Apple accused of stealing noise cancellation technology - Page 2

 

Your comments in this thread suggest that you're only a fan of due process for Apple. We're all fans of Apple here but let's not suggest that Apple are saints and everyone else is the devil.

 

 

Yeah. Giving Audience the benefit of the doubt, they could have developed this independently and Apple simply chose the better technology.

 

So, Apple's reason for doing this is they have the moral outlook and IQ of a teenager?  I don't think so.  

To summarize, we know nothing yet.

I'm pretty sure Aliph (Jawbone) or Plantronics have patents related to noise cancellation. Apple could easily snatch one up. While they're at it, Apple could purchase Wacom  to combat Microsofts purchase of Perceptive Pixel.

 

Hope they have evidence to go with belief, or else it's going to be a short pre-trial hearing.

 

The complaint kind of reads like a conspiracy theory also.  I find that the way they mention the important people that "came into the room at one point" and their big supposition about the reverse engineering and so forth is all very telling.  

 

"Yeah, that must be the reason we lost the contract!  It has nothing to do with our crappy technology, they just stole it, covered it up and then pretended like they invented it themselves.  Yeah, that's the ticket!."

 

As if the biggest company on Earth, with many of the best software designers and mobile device engineers on Earth, is going to talk to two companies about voice cancellation technology (hardly rocket science to begin with and borderline non-patentable), and then go with the *worst* of the two, while at the same time stealing technology from the *best* (by the complainants description), of the two.  

 

If Apple thought their tech was the best, why go with the other guys?  If on the other hand, Apple thought their tech was non-patentable or wanted to steal it wholesale, then why go with the other company at all either?  Why not just buy the tech if it was the best?  Their story makes very little sense to me.  

Wow, look at this thread... the usual bunch of trolls are out and about from their weeds..... mention 'patents' and, like Pavlov's dogs, they jump out of the swamp to dump on Apple. 

i
I think we need to look at this as two different issues. First, did they infringe the patent or not? Second, did they steal intellectual property that Isn't yet patented or not? If the ideas they "stole" aren't patentable, there's no theft. If they stole code, is it protected code or not? Finally, what sort of non-disclosure and/or non-use agreement was signed by Apple? Most large companies are extremely specific about the type of agreement they will sign.

This sounds to me like it may be a case of "sour apples" on the part of Noise Free (pun intended).

Samsung and Google exact words.

Really? How about specifics?

I said that the UK decision was not final if Apple appealed. I also said that the UK is not the entire world. Where did I deny that the UK didn't have the right to decide the case however they wish? And where did I deny anyone due process?

To my mind, the strongest argument against NoiseFree's claims is that they don't make any sense.  NoiseFree alleges that Apple stole their technology and gave it to NoiseFree's competitor, and then licensed it from that competitor.  Why would they do that?  What sense does that make?  Don't tell me they would do that to save $0.05/unit.
 

They also allege that some of their technology was found in Apple's patent filing.  This also makes no sense.  If NoiseFree had patented their own technology, and also had prior art, Apple wouldn't have any invention to patent.

 

NoiseFree seems to be under the impression that one can patent an idea, which is not the case.

If this is true then there should be appropriate damages. I do however find it interesting that the chosen headlines used the phrase "Apple Steals…" instead of what is typically written when there is a civil IP suit where they typically use something on the order of Company Violates or Company Infringes on Other Companies Patent or a term like dispute over IP Issue. What made this so different that AppleInsider decided to carry it as the more sensational sounding "Apple Steals…" and implying criminal as opposed to civil violations? Me thinks AI is looking for a headline of its own and thought this would get more read when floating amongst all the other patent dispute/IP cases.

This complaint sounds a lot like the Tivo vs. Dish/Echostar lawsuit.  Tivo approached Dish about working together on a satellite receiver with Tivo built-in.  At one point they provided Dish with a working model of a Tivo DVR which Dish promptly reverse engineered and stole what they could.  Dish comes out with a DVR using tivo tech, Tivo sues, 5 years later they win and Dish pays dearly.

 

Lesson: don't give other companies operating examples of your work unless you want them to steal it.

