AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Patent suit challenges motion-based input with Apple's iPhone 4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Patent suit challenges motion-based input with Apple's iPhone 4 - Page 2

post #41 of 81
8/31/10 at 9:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Likely none of your potential explanations are accurate.

Then what would be an accurate explanation?
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
post #42 of 81
8/31/10 at 9:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Here's a possible interesting item of interest concerning patent laws in the US: By law, any member of the public can demand that the Patent and Trademark Office reexamine an issued patent, and the PTO is (usually) bound to do so.

If there are knowledgeable folks on technologies such as these in forums such as AI, it is time to take a stand, and confront this type of junk head-on.



Put your money where your mouth is and do it, rather than stirring up others to do it for you. And keep in mind what Abraham Lincoln said abut that sort of activity:

"Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this."
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 81
8/31/10 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Wii has been around for a number of years now, so the question is why Triton filed nothing before this.

My guess is contained elsewhere in the thread.

What are your speculations as to the reason(s) for the timing of the suit?
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 81
8/31/10 at 9:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility View Post

Then what would be an accurate explanation?

It is pretty clear to me that nobody knows enough facts to do anything more than guess.

But your guesses ("It took them almost 5 years to figure out that the Wii was using their patent, yet only a couple months for the iPhone 4? Or did Nintendo recently change the way the remote works, putting it in "violation" of the patent?)" all seem wrong.

It is unlikely it "took them almost 5 years to realize". It is unlikely that Nintendo did a basic change to their product without marketing the improvement or even changing the model number.

The reasons for the timing of the suit are not known to anybody on the outside.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 81
8/31/10 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

My guess is contained elsewhere in the thread.

What are your speculations as to the reason(s) for the timing of the suit?

That Triton tried to go to various companies to get them to pay royalties. The companies decided that Triton wasn't going to get anything from them and left them the choice of fighting it out in court. Pragmatically speaking you can't do much better, no need for righteous indignation.

Furthermore, there are so many patents that essentially cover the same space, that you've got wonder who deserves the credit. Here's one, for example : http://www.intomobile.com/2010/03/30...-nick-of-time/

There are many others. People complain about the poor and downtrodden. Since there aren't any rules made in the history of mankind that would solve that problem, the market will continue to find its own solution. The solution being: if you've got some leverage or you dare to venture out in the world and create some leverage of your own, either by convincing people to back you or by gaining power by being a player in your chosen field then you can exercise that leverage to protect your assets and hard work. If you don't, you can't. Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, perhaps don't care.
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
post #46 of 81
8/31/10 at 9:49am
Amusing incompetence:

"...and the filing specifically mentions a "mouse" that senses motion in six axes."


Are we talking "hyperspace"? Last time I checked our reality was in 3D (3 axes). Autor probably confuses directions or vectors with axes.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

Amusing incompetence:

"...and the filing specifically mentions a "mouse" that senses motion in six axes."


Are we talking "hyperspace"? Last time I checked our reality was in 3D (3 axes). Autor probably confuses directions or vectors with axes.



Their mouse must be magic.

Oops!
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

I mean negotiations to license the IP. Do you think that they would sue without first trying to make a reasonable deal?

They may have done something like tell Apple/Nintendo they were infringing on patents but I doubt there were any actual negotiations. If they felt there were no violations, I doubt it would result in more than a form letter (if even that) telling them anything used are their own inventions or properly licensed from someone else.
Quote:
I assume that they didn't try a dangerous, expensive, speculative method (litigation) before trying a near-costless and potentially profitable method (a deal).

This in itself could open a big can of worms. If Apple and Nintendo felt they were not in violation of anything, they would even discuss a deal as this could prove they thought they needed a deal.
Quote:
I could be wrong. But the alternative makes little sense, unless there are many, many facts left out of the reporting.

The fact is a lawsuit was filed. The story didn't go into any detail about what happened before.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

Amusing incompetence:

"...and the filing specifically mentions a "mouse" that senses motion in six axes."


Are we talking "hyperspace"? Last time I checked our reality was in 3D (3 axes). Autor probably confuses directions or vectors with axes.

Actually translational motion along the three axes and rotational motion along the three axes is the basis for referring to it as a six axis sensor. This is common in the industry and not wrong.
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
post #50 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Are the second and third factors even relevant?

Relevant to me

I'm not a lawyer of course, I just use logic and common sense. It just seems to me that the patent in question fails on obviousness and that it's pretty clearly different from what Apple is doing.

Since no one seems to have even heard of this person before, and since the patent covers devices that came out before the iPhone but apparently were not taken to court, it also makes me question the motivations of the people involved.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility View Post

Actually translational motion along the three axes and rotational motion along the three axes is the basis for referring to it as a six axis sensor. This is common in the industry and not wrong.

