or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple hit with streaming media patent infringement suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple hit with streaming media patent infringement suit

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 
Apple and its rival Microsoft are both the targets of lawsuits from an Israeli technology group, which has alleged that both companies infringe on patents it owns pertaining to streaming media.

Specifically, the suit takes issue with Apple's HTTP Live Streaming technology, which Emblaze believes infringes on its own media streaming methods that were first introduced in 1998. The company was granted a streaming related patent entitled "Apparatus, method and a computer readable medium for generating media packets" on Oct. 6, 2009.

"(The) patent is infringed by Apple's HTTP Live Streaming Application intended for use in Apple's iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad devices as well as in Apple's Mac OS X Snow Leopard operating system. The notice to Apple also offered a license under Emblaze's technology," a company statement reads.

Apple debuted the HTTP Live Streaming standard in iPhone 3.0 in 2009. The Cupertino, Calif., company has provided the QuickTime Streaming Server for the last decade, but that format has run into issues as it is often blocked by firewalls. But the new HTTP streaming technology allows simple real-time streaming of content and can offer multiple versions of clips in different formats which could automatically switch based on bandwidth availability.

The company has also investigated new streaming technology that would make compression in video files less visible to the human eye. Such technology could mask artifacting that often appears when video file sizes are reduced.

The Emblaze suit also targets Microsoft's IIS Smooth Streaming technology, which is employed in Silverlight, its Web-based competitor to Adobe Flash. Emblaze says its "Live Streaming" technology allows users to send live or pre-recorded audio and video to other devices. The technology allegedly conserves data, does not require a devoted server, and allows reliable streaming through firewalls.

"Emblaze has made substantial investment into research and development to build a rich portfolio of intellectual property over many years. While we are happy to license our technology to third parties, we will vigorously defend our rights and our competitive position," said Naftali Shani, chairman of Emblaze.

As a major corporation, Apple is unsurprisingly bombarded with lawsuits. Last October, the company noted that it was then defending itself from more than 47 patent infringement cases, 27 of which were filed during the fiscal year. The company said that responding to claims, regardless of merit, consumes "significant time and expense."
post #2 of 58
Quote:
As a major corporation, Apple is unsurprisingly bombarded with lawsuits. Last October, the company noted that it was then defending itself from more than 47 patent infringement cases, 27 of which were filed during the fiscal year. The company said that responding to claims, regardless of merit, consumes "significant time and expense."


It seems the tactic of going ahead and trampling on others patents, seeing who has the ability to respond, is the only way to go for Apple.

I'm guessing if Apple went crawling to every patent owner, they would get wind of the new device Apple is making or ask exuberant amounts of royalties, or in the case of Nokia, demanding shared access so they can simply copy Apple's innovation and snuff them out of the marketplace.

Unfortunately these lawsuits means maintaining the high prices for Apple products, resulting in less sales.

So it's dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Just one method is less damming than the other.


Also another thing I've noticed, Steve Jobs has a lot of creative drive, the drive to create change is poised with risks, risks he is willing to take apparently. I think Apple will very hard pressed to find anyone to fill his shoes and take such risks to bring such profits.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #3 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

It seems the tactic of going ahead and trampling on others patents, seeing who has the ability to respond, is the only way to go for Apple.

I'm guessing if Apple went crawling to every patent owner, they would get wind of the new device Apple is making or ask exuberant amounts of royalties, or in the case of Nokia, demanding shared access so they can simply copy Apple's innovation and snuff them out of the marketplace.

Unfortunately these lawsuits means maintaining the high prices for Apple products, resulting in less sales.

So it's dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Just one method is less damming than the other.


Also another thing I've noticed, Steve Jobs has a lot of creative drive, the drive to create change is poised with risks, risks he is willing to take apparently. I think Apple will very hard pressed to find anyone to fill his shoes and take such risks to bring such profits.

