Patent lawsuit targets Apple's Dock Connector in iPod nano, touch

[AppleInsider]

A new legal complaint accuses Apple of infringing on a patent for a flash memory drive by selling its ubiquitous iPod nano and iPod touch players, among other devices.

The 32-page suit -- most of which includes the patent in question -- was filed late last week in an Eastern District of Michigan court and claims that Apple's two main flash-based music players use a technology similar to those described in a patent granted in January of 2006.

The patent for a "Flash Memory Drive with Quick Connector" was originally filed in November 2004 by the suit's plaintiff, Henry Milan, and describes flash storage with male and female ends that allow the storage to attach to computers or other electronics through a "plurality" of connectors.

The complaint doesn't directly state what is infringed by the iPods but clearly points to the Dock Connector port, which is used by the jukeboxes to sync with computers as well as charge or stream media through to other devices. Accessories are also said to borrow on some claims made in the patent.

Apple was notified of its alleged violation of the patent in December of last year but has continued causing "irreparable damage" by continuing to sell the iPods without paying royalties, Milan and his representing lawyers from law firm Butzel Long note.

The overlapping timing of the patent and Apple's products may complicate the suit. Milan's filing was submitted just two months before the availability of the iPod shuffle, Apple's first flash-based player. The Cupertino, Calif.-based firm also released its first iPod nano in September 2005, four months before the patent was granted.

As compensation, Milan asks for triple damages and a jury trial. Apple hasn't commented on the matter and typically refrains from discussing ongoing lawsuits outside of necessary filings.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Samnuva]

Apple has to have a patent on the Dock Connecter somewhere. My offical prediction for the outcome of this lawsuit: ends in 3 days.

[JeffDM]

The first ipod with a dock connector predates that filing by about a year and a half. Going from hard drive to flash for a portable device is just a natural progression of technology. A patent on a variant like a flash based device with a dock connector just doesn't seem like should be legitimately patentable if it's already been done with hard drive devices. I think USB stick drives were available for several years too.

[skottichan]

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't Sansa, Microsoft, Creative and anyone who makes flash based MP3 players technically fall into this lawsuit's area as well?

[Wiggin]

Even if Apple doesn't have a patent on the dock connector, and even if Apple never used the dock connector prior to this patent being filed, I just don't see the infringement. If you read the actual patent, the "unique" aspect of it is a cable with interchangeable ends. It's sort of like those universal travel power adaptor kits that include different plug ends so you can plug your electrical devices into the AC power outlets in different countries. Also, the patent specifically lists the different interchangeable plugs included in the kit. They are all of the variants of Firewire and USB specification, not customized versions (and you can hardly patent uninvented plug variants). Finally, the patent only covered cables with 6 conductors (to accommodate Firewire).

So, not only is Apple's dock connector not covered by the types of plugs listed (both in form and number of wires), but it's also not interchangeable, which is the key to the whole patent.

[Bergermeister]

Mankind might as well. This guy might sue God (if he exists), but would be off by several million years.

[zoboomafoo]

I feel sorry for examiners. This shouldn't have made it through. If only they had time to breathe at work.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

The first ipod with a dock connector predates that filing by about a year and a half. Going from hard drive to flash for a portable device is just a natural progression of technology. A patent on a variant like a flash based device with a dock connector just doesn't seem like should be legitimately patentable if it's already been done with hard drive devices. I think USB stick drives were available for several years too.

The article suggests that this is for devices with flash drives, not HDD based drives. If so, that is stupid to think you need to re-patent the same type of connector just because you change the storage type.

[reallynotnick]

I love these because I have a patent on stupid lawsuits, so I am going to make so much money off this case!

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by zoboomafoo

I feel sorry for examiners. This shouldn't have made it through. If only they had time to breathe at work.

Actually, I'd go so far as to say it's a perfectly fine patent. It's a pretty lame idea, and I doubt it would make a successful product. But after reading the patent, I think it's legit. However, that being said, there is absolutely no way Apple's dock connector infringes on the patent.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Mankind might as well. This guy might sue God (if he exists), but would be off by several million years.

If he exists.... yeah I think there's a Court case going on there too...

[Jules]

Originally Posted by reallynotnick

I love these because I have a patent on stupid lawsuits, so I am going to make so much money off this case!

I have just patented patenting things, so now you all owe me lots of money.

[wheelhot]

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't Sansa, Microsoft, Creative and anyone who makes flash based MP3 players technically fall into this lawsuit's area as well?

Yeah, you got a point there.

I love these because I have a patent on stupid lawsuits, so I am going to make so much money off this case!

No fair! I was going to patent this and I found out a person already did. Now I know its u

I have just patented patenting things, so now you all owe me lots of money.

Haha, I have just patented "A method of transportation for a living base organism from Point A to Point B", so now you all must pay me for using your car, airline company must pay me for the aircraft, animals must pay me for walking, NASA must pay me for their space shuttle .

I'll become the world richest man in no time

[skottichan]

Am I wrong, but didn't the Mini have a CompactFlash II drive?


The mini was released in January of '04.


