and prior art related to this patent makes it MORE benign, not less.



    You on the cold medicine too, kasper?
  • Reply 14 of 18
    All these small companies are just jealous of Apple's success



    Apple will be able to fight off nearly anything that comes, in my opinion. An Apple vs Microsoft lawsuit would be cool (except Gates might get ub3r h4x0r lawyers), but what for? :P



    -tj
  • Reply 15 of 18
    When you're on top, everybody wants to take a shot at you.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    I often think our law system isn't there to protect what is right, rather it's there to protect who felt cheated or left out in the cold when someone else is more innovative and finds a way to use existing technology with better usage.



    Patent lawsuits are such nonsense 99% of the time. Let's be honest here, companies are suing for money not because of lost revenues, but rather these companies can't generate much of anything from their own freakin patents. Now when you have someone like Apple that comes alone and finds a better usages for something similar and "oh my god, they make money"... let's sue them! Now that is an ingenius idea!
  • Reply 17 of 18
    Unless it reading the first suit wrong, it sounds like Quantum Research Group is sueing Apple for either, the PSoC that is hte click wheel or sueing Apple for the way in which the PSoC is used. As an engineer at Cypress I am fairly knowladgable about the PSoC chip. If Quantum is sueing because of the chip they should be sueing Cypress, as Cypress ownes the patent on the PSoC. If their trying to sue because of the use of the PSoC, well the whole thing that makes PSoC so great is that the customer is able to program the chip to do the task that they want, Meaning PSoCs do not ship programmed. Quantum could not sue Apple for programming a chip that might resemble technology that they have created, as Apple would have had to program the PSoCs themselves.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    The point is not how old the patent is. It shouldn't have been granted in the first place. The patent describes the normal use of the processor cache. It describes reading data in the processor cache out-of-sync with execution. That is how a microprocessor cache is designed to work. It has machine code instructions to directly allow you to do this because that is the way it is supposed to work. This is prior art, because the technique is owned by the company that created the microprocessor. It is like Ford making a car then someone patenting the method of turning the ignition key and then suing Ford. This patent does not make any sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.