You didn't read the article, MS was sued along with Apple.
post #4 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You didn't read the article, MS was sued along with Apple.


Yes I did and Microsoft doesn't matter, very few lawsuits are won against Microsoft.

If Apple could combine their suit with Microsoft's as co-defendants, Apple has a good chance of totally walking away from this unscathed.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #5 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

It seems the tactic of going ahead and trampling on others patents, seeing who has the ability to respond, is the only way to go for Apple.

I'm guessing if Apple went crawling to every patent owner, they would get wind of the new device Apple is making or ask exuberant amounts of royalties, or in the case of Nokia, demanding shared access so they can simply copy Apple's innovation and snuff them out of the marketplace.

Unfortunately these lawsuits means maintaining the high prices for Apple products, resulting in less sales.

So it's dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Just one method is less damming than the other.


Also another thing I've noticed, Steve Jobs has a lot of creative drive, the drive to create change is poised with risks, risks he is willing to take apparently. I think Apple will very hard pressed to find anyone to fill his shoes and take such risks to bring such profits.

Another fail-post by MacTripper.
post #6 of 58
Here we go again. Another small fry tries to cash in on the success of larger companies. Patents are funny things. The description of the patent as outlined in the article seems very vague and could be used to target any streaming of data in packets - if Apple stole this technology, they should pay a reasonably license fee - that Apple and Microsoft are both being sued simply reeks of small-fry trying to get rich.
post #7 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Yes I did and Microsoft doesn't matter, very few lawsuits are won against Microsoft.

If Apple could combine their suit with Microsoft's as co-defendants, Apple has a good chance of totally walking away from this unscathed.

I don't get you. In your first post you accused Apple on infringing the patent. But in your second post you are saying MS doesn't matter because eventually they will not be found guilty on infringing the same patent?! And what makes you think MS is not guilty and Apple is?

By the way, MS was found guilty of several patent infringement. There are at least two high profile ones mentioned on the news within the last few months.
post #8 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Yes I did and Microsoft doesn't matter, very few lawsuits are won against Microsoft.

If Apple could combine their suit with Microsoft's as co-defendants, Apple has a good chance of totally walking away from this unscathed.

Let's see - Microsoft was forced to remove the XML document format from Office after it lost a patent case a few months ago. Damages are pending in that one. Also last year, MS lost another huge patent case (pending appeal), and is being forced to pay some small company $340 million or something like that.

You're showing how empty-headed you really are (most of us knew it already.
post #9 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Another fail-post by MacTripper.


I think using the User>CP Ignore List is not a substitute for a moderator or a post quality ranking system like what Slashdot uses.

Anyway folks, that's what we have, unless you like having Quadra trolling you, like he has done others, that's the preemptive choice you have.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #10 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

I think using the User>CP Ignore List is not a substitute for a moderator or a post quality ranking system like what Slashdot uses.

Anyway folks, that's what we have, unless you like having Quadra trolling you, like he has done others, that's the preemptive choice you have.

Why, are you just all butthurt because you didn't bother to read the article and someone called you on your usual trolling of Apple? You got caught with your pants down this time. Deal with it, LOL.
post #11 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I don't get you. In your first post you accused Apple on infringing the patent.

No, in my first post I responded to the article paragraph that stated Apple is defending itself from more than 47 patent infringement cases.

Go back and read the post yourself.


Quote:
But in your second post you are saying MS doesn't matter because eventually they will not be found guilty on infringing the same patent?! And what makes you think MS is not guilty and Apple is?

I didn't say Microsoft was innocent in my second post, I said it's just that it's harder to win a suit against them. Suits cost money, time and energy and Microsoft has bigger pockets than Apple does in that regard.

Quote:
By the way, MS was found guilty of several patent infringement. There are at least two high profile ones mentioned on the news within the last few months.

I didn't say they always win, that it's just harder to win against them.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #12 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

No, in my first post I responded to the article paragraph that stated Apple is defending itself from more than 47 patent infringement cases.

