or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Jury rules Apple's iPhone infringes on three MobileMedia patents [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jury rules Apple's iPhone infringes on three MobileMedia patents [u]

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
A U.S. District Court has ruled that Apple's iPhone infringes on three patents owned by non-practicing entity MobileMedia Ideas ? a company jointly owned in part by smartphone makers Sony and Nokia [updated]

The ruling from U.S. District Court in the District of Delaware was handed down on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Apple attempted to have the case tossed out of court last month citing prior art, but Judge Sue Robinson denied the request.

MobileMedia is jointly owned by Sony, Nokia and MPEG LA. The filing that was originally at the heart of the case, U.S. Patent No. 6,441,828, was filed by Sony in 1999 in relation to technology for a digital picture frame and relates to display orientation on a digital screen.

Update: The initial complaint was eventually narrowed to three patents, and a federal jury ruled on Thursday after four hours of deliberation that Apple was in violation of those inventions. MobileMedia Chief Executive Larry Horn reportedly said that the three patents Apple was found to have infringed were related to camera phones, call handling and call rejection, meaning the initial screen orientation patent was apparently not included in the final decision.

MobileMedia Ideas holds more than 300 patents related to a wide variety of consumer electronics features. The company announced in 2010 it would license patents related to "smartphones, mobile phones, and other portable devices including personal computers, laptops, notebooks, personal media players, e-book readers, cameras, and hand-held game consoles."

Patent
Illustration from Sony's '828 patent with "display" orientation button. | Source: USPTO


The '828 patent, which the case was originally based on, broadly defines a method of changing the orientation of an image on a portable device based on a specific set of factors. Most of the patent describes the basic idea of changing a screen's output from portrait mode to landscape, though one claim relates to "determining a direction in which an image of the image signal is to be displayed? according to a posture in which the apparatus is placed."

The complaint was first filed in Delaware in 2010. MobileMedia Ideas initially claimed that Apple was in violation of 18 patents owned by the company.
post #2 of 20

This is funny :)

 

People must respect "good" patents. If these make sense and are legit, Apple should pay so their patents can be respected too.

post #3 of 20
Sure hope U know whose Darling is not gonna post!

Ah, MPEG LA. There's that Wiki part:

...Criticism

MPEG LA has claimed that video codecs such as Theora and VP8 infringe on patents owned by its licensors, without disclosing the affected patent or patents. Currently, they are calling out for “any party that believes it has patents that are essential to the VP8 video codec”

"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

This is funny 1smile.gif

People must respect "good" patents. If these make sense and are legit, Apple should pay so their patents can be respected too.

If this ruling passes the inevitable appeal then Apple will.

But remember that patents are detail specific. If this patent describes a particular method for rotation and Apple a using a different method then there's less grounds for crying violation. And Apple might still convince an appeals court on the prior art argument. Or if no method is given then they might pass an appeals court on the notion that they vastly improved the IP by developing a method and thus created a new IP (which is a valid argument under US law)

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #5 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

MPEG LA has claimed that video codecs such as Theora and VP8 infringe on patents owned by its licensors, without disclosing the affected patent or patents.

Yeah, that is a bit much to me. If you are going to cry foul you need to say exactly what over.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

If this ruling passes the inevitable appeal then Apple will.
But remember that patents are detail specific. If this patent describes a particular method for rotation and Apple a using a different method then there's less grounds for crying violation. And Apple might still convince an appeals court on the prior art argument. Or if no method is given then they might pass an appeals court on the notion that they vastly improved the IP by developing a method and thus created a new IP (which is a valid argument under US law)

Apple can get a patent on their improvements, but that in no way invalidates the original patent. Having a patent doesn't protect you from earlier patents on pieces of what you do.
post #7 of 20

"on three patents owned by non-practicing entity MobileMedia Ideas"

 

I like how pretty much everything Apple gets sued over is by non-practising entities and non-implemented ideas. Apple only ever has tried to protect the patents it has actually IMPLEMENTED on millions of devices that it SELLS. 