Most importantly, if this was a huge deal to the company, why sue now, and not earlier when the original Nanos were released?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by skottichan

Am I wrong, but didn't the Mini have a CompactFlash II drive

Both generations of the iPod Mini had 1.8" HDDs in 4GB and then 4 and 6GB capacities. The first iPod to contain Flash was the iPod Shuffle released in January 2005 with 512MB and 1GB capacities.

The 1st generation Shuffle didn't have a dock. The first fkash based iPod with a dock is the iPod Nano released in September 2005 with 2 and 4GB capacities.

[Buckaroo]

I suspect that the patent office rubber stamps a lot of these patents, and leaves it up to the courts to sort things out.

One very important issue here is, there is NOTHING unique about the patent. I don't think it'll last more than a week in court.

[tomozj]

One word: ridiculous.

[Walter Slocombe]

The patent for a "Flash Memory Drive with Quick Connector"

sounds remarkably like a compact flash card and connector to me :/

[MsNly]

I think I'm going to patent ignorance and stupidity

wait never mind, there is too much prior art...

[ajprice]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Both generations of the iPod Mini had 1.8" HDDs in 4GB and then 4 and 6GB capacities. The first iPod to contain Flash was the iPod Shuffle released in January 2005 with 512MB and 1GB capacities.

The 1st generation Shuffle didn't have a dock. The first fkash based iPod with a dock is the iPod Nano released in September 2005 with 2 and 4GB capacities.

The Mini had a 1" CF Hard drive. The standard iPods have 1.8" drives.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Wiggin

Actually, I'd go so far as to say it's a perfectly fine patent. It's a pretty lame idea, and I doubt it would make a successful product. But after reading the patent, I think it's legit. However, that being said, there is absolutely no way Apple's dock connector infringes on the patent.

I don't see how it's a fine patent. If it is, then it really lowers the bar on the "non-obvious" standard. The text of the patent doesn't appear to do describe anything that's novel. Just applying one idea they didn't invent to another idea they didn't invent, or substituting one idea they didn't invent for another idea they didn't invent isn't enough to meet the mandates for patentability. It looks to me that I could patent for putting a clock in a door handle without specifying any new technologies necessary to do it that prevented it from happening before. It's about that kind of quality.

[supremedesigner]

*yawn* Nothing to see here, move along.

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't see how it's a fine patent. If it is, then it really lowers the bar on the "non-obvious" standard. The text of the patent doesn't appear to do describe anything that's novel. Just applying one idea they didn't invent to another idea they didn't invent, or substituting one idea they didn't invent for another idea they didn't invent isn't enough to meet the mandates for patentability. It looks to me that I could patent for putting a clock in a door handle without specifying any new technologies necessary to do it that prevented it from happening before. It's about that kind of quality.

As far as I know, nobody else has invented interchangable plug ends for data cables. I'd call that novel and not "applying one idea they didn't invent." Can you point out exactly who's idea you think they are applying?

Sure, connecting a flash drive is obvious, prior art, etc, etc. The "unique" aspect of their patent is that they use a single, 6-conductor wire with interchangeable plug ends. So rather than have to carry a Firewire cable and a USB cable around, you carry one wire with different plugs you can attach to the end.

Sure, it's a stupid idea because you can probably just buy a set of adaptors. And I doubt it's very marketable. But stupid and not economically viable doesn't make it any less patentable. So unless you can point out another product or patent that shows prior art for this concept, I'd say it's a valid patent.

However, Apple in no way infringes on it. Connecting a flash drive we all agree is obvious prior art. So if they are suing on those grounds they are totally misapplying their own patent. And if they try to sue on the interchangable connectors aspect of their patent they will also lose because the dock connector is not interchangeable.

The only thing I can imagine is that they are suing because the dock connector "adapts" a cable to act as a USB cable. However, that is not the basis of their patent. Apple is merely combining multiple functions into a single connector, which is a tried-and-true technique and a generic enough concept so as to not be patentable.

This company is claiming that their patent applies to all future variants of USB and Firewire plug ends that someone may come up with. That is not a legit application of their patent. So while their patent is valid (in my opinion), their lawsuit is not.

[lkrupp]

Yawn.... I used to get upset by this lawsuit stuff but apparently it's just part of doing business in the U.S. Some loser type is always looking for a quick buck and some shyster lawyer is always willing to file the papers for him. Why? Because there are no consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits in this country. For a few bucks and a willing lawyer you can sue anybody for any reason and not have to worry about getting called out for it. It's just like buying a lottery ticket. Why NOT sue Apple! You might get a few million out of them to make you go away even of your suit is bogus and without merit. And if your case gets the boot, no big deal, you're only out the filing fee. Try a different angle and sue again. Eventually your gamble might pay out just like the slot machine at the casino.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Wiggin

Sure, connecting a flash drive is obvious, prior art, etc, etc. The "unique" aspect of their patent is that they use a single, 6-conductor wire with interchangeable plug ends. So rather than have to carry a Firewire cable and a USB cable around, you carry one wire with different plugs you can attach to the end.

Sure, it's a stupid idea because you can probably just buy a set of adaptors. And I doubt it's very marketable. But stupid and not economically viable doesn't make it any less patentable. So unless you can point out another product or patent that shows prior art for this concept, I'd say it's a valid patent

OK, that makes sense, but it seems like there has to be prior art for that kind of concept too, the problem being is that it's probably pretty obscure prior art given the usefulness of the idea.