 

The concept has been around for many years, although it's not the concept that matters (at least it's not supposed to be the concept that matters), it's the execution.   So the question becomes whether Apple "stole" this particular design.

 

The Grateful Dead used this concept in reverse back in the 1970s to reduce feedback in live performances.     They had two microphones on the same mount wired out of phase with each other.   If the singer leaned in close to one microphone, it would pick that up.   But anything coming from the background would be cancelled by the combo of the two mics, including the amplified signals coming from the stage amps.       Noise reduction on phones works the same way - the two mics are generally wired out of phase which cancels anything coming from the background.    This concept should not be patentable as it's just reversing wires.     However, if the circuitry is unique in some way are applies some special logic, that might be patentable.  

Other than diverting the story, why mention Google or Samsung?

Because they're the biggest thieves around.

 

This. ^

 

A problem I have with this action is that the phrase "on information and belief" is repeated over and over in the complaint. Maybe it's just standard legalese, but there isn't any information provided (to demonstrate Apple actually misappropriated their IP), essentially it's a timeline of evens that really demonstrate nothing. Just because you want you believe something, doesn't mean it's true. The whole argument that the technology infringes on the '790 patent seems (to me) to hinge on this claim:

 

 

Well, maybe it's not coincidence, maybe it's because two separate technology research teams tackled a problem from the same angle because they both sported similar educational and/or research histories?

 

It's also worth pointing out that Apple has been working on voice recognition technology for the past two decades, which by necessity would include some level of research into techniques for extraneous signal filtering/rejection. I'm not saying there's direct prior art, but this outfit wasn't making a presentation to a company with no prior knowledge/expertise in the arena. It's entirely possible Apple was doing their own development in the area (as they have a history of doing). And Noise Free goes out of their way to avoid saying that Apple floated any ideas to them, until the claim lets this slip:

 

 

So, in other words, Apple provided some information/ideas/whatever that was important enough to warrant an NDA to protect it. This indicates that Apple wasn't the passive information-soak that Noise Free would portray them as. In their claim, Noise Free states they did testing on noise samples that Apple sent to them, then "shortly thereafter" learned that Apple selected Audience to supply the technology. On the face of it, that to me sounds like Apple was entertaining proposals from both companies simultaneously, and when it came to a final decision, Apple provided a sample to both and selected the one that performed best.

 

Audience was actually already producing products in 2008. Other phone manufacturers were already using their technology (although it may not have been quite the same technology), so it's not unreasonable to think that they had a viable competing technology - even if it was similar to Noise Free's, which would make sense as it was aimed at doing the same thing.

 

Now, I'll play armchair lawyer: :P ... It seems to me that to make a case of this, Noise Free has to reasonably prove that Audience's technology was taken directly from the material Noise Free presented to Apple, not just claiming it's "too close to be coincidence". If Audience is to be believed, they have 20 years of research into psychoacoustics and noise-canceling technology prior to the formal company start-up that can be pointed to as proof that even if it is "similar", it was independently derived (in which case we might see the case resolved by the invalidation of the '790 patent via a prior art claim).

 

Short version: My gut agrees with the theory that's this is likely a case of sour grapes at losing the contract to Audience. How it plays out legally is another matter. Maybe Noise Free wins, maybe they lose, maybe Apple just settles out of court with a gag agreement to expedite the messy legal dog and pony show, so they can move on with business.

Edited by GoodGrief - 7/10/12 at 10:49am

'On information and belief" is pretty standard legalese and doesn't mean much in itself.

Like most all legal complaints, this has a bunch of allegations which have not yet been proven. They will have a chance to try to prove it and Apple will have a chance to refute it. In the end, whoever proves their case wins.

I happen to agree with you. Until apple and Audiences side of the story comes out we are just speculating. It could be that audience had a competing tech that was similar to Noisefree and the actual culprit of copying may be audience not apple. Apple may have just chosen a competing product after comparing the two.

Update:

Just browsing Audiences website I found this:

"Audience was founded by Dr. Watts to create a company that would commercialize auditory neuroscience for the mass market. From that foundation, the company began development of products based on the science of human hearing, creating its earSmart™ intelligent voice technology. earSmart Advanced Voice processors work like the human ear to enhance voice quality and suppress noise, with the goal to improve communications for the mobile, telecom and computing markets. The company’s first voice processor chip was introduced for mobile phones in 2008."