 

Disgusting. 

 

Along with millions of others, it was pretty much the first time I had ever seen useable implementation of multitouch, pinch to zoom, elastic banding, auto rotation, etc is when Apple first demoed these things. Apparently, those are the patents that deserve to be thrown out. 

post #8 of 20
Non-practicing entities contribute so much to society! For example:

1.)

See?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

This is funny :)

 

People must respect "good" patents. If these make sense and are legit, Apple should pay so their patents can be respected too.

I agree and history shows that Apple been reasonable.

Apple is friendly with these companies, so this will probably get resolved.

 

As always, Time will tell.  It always does.

post #10 of 20

Orientating the data on the screen for portrait and landscape mode by Radius as they had a monitor that people could flip from portrait to landscape mode and that patent is FREAKING OLD.  

 

Why did they wait so long to file?  Apple's been selling iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads since 2007?


Maybe Media 100 should sue if they obtained the patents from buying Digital Origin (formally Radius), that's if the patents are still good.  They might have lapsed, which may mean that these other patents might able to be challenged.

 

Apple should talk to their patent attorneys and look into whether some of these patents are actually good patents.  The patent office has retracted patents before.  They did it to Apple.

post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

"on three patents owned by non-practicing entity MobileMedia Ideas"

 

I like how pretty much everything Apple gets sued over is by non-practising entities and non-implemented ideas. Apple only ever has tried to protect the patents it has actually IMPLEMENTED on millions of devices that it SELLS. 

 

Disgusting. 

 

Along with millions of others, it was pretty much the first time I had ever seen useable implementation of multitouch, pinch to zoom, elastic banding, auto rotation, etc is when Apple first demoed these things. Apparently, those are the patents that deserve to be thrown out. 


If you do a little research you will find that these patents are owned by Sony and Nokia and that they were transfered to this company for litigation purposed to avoid counter litigation.  Happens all the time.

post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Orientating the data on the screen for portrait and landscape mode by Radius as they had a monitor that people could flip from portrait to landscape mode and that patent is FREAKING OLD.  

 

Why did they wait so long to file?  Apple's been selling iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads since 2007?


Maybe Media 100 should sue if they obtained the patents from buying Digital Origin (formally Radius), that's if the patents are still good.  They might have lapsed, which may mean that these other patents might able to be challenged.

 

Apple should talk to their patent attorneys and look into whether some of these patents are actually good patents.  The patent office has retracted patents before.  They did it to Apple.

This finding didn't involve the screen rotation patent claims. AI noted the error and corrected it just awhile ago. The court had questions about the ownership of that rotation patent and put it on hold until it was determined. No surprise IMO as Nokia has been "sub-letting" a number of patents to 3rd parties for enforcement, but retaining some control over them.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

"on three patents owned by non-practicing entity MobileMedia Ideas"


I like how pretty much everything Apple gets sued over is by non-practising entities and non-implemented ideas. Apple only ever has tried to protect the patents it has actually IMPLEMENTED on millions of devices that it SELLS. 


Disgusting. 


Along with millions of others, it was pretty much the first time I had ever seen useable implementation of multitouch, pinch to zoom, elastic banding, auto rotation, etc is when Apple first demoed these things. Apparently, those are the patents that deserve to be thrown out. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Non-practicing entities contribute so much to society! For example:
1.)
See?

As usual, all the whining about patent trolls indicates that far too many people are eager to comment on things they don't understand.

Let's say I inherit a widget factory, but I don't want to make widgets, so I sell the factory to a broker who has no intention of making widgets, either. Since neither of us has any intention of making widgets, why shouldn't you be able to simply move in, take over the factory, and start making widgets, right? After all, both the broker and I are 'non-practicing entities'.

That's exactly analogous to what you're suggesting with regard to patents.

