or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple hit with patent suit over simultaneous voice and data, Wi-Fi tech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple hit with patent suit over simultaneous voice and data, Wi-Fi tech

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
Apple is once again being taken to court for alleged patent infringement, as non-practicing entity Wyncomm claims the iPhone and iPad are in violation of a 16-year old AT&T patent pertaining to simultaneous voice and data transmission.

Wyncomm Patent
Illustration from the '866 patent. | Source: USPTO


Patent holding company Wyncomm filed the suit in a Delaware district court on Thursday, alleging Apple's cellular products are in infringement of a Wi-Fi related patent. The complaint is targeting an Apple product features that allows a user to make a phone call and use Wi-Fi data at the same time, reports The Mac Observer.

The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,506,866 for "Side-channel communications in simultaneous voice and data transmission," was originally an AT&T invention granted protection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1996.

As noted by The Essential Patent Blog, the property changed hands multiple times, including ownership by Lucent, AT&T subsidiary Paradyne, and two patent holding companies, before ending up with Wyncomm. The NPE, or "patent troll," is also asserting the same patent against Acer, ASUSTek, Blu Products, Bonac Innovation, and Casio, with complaint all filed on the same day.

With the patent expiring in November of 2013, Wyncomm is looking for a quick payout for past and "any continuing or future infringement" of the '866 patent, and does not appear to be seeking an injunction at this time. Damage amounts were unspecified and Apple has yet to comment on the matter.

post #2 of 62

despite the 50 plus claims, it seems the patent is based upon the use of side channel communications.

An entirely digital smartphone would not be using side channel methods at all. The Wifi is on an entirely different carrier frequency than the "voice" part. That is not sideband or side channel

post #3 of 62

I believe this complaint coincides with the definition of the term "patent troll"

post #4 of 62

Agreed. PSTN is another term for POTs or Plain Old Telephone lines. This is OLD land line patent that relates to things like T1, ISDN, etc.. How on earth they expect that to hold up if this is their only claim in the case? Usually it's spaghetti approach and see what sticks. lol

 

I have to wonder if THEY understand the tech patent they have. That would be funny. :D

 

Never know.. We've see people win lawsuits for coffee being to hot.. If they babble fast enough and confuse the jury, they might win anyway. lol

post #5 of 62
Another day, another 3 lawsuits against Apple.

Wi-LAN sues Apple over Wi-Fi, HSPA wireless technology patents
Apple sued over OS X Quick Look preview feature
Apple sued by 'patent troll' over Numbers software
post #6 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryaaron View Post

I believe this complaint coincides with the definition of the term "patent troll"
Yes. It's not like Apple has ever sued anyone for using their patents without licensing them first.
post #7 of 62
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post
Yes. It's not like Apple has ever sued anyone for using their patents without licensing them first.

 

Take a moment. Are you, in all honesty, comparing Apple, a company that ACTUALLY MAKES PRODUCTS, BOTH HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, USING PATENTS BOUGHT OR DEVELOPED EXCLUSIVELY BY THEM THEMSELVES to a company that makes no products nor patents but simply buys them?

 

 

Again, take your time.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #8 of 62

This is a "Hail Mary" see if it sticks play. Put the ball in the roulette wheel of justice and see where it lands.

post #9 of 62
Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post
This is a "Hail Mary" see if it sticks play. Put the ball in the roulette wheel of justice and see where it lands.

 

"Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200,000,000."

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #10 of 62

The simultaneous voice and data is a function of the network, that's why Verizon cannot do it.

 

They should sue AT&T for its own patent. LOL 

post #11 of 62

There should be some sort of limit to how long you can wait before filing an infringement claim.  Everyone has known that the iPhone (and AT&T's network at least) has this ability for, what, 5 years, and they bring the case now?  "Case dismissed for reason of tacit consent after extended disinclination to make a claim."  (I just made that up, but I give permission for any judges out there to use it.)

post #12 of 62
I'm no patent lawyer but I can't see how anything in this patent relates to anything being used today. If there models weren't specifically stating they were analog perhaps I'd think they had something, but as it is this looks like the most pathetic patent troll date.



"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #13 of 62

" as non-practicing entity Wyncomm"

 

Oh, go **** yourselves. 

post #14 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

The simultaneous voice and data is a function of the network, that's why Verizon cannot do it.

They should sue AT&T for its own patent. LOL 

1) Verizon has SV&D with LTE, just not with the iPhone due to the number of antennas.

2) It's really a function of the network protocols utilized more than the network itself. Verizon and Sprint's '3GPP2 3G' was originally designed without that option. It was later added to EV-DO which both Verizon and Sprint supported as far back as 2011 with a smattering of devices. AT&T and Sprint's 3GPP '3G' was designed with it, or at least added it much sooner and in a much less costlier way.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #15 of 62
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
I'm no patent lawyer but I can't see how anything in this patent relates to anything being used today.

 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #16 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

despite the 50 plus claims, it seems the patent is based upon the use of side channel communications.
An entirely digital smartphone would not be using side channel methods at all. The Wifi is on an entirely different carrier frequency than the "voice" part. That is not sideband or side channel

This sounds like it is more about the cell data than wifi. But something tells me this will turn out to be SEP and either they refused requests to license or it was exhausted somewhere in the line

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 #17 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post

see people win lawsuits for coffee being to hot..