Although I now remember that degrees of freedom is a better term (that robotics class finally surfaced from the depths of memory!). There are only three axes, as we all are content to believe
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
post #52 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Put your money where your mouth is and do it, rather than stirring up others to do it for you. And keep in mind what Abraham Lincoln said abut that sort of activity:

"Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this."

Stop being such a drama queen.

Nobody is stirring up anything, except appealing to the typical (and understandable) apathy and inertia that we in the 'lay' public tend to have in using the 'public comment' opportunity on matters such as IP battles, antitrust issues, government rules regulations, and so forth. Despite the fact that outcomes in these battles affect us as individuals.

As a result, lobbyists and lawyers (you sure sound like one) and other 'big boys' often end up hijacking these issues to the detriment of the lay public.

All government agencies allow you to comment (and if they don't, you have the right to petition them as a citizen) on matters of importance to its citizens. That's all I am talking about, and that too, as an appeal to people who might know something about this. (If I knew more about this issue, you bet I would be putting my "money where my mouth is."
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

What are your speculations as to the reason(s) for the timing of the suit?

As with many of these, my default speculation is: they are looking to get paid to get rid of the nuisance factor for large companies like Apple, for whom a couple of million dollars is a rounding error.

What's your speculation for the timing? (I missed it in your previous musings).
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLoveStuff View Post

I'm filing a patent for "Thing that does stuff"
See you all in court.

No offense to iLove, but see what I mean? See last part of #21 above.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #55 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

They may have done something like tell Apple/Nintendo they were infringing on patents but I doubt there were any actual negotiations.


Why? If they could have been gotten rid of without litigation? Do you assume that they have no viable claims?
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 81
8/31/10 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

it also makes me question the motivations of the people involved.


My guess is that they are motivated by money. Do you have anything that strikes you as more likely than that?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

No offense to iLove, but see what I mean? See last part of #21 above.


Was that the part where you claim to tune out background noise? I'm not getting your point.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTBlomberg View Post

If I understand patents correctly this is an 11th hour suit. Here is the patent info.

Patent number: 5181181
Filing date: Sep 27, 1990
Issue date: Jan 19, 1993

The patent is good for 20 years from the filing date. They are filing with less than a month left on their patent, but by the time they go to trial it will be expired. Not sure what can be done then other than back pay for that period at best.

Actually I will bet you that Apple can show prior artwork on this patent. Back in 1990 or maybe before that they demonstrated a 3 dimensional mouse where you could move in space and have it control a computer and use it a 3 dimensional input device.

Plus I believe using motion and direction in 3 dimensions is not new and has been around a long time and probably before Apple's demonstration themselves. What interesting about patents like this, there are lots of companies who demonstrated the idea but it was not patented for various reason and when these people go and sue and all the prior artwork is pulled out the case falls apart and you never hear about them again.

The problem is these idiot companies who bought these patents have not clue about the technologies, and bought it as part of a portfolio and think they can make money off them.

Here is the full patent for your reference

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36666515/C...patent-5181181
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A new lawsuit takes aim at the accelerometer- and gyroscope-powered abilities of Apple's iPhone 4, alleging that the interactive, three-dimensional input methods are in violation of a U.S. patent.


The complaint was filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent lawsuits are often filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.

We have to stop this nonsense - given this, someone will soon have a patent on breathing and all beings who breathe will either have to pay some fat moron or die.

I say kick their ass and be done with it.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by theAppleMan912 View Post

Wow. Has anyone noticed apple have layed off the suing, and are now becoming the sued???

It's how patent trolls work. They patent something obscure, then wait years for a real products company like Apple to come along and actually put said patented idea to use in service of something great. Apple takes all the risks, and if it pays off, the patent trolls spring their trap. If the resulting products fail, the patent troll waits passively, doing nothing, never taking the risks, never producing anything with their patent, never changing the world. Just sit and wait.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #61 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by main1event View Post

If you cant beat them, sue them.

Was it the same when Apple sued everyone around?
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
post #62 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Why? If they could have been gotten rid of without litigation? Do you assume that they have no viable claims?

Yes. If Apple/Nintendo did believe there was something to it, they would likely have settled because if they had negotiated and not settled, that would show that they did believe they were using/violating some of the patent.
If they didn't think they were using/violating the patent, why would they have any negotiation?
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Actually I will bet you that Apple can show prior artwork on this patent. Back in 1990 or maybe before that they demonstrated a 3 dimensional mouse where you could move in space and have it control a computer and use it a 3 dimensional input device.