So it would seem that Audience tech was already on the market before Noisefree. They got the patent there suing over in 2010, applied for in 2007.

Also Audience has over 55 patents either pending or granted:

"Audience Achievements

earSmart voice processors are featured in over 50 handsets from leading brands such as Samsung, LG, HTC, Sharp, and Pantech, offered by AT&T, Docomo, SKT, and more.
Audience introduced its voice technology in the U.S. market with the Nexus One phone from Google/HTC in January, 2010.
Audience expanded its U.S. presence by bringing its earSmart technology to a wide selection of AT&T mobile phones, starting in the spring of 2010.
Audience’s first DSP voice processor launched in April 2008 at the CTIA Wireless trade show.
Over 55 patents have been issued or are in process for our technology.
Audience has earned industry recognition for its innovations: named to the FierceWireless “Fierce 15” 2011 list of top privately-held wireless companies recognized for industry innovation; selected a short-list nominee for the 2011 GSMA Global Mobile Awards – Best Mobile Technology Breakthrough for technological achievement and innovation; selected as the Silver Winner in the 2008 Wall Street Journal “Technology Innovation Awards”, and winner of the Semiconductor Category; winner of the 2008 GSMA Mobile Innovation Global Award for “Most Innovative True Mobile Start-up”.

Just food for thought untill we know both sides of the story it all of these click bait stories are just that click bait and worthless and all of this is just pure speculation.
Edited by Mechanic - 7/10/12 at 4:52pm

 

This is the second time Audience gets sued for patent infringement in less than 2 months after its IPO.

 

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/07/audience-hit-with-pre-ipo-lawsuit/

 

As for Apple, everyone and his brother knows that Apple is one of the worst patent infringers out there. No news here.

Wow. when other companies patent an "idea" with no real hardware, then it is "not the case"

 

When apple patents an "idea" that they "might make" in the future, then its all good. Apple is known for filing a lot of patents for even tech that they don't have yet. They only had an "idea" of how to do it.

 

Apple is great at sounding like they did it first, or that they really invented an idea, but that is how broken the patent system is. Apple is one of the biggest exploiters of this system.

Please point to cases where Apple has tried to patent an idea.

In reality, Apple is bound by the same rules as everyone else. You can't patent an idea. The problem is that all the whiners here are confused about what is an 'idea' and what is an 'invention'. For example, 'unlocking a phone' is an idea and is not patentable. A specific mechanism for unlocking the phone (like swiping along a pre-defined path) is a invention and is patentable. It is almost always the case that people who complain about Apple patenting an idea don't understand the difference.

So what specific ideas has Apple tried to patent?


Everyone and his brother knows that? How about some evidence?

 

http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=apple&nos=830

 

Poor, poor crapple fanboy.. So sad...

1. We don't insult Apple here. That should be blatantly obvious.
2. We don't use the word "fanboy" here.
3. Your link has nothing to do with your statement.

Is that myapplelove's new alias? Same inane comment style.

Apple to me is just one of those greedy and ruthless corporate monstrosities out there..

 

Apple fanboys and fangirls are a different matter... I tryly feel sorry for them

 

The link lists patent lawsuits where Apple is mostly on the receiving end

And your grand plan being here is to enlighten us out of mindless servitude.

Good luck.

 

- A good number of those suits in your linked page show Apple on the offense (as in defending their IP - just take a look at the FIRST TWO suits in your list)

- Lawsuits filed doesn't mean actual infringement happened (read some of the things you link, some suits have been dismissed because of prior art - or my favorite was the one that was invalidated because the patent applicant LIED in the patent filing about the origins of the "invention")

- Some of those aren't even IP infringement lawsuits (declaratory judgements on already listed cases, for example)

- Many of them are filed in East Texas ... 'nuff said there

 

If you use the same website and search for any other company the size of Apple, you get about the same number of results. You proved absolutely nothing by posting that link.