That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.

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 #18 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post
Yes. It's not like Apple has ever sued anyone for using their patents without licensing them first.

 

Take a moment. Are you, in all honesty, comparing Apple, a company that ACTUALLY MAKES PRODUCTS, BOTH HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, USING PATENTS BOUGHT OR DEVELOPED EXCLUSIVELY BY THEM THEMSELVES to a company that makes no products nor patents but simply buys them?

 

 

Again, take your time.

 

Reply from bulk001:

 

        RUN AWAY!  RUN AWAY!

post #19 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

There should be some sort of limit to how long you can wait before filing an infringement claim.  Everyone has known that the iPhone (and AT&T's network at least) has this ability for, what, 5 years, and they bring the case now?  "Case dismissed for reason of tacit consent after extended disinclination to make a claim."  (I just made that up, but I give permission for any judges out there to use it.)

A part of me agrees with this. Folks will say that sometimes you need time to reverse engineer etc, so make them file something showing they suspect infringement and are entering investigation. That paperwork gives them say a year after which a clock of X time ( i like 3 years) runs for them to file suit. If they don't then at the least they can't get anything more than proven actual damages, if that. Better would be no damages for past infringement but the offending item is banned until a licensing deal is set up. If its non SEP and the owners don't want to license then the ban is until the offender proves to the court the offense is removed.

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 #20 of 62
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.

 

As in "too hot for human consumption", "hotter than company guidelines", or "hotter than it was reasonable to have without changing the warning on the cup to "CAUTION: HOLY FRICK"?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #21 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.

It's funny how something can be the poster child for something and yet not be a valid example.

Do people really not know that she went to the hospital where she remained there for 8 days getting skin gaffs or do they really just want to assume that the word "hot" means any temperature above warm yet still be perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

For the younger audience or those that may have "conveniently" forgotten the facts there is documentary from 2011 on the issue on Netflix: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106?locale=en-US I have not seen it so I can't endorse its authenticity.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Reply from bulk001:



        RUN AWAY!  RUN AWAY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Take a moment. Are you, in all honesty, comparing Apple, a company that ACTUALLY MAKES PRODUCTS, BOTH HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, USING PATENTS BOUGHT OR DEVELOPED EXCLUSIVELY BY THEM THEMSELVES to a company that makes no products nor patents but simply buys them?




Again, take your time.

Yes. I seriously am! You may not like it but the law is the law. If you steal the intellectual property of another company you run the risk of going to court. Since when is it okay for Apple to have potentially stolen another companies IP? Take your time trying to figure out justifying theft when Apple does it. Now till it goes to trial no one here has any idea of what the final outcome will be. But if Apple is found to have violated someone's IP, they will have to pay up.
Edited by bulk001 - 4/12/13 at 6:47pm
post #23 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post

see people win lawsuits for coffee being to hot..

That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.

It melted her frickn' polyester pants to her leg. She's scarred for life.

post #24 of 62
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post
Yes. The law is the law. If you steal the intellectual property of another company you run the risk of going to court. Since when is it okay for Apple to have potentially stolen another companies IP? Take your time trying to figure out justifying theft when Apple does it.

 

👎⛔❌🚫

 

Try again, please, with the argument at hand. It's quite easy to take a side that was never opposed.

 

You claimed Apple was a patent troll for suing over patents. You're very wrong. And at no point was it stated that IP theft is justifiable.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #25 of 62
Given that we all still subscribe to Capitalism, I really can't see anything wrong with the basic idea of Non-Practicing Entities. If everyone is going to call them "patent trolls" all belligerently, then we should all start calling Best Buy or Walmart "consumer trolls" because they're all just reselling stuff. The only difference is that an NPE's commodity isn't tangible, and is therefore highly susceptible to theft.

The real problem is that people fall victim to lawsuits unwittingly because there is little awareness regarding patent infringement. It becomes intimidating to try to do something new because you might get whacked after the fact.

Nevertheless, people who patent things have a right to sell their ideas when they don't have the means to implement them. And the people who buy those ideas have a right to make a profit off of them. NPE's should present their patent portfolios like a menu for companies to peruse and purchase.
post #26 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

👎⛔❌🚫

Try again, please, with the argument at hand. It's quite easy to take a side that was never opposed.

You claimed Apple was a patent troll for suing over patents. You're very wrong. And at no point was it stated that IP theft is justifiable.
Are you 12? If you don't get that if a company has stolen someone else's work then they will be sued just like Apple has sued others then you obviously are never going to get it. Now run along and play with your little icons. Your mommy will be so proud.
post #27 of 62
Ancient patent no longer used by modern tech: Check
Non-practicing Entity: Check
Attempt to extort funds before patent expiration from most wealthy target available: Check
Desperation so obvious it could be a skit on Mad TV: Check
Patent Troll: Abso-fucking-lutaly CHECK!
post #28 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.