If they claimed merely a 3 dimensional mouse, you would likely have a good point.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Looks to me like Triton is sick of being treated badly in negotiations by these big companies. They now have a big stick. Maybe now Nintendo and Apple will start to take them seriously?

Good for them!

Sorry, but Computer Apparatus will get this tossed. The broad and non-specific nature of any implementation other than the entire realm of 3D for a computer apparatus won't stick.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ery=PN/5181181

Quote:
A mouse which senses six degrees of motion arising from movement of the mouse within three dimensions. A hand-held device includes three accelerometers for sensing linear translation along three axes of a Cartesian coordinate system and three angular rate sensors for sensing angular rotation about the three axes. Signals produced by the sensors are processed to permit the acceleration, velocity and relative position and attitude of the device to be conveyed to a computer. Thus, a person may interact with a computer with six degrees of motion in three-dimensional space. Computer interface ports and unique address identification ensure proper communication with the computer regardless of the orientation of the mouse.

This goes back to 1970 during the Space Race.

This covers any electronic apparatus that wants to manage coordinates in 3D Space. That will get tossed.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsonice View Post

We have to stop this nonsense - given this, someone will soon have a patent on breathing and all beings who breathe will either have to pay some fat moron or die.

I say kick their ass and be done with it.


Given this, no patent on breathing will ever be issued.

Take a deep breath. Calm down. Read up on patent law.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Yes. If Apple/Nintendo did believe there was something to it, they would likely have settled because if they had negotiated and not settled, that would show that they did believe they were using/violating some of the patent.
If they didn't think they were using/violating the patent, why would they have any negotiation?

For lots and lots of reasons. The negotiation/litigation decision is far from one-dimensional.

In some cases, the big infringing company will decide to continue infringing and refuse to negotiate. In some cases, a company that is not infringing will nevertheless settle.

You cannot conclude much about the merits from your analysis of the dynamics.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by striker_kk View Post

Was it the same when Apple sued everyone around?

Pretty much. The aphorism of Apple before Jobs in the 90s was litigation over innovation. Its not a great way to do business. its like gambling, except Id rather pay a vig than lawyer fees.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #68 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by theAppleMan912 View Post

Wow. Has anyone noticed apple have layed off the suing, and are now becoming the sued???

Now???

I suppose yes, if "now" means 1978, 1991, or 2003, when they were sued by the Beatles

1994... by Carl Sagan, over the unadvertised internal product name for the Mac 7100, "BHA," said (a) to stand for Butt-Head Astronomer and (b) to mean Sagan,

1997 over AppleCare,

1998 over AppleiMac.com

2000 over itunes.co.uk

2004 over sales by independent distributors

2005 over battery life,

2006 by Creative Technology over alleged patent infringement by the iPod

2007 by Cisco over the trademark "iPhone"

2007 by customers demanding that the iPhone work on Verizon

2008 by Typhoon Touch Technologies

April 2010 by Kodak over digital imaging

April 2010 by Nokia over wireless phone technology

June, 2010 over iPhone reception in low cell strength areas

Have I missed a few (hundred)?
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 81
8/31/10 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

My guess is that they are motivated by money. Do you have anything that strikes you as more likely than that?

Well contrary to popular belief, these things are only supposed to be about money in the secondary sense. While money can be a motivator, it's supposed to be about the primacy of ideas and who thought of what first. Thats why it looks suspicious, and why a court might reduce a settlement if in fact the patent holder only chooses to defend it in court when it looks like they are going to have a payday.

It's the very perversion of copyright law to make it less about IP and protecting innovators and more about money and protecting revenue streams that's the main problem with patent and copyright law today.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 81
8/31/10 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by striker_kk View Post

Was it the same when Apple sued everyone around?

No, different. Apple sues only when a competitor tries to profit from, or dilute the uniqueness of Apple's ideas. Patent trolls usually don't compete with the companies they sue. Like SCO and RAMBUS. They treat patent lawsuits as a revenue source.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #71 of 81
8/31/10 at 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

You cannot conclude much about the merits from your analysis of the dynamics.

Based on the article, there is nothing we can conclude except Apple is being sued.
So why discuss anything else?
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 81
8/31/10 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Well contrary to popular belief, these things are only supposed to be about money in the secondary sense. While money can be a motivator, it's supposed to be about the primacy of ideas and who thought of what first.


I think that you mistake the judiciary for the legislature. These things are indeed about the values you identify - but the court is bound to hear and decide cases based upon the law as written.

Maybe you need to vote the bums out and replace them with better legislators? Dunno.

But lamenting that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation seems like misplaced concern to me.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 81
8/31/10 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Based on the article, there is nothing we can conclude except Apple is being sued.
So why discuss anything else?