Go back and read the post yourself.




I didn't say Microsoft was innocent in my second post, I said it's just that it's harder to win a suit against them. Suits cost money, time and energy and Microsoft has bigger pockets than Apple does in that regard.



I didn't say they always win, that it's just harder to win against them.



post #13 of 58
People should really do some research before saying things.
emblaze is not a "small fry".

They are listed on the London stock exchange and are trading around 44 GBP. They have 600 million in assests and revenue around 400 million. This is a large multinational corporation, not some guy in his garage.
post #14 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Let's see - Microsoft was forced to remove the XML document format from Office after it lost a patent case a few months ago. Damages are pending in that one. Also last year, MS lost another huge patent case (pending appeal), and is being forced to pay some small company $340 million or something like that.


Microsoft has lost cases sure, it's just harder to win against them.

My point was that it seems that companies like Apple just don't have much choice but to tramp on others patents and wait for the fallout, depending how strong the other party is in defending their patents in court.

If Apple goes and tries to license, it gives away their new product advantage to the competition.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #15 of 58
Its going to get harder and harder to innovate in the future due to the fact that it will be more likely that that a company will infringe on a patent, knowingly or not.

And Apple is just as much to fault as anyone else.
post #16 of 58
This is total BS, and a great example of the problem with software patents.

I remember Emblaze. I worked with them quite a bit in the mid-late 90s. Their technology at the time was "neat" in a way, but severely lacking for mass usage. They had several products related to audio, video and animation that were easy to use before Flash became dominate and enabled some of this.

There was a benefit to firewall-proof HTTP streaming, but not that it did a lot of good at the time anyway. The problem with this being a software patent is that it's not exactly rocket science, if you want to get through a firewall, you go through HTTP, and there are only so many ways that present themselves to do this.

You shouldn't be able to patent the obvious.

And the real amusing thing here is that when I said it's "not exactly rocket science", I meant that literally. It sort of was actually rocket science. Like most Israeli companies at the time, their technology came from or was the result of military investments by the US government. In other words, US tax dollars (some of which was collected by Microsoft and Apple) were spent on this kind of technology in Israel, and now because of our screwed up patent laws, this company is now years later coming back to the US to collect more money through litigation.
post #17 of 58
Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.

Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.
post #18 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

No, in my first post I responded to the article paragraph that stated Apple is defending itself from more than 47 patent infringement cases.

Go back and read the post yourself.

No you didn't. You expressed your opinion as a fact.

Quote:
I didn't say Microsoft was innocent in my second post, I said it's just that it's harder to win a suit against them. Suits cost money, time and energy and Microsoft has bigger pockets than Apple does in that regard.

Again, you stated an opinion as a fact. MS and Apple will most likely join forces in this case because if one was found guilty then the other will either have to settle (pay fees) or face the same result. It is best for both to join forces.

Quote:
I didn't say they always win, that it's just harder to win against them.

Not true. As said before, MS was found guilty in two cases last year.

If you want to prove your point I suggest you back it up with facts like telling us which patent lawsuits Apple lost compared to MS.
post #19 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Another fail-post by MacTripper.

Another flame-post by Quadra 610.
post #20 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I don't get you. In your first post you accused Apple on infringing the patent. But in your second post you are saying MS doesn't matter because eventually they will not be found guilty on infringing the same patent?! And what makes you think MS is not guilty and Apple is?

By the way, MS was found guilty of several patent infringement. There are at least two high profile ones mentioned on the news within the last few months.

How about the big one, Bill Gates intentionally stole DOS & re-labled it MS-DOS. He also stole the UI design that became part of Windows. Come to think of it, M$ was pretty much founded on theft of intellectual property.