And, SN, you're just plain wrong. LOTS of people have invented something and licensed it to the companies who manufacture a product because they have no desire to get into the manufacturing business. There are patents in almost every field licensed from the inventor (who is a non-practicing entity) to someone who can use the technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post


If you do a little research you will find that these patents are owned by Sony and Nokia and that they were transfered to this company for litigation purposed to avoid counter litigation.  Happens all the time.

Which is just one of the many reasons why someone might want to license their patent rather than hold it. Patents give the owner specific rights. They're free to do whatever they want with those rights - sell them, license them, use them to make a product, or sit on them and do nothing. No one (other than a court under very specific circumstances) has the right to tell a patent owner what they have to do with their patents any more than someone has the right to tell me what to do with my widget factory.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #14 of 20

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 9:55am
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

"on three patents owned by non-practicing entity MobileMedia Ideas"

 

I like how pretty much everything Apple gets sued over is by non-practising entities and non-implemented ideas. Apple only ever has tried to protect the patents it has actually IMPLEMENTED on millions of devices that it SELLS. 

 

Disgusting. 

 

Along with millions of others, it was pretty much the first time I had ever seen useable implementation of multitouch, pinch to zoom, elastic banding, auto rotation, etc is when Apple first demoed these things. Apparently, those are the patents that deserve to be thrown out. 

Okay that isn't true. Apple said the Tab infringed on a registered design that was never used in the ipad line. Apple will appeal this anyway.

post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As usual, all the whining about patent trolls indicates that far too many people are eager to comment on things they don't understand.
Let's say I inherit a widget factory, but I don't want to make widgets, so I sell the factory to a broker who has no intention of making widgets, either. Since neither of us has any intention of making widgets, why shouldn't you be able to simply move in, take over the factory, and start making widgets, right? After all, both the broker and I are 'non-practicing entities'.
That's exactly analogous to what you're suggesting with regard to patents.
And, SN, you're just plain wrong. LOTS of people have invented something and licensed it to the companies who manufacture a product because they have no desire to get into the manufacturing business. There are patents in almost every field licensed from the inventor (who is a non-practicing entity) to someone who can use the technology.
Which is just one of the many reasons why someone might want to license their patent rather than hold it. Patents give the owner specific rights. They're free to do whatever they want with those rights - sell them, license them, use them to make a product, or sit on them and do nothing. No one (other than a court under very specific circumstances) has the right to tell a patent owner what they have to do with their patents any more than someone has the right to tell me what to do with my widget factory.

See. Nobody wants the logical and well laid out reason why the patent system actually works.

It appears everyone is looking for 2 sets of rules: one for the little guy and one for the corps. But that's kind of the way it's going in society as whole these days, so nothing new. Lots of little f***** anarchists running around with their fingers in their ears, going, "....nananananana....can't hear you! No matter what you say, corps. are EVIL, GREEDY and BAD, bad bad ...infinity!" 1oyvey.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #17 of 20

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 9:55am
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Non-practicing entities contribute so much to society! For example:
1.)
See?
This is a patent pool for the different owners, Sony and Nokia do "practice" and "contribute".
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Orientating the data on the screen for portrait and landscape mode by Radius as they had a monitor that people could flip from portrait to landscape mode and that patent is FREAKING OLD.  

 

Why did they wait so long to file?  Apple's been selling iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads since 2007?


Maybe Media 100 should sue if they obtained the patents from buying Digital Origin (formally Radius), that's if the patents are still good.  They might have lapsed, which may mean that these other patents might able to be challenged.

 

Apple should talk to their patent attorneys and look into whether some of these patents are actually good patents.  The patent office has retracted patents before.  They did it to Apple.

The USPTO did a re-exam at Apple's request, but found the specific claims that Apple is found to have infringed are valid.

http://www.whda.com/blog/2012/12/reexamination-has-not-saved-apple-against-mobilemedia-patents-so-far/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 20
Updating this thread the Court denied Apple's request for a retrial on Friday. Still a few issues to go tho.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Jury rules Apple's iPhone infringes on three MobileMedia patents [u]