I disagree. We can conclude huge amounts beyond "Apple is being sued".
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 81
8/31/10 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Was that the part where you claim to tune out background noise? I'm not getting your point.

No, the part about "I am going to patent breathing." But then I suppose you were being ironic.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #75 of 81
8/31/10 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Looks to me like Triton is sick of being treated badly in negotiations by these big companies. They now have a big stick. Maybe now Nintendo and Apple will start to take them seriously?

Good for them!

My opinion.... what a crock. A this is not about a mouse... they want to feed of anyone they can.

PS, suing in Marshall texas is like saying.... "I don't have a case but I want your money"..

en
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 81
8/31/10 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A new lawsuit takes aim at the accelerometer- and gyroscope-powered abilities of Apple's iPhone 4, ......l.

The complaint was filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent lawsuits are often filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.


Marshall texas says it all. This is the premier spot for patent trolls who really do not have a case. This town LIVES on these types of trials. And they favor the suing person, no matter what they are suing about. Just check the numbers.

Just a thought,
en
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 81
8/31/10 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldernorm View Post

Marshall texas says it all. ... This town LIVES on these types of trials.

Yeah? From Wikipedia:

Marshall is a city in Harrison County in the northeastern corner of Texas. Marshall is a major cultural and educational center in East Texas and the tri-state area. ... The city's large African American population and the presence of black institutions of higher learning made Marshall a center of the civil rights movement in the South. The city is known for holding one of the largest light festivals in the United States, the Wonderland of Lights,[4] and, as the self-proclaimed Pottery Capital of the World, for its sizable pottery industry.

Marshall is also referred to by various nicknames; the Cultural Capital of East Texas,[5] the Gateway of Texas, the Athens of Texas[6] the City of Seven Flags and Center Stage,

Marshall's economy is diversified and includes services such as Insurance claims processing at Blue Cross and Blue Shield, education at several institutes of higher learning, manufacturing such as wood kitchen cabinets at Republic Industries and pottery at several manufacturers. Tourism is also an important industry with about one million tourists visiting the city each year.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 81
8/31/10 at 2:36pm
This patent seems to specifically reference a mouse.

"A mouse which senses six degrees of motion arising from movement of the mouse within three dimensions."

And that's the first sentence of the abstract.

But at the most abstract level, this patent is really for an analog-to-digital processor, it just happens to be for accelerometers/gyros. How can a patent be issued for this really.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 81
8/31/10 at 3:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

I think that you mistake the judiciary for the legislature. These things are indeed about the values you identify - but the court is bound to hear and decide cases based upon the law as written.

Maybe you need to vote the bums out and replace them with better legislators? Dunno.

But lamenting that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation seems like misplaced concern to me.

I appreciate that if I was the plaintiff in this case, I might feel the same way about it as you do, but objectively your statements makes little sense to me.

I don't know what you mean by "the legislature," I was talking in the abstract about the concept of patents and copyright and what they are designed to do. I thought that was fairly clear by at least the second re-iteration of my remarks.

Patents and copyright laws are about IP and protecting ideas so that the people that come up with them can be fairly recognised and compensated. It usually ends up being about money as you say, but (as I said) that isn't the intent or the main focus, or even the main purpose of the law. I'm not sure what you're really disagreeing with here.

Secondly, I probably don't live in your country so I can't "vote the bums out" and I wouldn't want to anyway because my remarks have literally nothing to do with legislation or the legislative bodies of any countries. I'm just talking about the laws and their stated purpose.

Lastly, I never "lamented that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation." That's you putting words in my mouth. I just said that this isn't the main purpose of the law to suck money out of others that may or may not use your inventions and ideas. The purpose is to protect the ideas and those that originate them.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 81
8/31/10 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

1994... by Carl Sagan, over the unadvertised internal product name for the Mac 7100, "BHA," said (a) to stand for Butt-Head Astronomer and (b) to mean Sagan,


Actually the real store is this, there were 3 projects going on at Apple at the time which was the very first PPC products which basically took the 040 architecture and adapted to make the PPC work with it so it really did not take full advantage of the PPC. One project was called Cold Fusion, the next was Sagan and the third Piltdown Man, which at the time cold fusion and piltdown man were consider pseudoscience. When Sagan heard of his name being associated with the other two code names he send a cease and desist order at which time they change the name to BHA and some how Sagan found out again and then sued Apple. Needless to say the engineers got some verbal tongue lashing. Some people just can not take a joke.

Very few people at the time knew what BHA meant, but Sagan found out.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Patent suit challenges motion-based input with Apple's iPhone 4