Apple on the other hand files patents for the technologies they release, but like many companies they can't wait around to be awarded a patent before they can use it, if they did it would be like 2020 before the iPad would have been released. You can see this even in common household products, many of them will contain a label on the product saying "patent pending" with a filed patent number.

It isn't Apple's fault that they "may" have infringed on this patent, what we really need is some serious patent reform. Bill Gates on the other hand knowingly infringed on some of the patents he's stolen over the years.
post #21 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Why, are you just all butthurt ... your usual trolling ... caught with your pants down this time.

Posters who use vulgar insults should be banned from this forum. They ruin it for the rest of us.
post #22 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

People should really do some research before saying things.
emblaze is not a "small fry".

They are listed on the London stock exchange and are trading around 44 GBP. They have 600 million in assets (sic) and revenue around 400 million. This is a large multinational corporation, not some guy in his garage.


Yea they are big enough to start a suit, but they don't have billions in the bank laying around like Microsoft and Apple do to keep it going nearly forever. So my guess is they will settle somewhere along the line that's profitable for them.

Why people hate lawyers is the fact that they have the uncanny ability to keep making arguments and causing action and distress that it wears the other side down. A war of intellectual attrition basically.

The courts like it because they make money, the loser of a jury likes it because they have nothing better to do in their lives to make money, the lawyers love it as it makes them tons of money, the trickle down jobs like court reporters, bailiffs, investigators, researchers and so on and so on.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #23 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaFox View Post

Another flame-post by Quadra 610.

He should be banned. He is disruptive.
post #24 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

How about the big one, Bill Gates intentionally stole DOS & re-labled it MS-DOS.

Actually he bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) and remained it Disk Operating System (DOS) or MS-DOS later on.


Quote:
He also stole the UI design that became part of Windows.

Yes they did and Apple sued Microsoft and lost.


Quote:
Come to think of it, M$ was pretty much founded on theft of intellectual property.

Yes, and that's why Bill Gates dissed the iPad, because he's not a innovator, just a copy machine.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #25 of 58
Mind you, I love Mac, I have several, and I run an all Mac lab.

However, whenever the issue of patents come up, I am always amazed at the complete double standard people have.

When Apple is sued, it is because of "patent trolls" seeking to immorally profit from Apple's success.

When Apple sues someone for patent infringement, it is "way to go" for protecting their IP from leeches trying to profit from all of Apple's hard work.

Emblaze cannot, by any reasonable person, be considered a patent troll. As I said in my previous post this is a large multinational corporation. If size is really the determinant in who can bring a suit, then essentially people are saying that no one can sue Apple or Microsoft, or Google, because few companies are larger.


one poster here said did "neat" software in the past, which suggests that they may actually have a claim against Apple.

People talk about how bad the patent system is, and that you should not be able to patent the obvious. Well, if it was so obvious, then why didn't Apple patent it back then. Simple fact is, things are generally only obvious in hindsight.
post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmadave View Post

Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.

Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.


Well hopefully the patent was also granted in other countries to eliminate any possible illegal government behavior.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #27 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Actually he bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) and remained it Disk Operating System (DOS) or MS-DOS later on.




Yes they did and Apple sued Microsoft and lost.




Yes, and that's why Bill Gates dissed the iPad, because he's not a innovator, just a copy machine.

I think that Apple did not have the claim for windows as Xerox was the inventor. SJ was at Xerox to look at their printer technology when he stumbled onto something Xerox was working on--something to do with a graphics interface and a mouse. The rest is history.

If memory serves me right, there were two lawsuits between MS and Apple. Apple won the first and the second was a tie. Xerox entered the second suit but the ruling was that Xerox's claim to windows should have been made when Apple came out with LISA or the Mac 128 and they were barred from the claim since they waived it by not filing when Apple first sued MS. The second suit allowed MS to continue Widows--if they lost we would not be having the Mac-Windows wars.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Well hopefully the patent was also granted in other countries to eliminate any possible illegal government behavior.