Yeah, the reason behind that is interesting, too. Apparently when you keep coffee at super high temperatures, it's harder to tell when the pot goes stale. Since they were wasting too many pots of coffee during slow hours, they just cranked up the heat across the board to save a few bucks.

COFFEE TROLLS!!!
post #29 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Are you 12? If you don't get that if a company has stolen someone else's work then they will be sued just like Apple has sued others then you obviously are never going to get it. Now run along and play with your little icons.

You are not understanding the use of te word troll.

What does a troll do? They sit under a bridge and wait for someone to cross it before attempting to extract a fee. A patent troll is a company that creates and buys patents specifically to sit on with the hopes that some other company, regardless of how original their idea or method or implementation is, they will sue regardless of how valid the claim.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #30 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post

 

Never know.. We've see people win lawsuits for coffee being to hot.. If they babble fast enough and confuse the jury, they might win anyway. lol

 

McD specified a temperature to the cup makers for which the plastic foam must maintain its stability. Lower temperature = lower cost. McD put higher temperature coffee in to the cup than was specified, the cup deformed due to the higher temperature, the coffee spilled, injury followed. Your use of "babble" should be put in to context.
post #31 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You are not understanding the use of te word troll.

What does a troll do? They sit under a bridge and wait for someone to cross it before attempting to extract a fee. A patent troll is a company that creates and buys patents specifically to sit on with the hopes that some other company, regardless of how original their idea or method or implementation is, they will sue regardless of how valid the claim.

As someone who holds a patent, I understand the concept. What others don't understand is that it makes no difference no matter what label you apply to them - if you steal someone's IP (if you steal from a company that buys up patents, if you steal from Apple etc) then you run the risk of going to court. If Apple used this companies IP then they will need to pay for it. Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.
post #32 of 62
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post
Are you 12? If you don't get that if a company has stolen someone else's work then they will be sued just like Apple has sued others then you obviously are never going to get it. Now run along and play with your little icons. Your mommy will be so proud.

 

When you'd like to have an adult argument, please post again.


Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post
Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.

 

I'll say it again: you've ignored your original argument completely. Apple is not a patent troll under the definition of the phrase. Stop arguing something that being argued.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #33 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

As someone who holds a patent, I understand the concept. What others don't understand is that it makes no difference no matter what label you apply to them - if you steal someone's IP (if you steal from a company that buys up patents, if you steal from Apple etc) then you run the risk of going to court. If Apple used this companies IP then they will need to pay for it. Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.

You're making assumptions that were never stated. No one ever said "if you sue Apple over a patent you are patent troll." It has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with how the patent holder is attempting to profit from their patent holding. If you created your patent with no intention to implement it and no intention of selling or licensing it to others, but instead wanting to wait for a product that you think infringes on it to be worth billions that you can come in and steal their earned profits through actual innovation and risk then you are patent troll.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #34 of 62
@tallest skill - whaaaa waaah. I can say it slower. Apple may have stolen from a company that holds the rights to a patent. Your hysteria and the fact that the company is a 'patent troll' does not justify or excuse Apple using the patent without paying for it.
Edited by bulk001 - 4/12/13 at 7:46pm
post #35 of 62
Your use of the word steal is interesting. If you really think it's not possible for people to conceive of similar ideas independently of each other you need to reevaluate everything.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #36 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


As someone who holds a patent, I understand the concept. What others don't understand is that it makes no difference no matter what label you apply to them - if you steal someone's IP (if you steal from a company that buys up patents, if you steal from Apple etc) then you run the risk of going to court. If Apple used this companies IP then they will need to pay for it. Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.

 

So tell us how Apple is "stealing" from this company, given that iPhones use purely digital voice and data and do not use phone lines?

 

You seem to have left out the word "alleged", part of the presumption of innocence practiced by US courts.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #37 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So tell us how Apple is "stealing" from this company, given that iPhones use purely digital voice and data and do not use phone lines?

You seem to have left out the word "alleged", part of the presumption of innocence practiced by US courts.

Yes, I will agree with you, I did leave out the word alleged. This will have to work its way through the courts. Given the high journalistic standards on this board it was a regrettable oversight.
post #38 of 62
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post
I can say it slower.

 

Try saying it more correctly.


Apple may have stolen from a company that holds the rights to a patent.


Okay. But as this patent holder is just that—not using them for any purpose other than suing others—they are, by definition, a "patent troll". 


And as that was the original argument that your post attempted to refute, I say a third time that you could not be more incorrect about your refutation. I again mention for the record that you have since moved the argument on a tangent.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 4/12/13 at 8:02pm

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #39 of 62

My skimming of the patent in question looks like it only applies to simultaneous ANALOG voice and data transmission. I don't think this applies to any iPhone ever.

post #40 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

@tallest skill - whaaaa waaah. I can say it slower. Apple may have stolen from a company that holds the rights to a patent. Your hysteria and the fact that the company is a 'patent troll' does not justify or excuse Apple using the patent without paying for it.

Actually, the real problem here is that you don't understand the difference in meaning between the words "stolen"and "infringed". Using the word "stolen" (repeatedly) does work very well though if you wish to display hysteria.

Nicely done.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple hit with patent suit over simultaneous voice and data, Wi-Fi tech