 

Funny thing is, you could've got way more results by just using google, and they would've just as meaningful (as in not at all) in supporting your statement. Hell I searched for "apple patent infringement" and got over 1.7 million results - that must mean 1.7+ million cases of infringement, right? Those bastards. :P

 

I feel sorry for you (and your epic trolling fail). But just kinda', I'm also laughing at you ... a LOT ... no really, I almost peed myself.

 

Not Apple, but Amazon got a patent for "one-click" which Apple was forced to license.  IMO, the idea of making one click to purchase an item is nothing more than that - an obvious idea.    No more special, unique or patentable than the express line at the supermarket.   Amazon shouldn't have been able to patent that.  But they did and the courts found it valid (incorrectly in my opinion).      I see lots of patents for things like "storing a file".      This is all ridiculous.     Patents were supposed to be about a unique implementation of an idea, not the idea itself.      It's a good thing you can't patent media ideas because if you could, someone would have gotten a patent on "a western", "a comedy", "science-fiction", etc.   

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402002,00.asp

 

Just an idea. No real hardware. they are just thinking that "something around that effect" nothing specific

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/06/20/apple-patents-technique-that-uses-cloned-doppelgangers-to-protect-your-privacy/

 

How can you invent something you couldn't make yet? For me, as long as there is no physical representation of what you "invented" it is still just an idea. I mean, if I can do that, I will patent my hologram ideas now.

 

http://mashable.com/2012/07/05/apple-patent-google-glass/

 

Another good example of an IDEA they had back in 2006 that they couldn't make yet. Google glass shows up and they push for the patent to be approved because they now see that the IDEA can be implemented now in today's tech.

 

An invention is a proven concept that can be IMPLEMENTED. Unless you are able to implement an IDEA, then it shouldn't be called an invention yet.

 

Just to be clear, I don't hate Apple in general. they have some of the best products for sure, but I hate the patent trolling they do

 

you blatantly did not read the story, or understand what actually happened. 

 

I expect that of the people here to take calm collected criticism as some form of "bat-shit crazy" talk.. no. Apple fucked up, and Tim is hypocritical and ignorant for making a comment like that. It makes him genuinely look out of touch when apple get burnt by the system they're playing dangerously. 

 

precedents that are there to be set, are then used by other parties. That's how a precedent works. Apple, genuinely have set a dangerous one by blocking sales of competitor devices over such a small software patent like this. I'm sure we'll see other business up their game and use the same tactics.. Maybe you'll be laughing on the other side of your smug face when you can't purchase an iDevice down the line because they got gamed... although i suspect you'll be weaping like a butt-hurt basement dweller. Good luck with that.

 Hang on buddy... Do you mean that apple lied to the US courts when they told them that they invented touch screen phones?

 

I don't recall that ever being said. Link?

 TBh, I was shocked when I read the following exert from the Samsung case

 

"Before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with key pads for dialing and small, passive display screens that did not allow for touch control."

 

Source http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf page 2 line 7/8

 

Personally, I can't see how the author would expect any reasonable person to interpret the above as any but "apple invented touch screen phones".

 

(For the benefit of other members), there were  touch screen phones with screens ranging from small to 5" prior to the release of the iPhone

 

Later they also say that the 2007 iPhone could "run diverse pre-installed and downloadable applications,". Does nobody proof read what the legal teams write?

Edited by hungover - 7/20/12 at 11:28pm

This is not an endorsement of all your arguments, but that's a nice bit of research finding and referencing the actual Apple complaint against Samsung. 

 

EDIT: After reading thru Apple's complaint, they got a lot of valid ones with certain older Samsung devices IMO, particularly in the areas of trade dress, trademarks.  Thanks for the link.

Edited by Gatorguy - 7/21/12 at 5:07am

 TBh I haven't had the time to go through all of it.

 

After reading it I do sympathise more with the Apple claim but I guess that is to be expected given that I have not read through the counter argument.

 

Reading the document with benefit of hindsight, one can see a number of errors. Some of those errors would be the result of changes after writing, for example Apple stating that they own the term multi-touch, I can't remember specifics but the application was rejected after the document was written. Other errors can best be described as "poetic licence".