We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?
post #29 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

I think that Apple did not have the claim for windows as Xerox was the inventor. SJ was at Xerox to look at their printer technology when he stumbled onto something Xerox was working on--something to do with a graphics interface and a mouse. The rest is history.

If memory serves me right, there were two lawsuits between MS and Apple. Apple won the first and the second was a tie. Xerox entered the second suit but the ruling was that Xerox's claim to windows should have been made when Apple came out with LISA or the Mac 128 and they were barred from the claim since they waived it by not filing when Apple first sued MS. The second suit allowed MS to continue Windows (sic)--if they lost we would not be having the Mac-Windows wars.


I thought Apple licensed or bought rights to use the Xerox GUI?

Guess we both need to brush up on our history.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #30 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellSakay View Post

We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?


Not going there, it's way off topic and a political minefield.

Perhaps your grievance is better served with a post in the political forum, somewhere else.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Not going there, it's way off topic and a political minefield.

Perhaps your grievance is better served with a post in the political forum, somewhere else.

If you read the previous posts of others about our military funding of their technology then yea I was just carrying it on.

Sorry.

But yea our patent laws need to be changed.
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


Yes they did and Apple sued Microsoft and lost.


Most trolls know a bit of history, as part of settling the lawsuit microsoft invested 400mm dollars in apple, they received non-voting stock and some patent usage. This also helped microsoft fend off anti-trust / monopoly suits brought by the government, by making sure apple was still in business.

At least know what you are talking about. Cripes
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

No you didn't. You expressed your opinion as a fact.


Well it's obvious that with 47 patent infringements that Apple has been using others patents without permission or compensation. I went ahead and explained my reasoning why I thought that is.

No need to go all fanboy rabid on me.


Quote:
Again, you stated an opinion as a fact. MS and Apple will most likely join forces in this case because if one was found guilty then the other will either have to settle (pay fees) or face the same result. It is best for both to join forces.

Since they are co-defendants and Microsoft has deeper pockets, yes it makes perfect sense for Apple to coordinate a defense against this suit, and it was only a suggestion if you re-read the post again. Notice the word "if" like "if Apple could combine this suit with Microsoft..."


Quote:
Not true. As said before, MS was found guilty in two cases last year.

If you want to prove your point I suggest you back it up with facts like telling us which patent lawsuits Apple lost compared to MS.

Uh, the last two years is not reflective of Microsoft's entire lawsuit history and Apple has settled a lot more before trial than Microsoft ever has.

As for research, you have to do that yourself. Enjoy.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #34 of 58
Why do our patent laws need to be changed?

The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.

Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?

Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.
post #35 of 58
Apple licensed the rights to the original GUI from Xerox in exchange for the equivalent of $125 Million in stock options that Xerox cashed in on.

They then extended the concept beyond the scope of Xerox PARC.

The engineers at PARC wanted Xerox to push their ideas forward and for Xerox to lead the personal computing revolution.

Xerox was not interested in that aim.
post #36 of 58
Nice guys. Several rounds of snarkiness for the room on me. However among the rest of us actually interested in discussing the article...

Not all companies are in fact patent trolls per se, some believe that their IP is pre-existing under patent and are defending what they believe to be their property. Most major corporations keep on payroll special legal staff whose job it is to do patent review for products in development and assess the merit of the existing IP and whether it could be actionable. The suits are brought so that the court can be presented the facts in the case and made a judgement, the company then rolls out its findings on the IP property in question and demonstrates why it is not infringing. There are millions of patents out there and patent analysis is both time consuming and problematic. In some cases, the description is not reflective of the underlying IP and parsing the text is even more time consuming. However there are also legal firms that operate as alternately patent trolls or patent farms where they go out research and purchase at very low cost, patented technologies which bear similarity to existing technologies and file suit to capitalize their operations. These are the ones that add significantly to operating overhead for other companies, being parasitic in nature. Companies like Microsoft and Apple have whole legal teams devoted to defending IP challenges, and depend heavily on their own IP research teams to position them correctly.

Since Trip is already largely anti-corporate, and loves to nay-say Apple in general, his points are not completely off the mark, just grossly inaccurate. Both Microsoft and Apple have very heavy capitalization and for the intents of this article and to Trip's point the difference is negligible - what's a few billion here or there between corporations the size of Apple or Microsoft? But the costs of defending or conversely suing over IP are spread widely in the marketplace and therefore do not contribute significant amounts to individual pricing of devices. Especially where the product line is fairly diverse or highly capitalized.

iGenius and Seafox - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if we removed everyone who expressed silly, unenlightened, snarky or deliberately provocative comments, this would be a boring place indeed. Make sure you are typing with your pinkies extended properly by the way...
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmadave View Post

Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.

Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.

What does it matter? Patents are not universal. You can be granted a patent in the US and Japan, but not China. You're supposed to file patents in the multiple of countries where your company operates anyway. Thats called Jurisdiction. This is a US suit, since Apple and Microsoft and infringing technology are here in the US.

There is an agreement where you file in the inventing country first with intention to file in other countries later.
post #38 of 58
Big whoop, Apple are a high profile company, due to this it makes news when someone sues them for patent infringement. Like most other large companies they always have many many law suits ongoing and most end up being thrown out.
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Why do our patent laws need to be changed?

The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.

Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?

Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.

Because the patent system is in fact broken and not relevant to current technologies and current concepts of actual and virtual intellectual property. I personally have owned and released several copyrights over the years, and while I personally don't hold any patents, I have scientist and engineering friends who do. Actually, the reason that Apple is giving a "slack pass" as you so quaintly put it, is perhaps because this site is titled APPLE INSIDER, and not [name your company here] INSIDER. So your assumption that they are the aggrieving party is equally invalid. What you seem to be suggesting are statements along these lines: "well, either Apple or Emblaze are in the wrong here" (sound of crickets chirping) from everyone. If this distresses you as much as it seems to, you might be better deserved by going to some other site that is not so closely aligned with any given interest and is coasting along on fluffy clouds of happiness and joy, diversity, equality, equanimity and somnambulence.
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Why do our patent laws need to be changed?

The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.

Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?

Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.


That's what I was trying to explain, that Apple may have no other choice but to infringe on 47 patents and deal with the consequences later.

It all comes down to who has the money, time and effort to enforce their patents because the government(s) are certainly not enforcing anything for free, just acting like a paid referee.

Say if Apple comes up with a new device, does some patent research and finds it infringes on Microsoft's, Adobe's and some poor tiny company in Satoma respective patents.

I suspect how Apple handles each infringement depends upon how much it's going to cost, who is it going to benefit or risk Apple later on with.

1: For Microsoft, Apple might find a work around to the infringement as not to tell Microsoft of the new product or have to pay them money. If Apple infringes, Microsoft will be a hard fight in court as they have deep pockets and lots of experience.

2: For Adobe, Apple may approach them and work out a deal, as they work together (usually)

3: For the poor tiny company in Satoma: If Apple goes to them to make a license deal, they will want money, which would only make them more powerful and want to sue later when they renegotiate the terms of the license for even more money. So the best bet is to give them no money, no money means no fight later for more money.

Some companies like Nokia, who's technology is unavoidable, simply want too much and use patent trading to destroy the competition, much like Microsoft nearly copies everything Apple does.

It's corporate warfare, plain and simple. Companies and people with the biggest and deepest pockets usually win, even if they are wrong. Because courts, lawyers, researchers, investigators, mindfsck experts etc. cost plenty of money. If one side can't afford the best, they are beaten before they even start.

So Apple might have no choice but to take the risk and infringe, suffer the courts and the suits but come out making a profit anyway, perhaps being able to change things for the better in the meanwhile.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple hit with streaming media patent infringement suit