Apple iPhone targeted in patent lawsuit over sync, Bluetooth

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post


    Litigation business is doing well. It is even better in worse economy. That's the US Patent value.



    The truism is look at what government (by means of the US Patent Office) can do and totally screw up things to Almighty! Healthcare, a big mess already, is next!
  • Reply 22 of 47
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    You trolls are amazing animals, you know that. Apple sues somebody and the outrage, the accusations of stifling innovation, the "monopoly" trump card, the "evil" trump card, all surface immediately. BUT Apple gets sued, and suddenly this is poetic justice, this is the right thing to do, take 'em down, patents are good.



    I wonder how many law suits Microsoft itself against defending these days, or Dell, or HP, or Google, or Toyota. Only Apple is getting its comeuppance, eh. Like I said, you trolls sure do have an amazingly myopic vision of the world. And you rail against "fanboys"? What a laugh.



    The unfortunate thing, is that it goes both ways. When Apple launches their suits, they are in the right. The other companies have been borrowing, encroaching and stealing from Apple's IP portfolio for too long. It's about time. Patents Rulz. But when Apple gets sued, it's boo, hiss! Patent reform! Lawyers are evil! These companies are bad, etc.



    People need to take off their bias glasses and at least try to look at these things objectively.
  • Reply 23 of 47
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    You trolls are amazing animals, you know that. Apple sues somebody and the outrage, the accusations of stifling innovation, the "monopoly" trump card, the "evil" trump card, all surface immediately.





    I never said anything like that. Your false accusations are insulting.
  • Reply 24 of 47
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    They make nothing, and do nothing but sue to protect the patents they own.




    Do they steal other's stuff instead of innovating?
  • Reply 25 of 47
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Didn't I read they are toying with the idea in that state that Texas should secede? How about the other 49 states helping it



    There are two issues, only 25% of Texans wanted to secede, and I don't think there is a legal mechanism to allow secession or expulsion, short of a constitutional amendment.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    There is an amazing lack of consistency on BOTH sides. It was not too long ago that Kodak, a company that is nearly 125 years old, that supposedly tried to negotiate with Apple, was called a patent troll for trying to enforce its IP.



    Kodak also filed through a New York district court, their home turf, rather than the patent troll turf of Eastern District of Texas.



    Quote:

    If both sides would simply be honest, then these posts would go down. Apple has every right to defend its IP, and not every company that sues Apple is a priori a patent troll simply because they sue Apple.



    True, however, if a "business" decides to sue through the Eastern District of Texas, I generally assume the filer is a patent troll, regardless of who they are suing, unless proven otherwise.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    What, like non-fanboys who continuously whine about stuff like an iPhone not being able to sync stuff via Bluetooth?



    Does the iPhone sync or transfer data over Bluetooth? If it does, that's news to me. It wasn't a big priority.
  • Reply 26 of 47
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    No, prompting my comment that it is something non-fanboys often like to whine about. i.e. the iPhone's absence of Bluetooth syncing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Does the iPhone sync or transfer data over Bluetooth? If it does, that's news to me. It wasn't a big priority.



  • Reply 27 of 47
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Kodak also filed through a New York district court, their home turf, rather than the patent troll turf of Eastern District of Texas.

    True, however, if a "business" decides to sue through the Eastern District of Texas, I generally assume the filer is a patent troll, regardless of who they are suing, unless proven otherwise.



    You seem to be reasonable. But the Kodak thread was amazing, in that they were called a troll, or that somehow their patents were not worth enforcing because they were not "relevant", cutting edge, or innovative (although what any of that has to do with patent validity eludes me), etc.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,991member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGenius View Post


    Do they steal other's stuff instead of innovating?



    Are you implying a moral equivalency between outfits like this that live to sue and a company like Apple with a long history of innovation? If so, there is no point in my my responding further. Or perhaps I misunderstood your point. I hope so.
  • Reply 29 of 47
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    You seem to be reasonable. But the Kodak thread was amazing, in that they were called a troll, or that somehow their patents were not worth enforcing because they were not "relevant", cutting edge, or innovative (although what any of that has to do with patent validity eludes me), etc.



    You're right, that sort of thing is silly.



    People don't think highly of Kodak, but they were working on electronic photography long before pretty much anyone else. They did a lot of the pioneering work, the problem is that their products were before their time and Kodak didn't persevere in getting things to the market, so that doesn't help their mind share. This was another place where Apple dropped the ball, Kodak and Apple collaborated on a digital camera, but never updated it.
  • Reply 30 of 47
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    The digital camera that Apple worked in partnership with Kodak to develop was one of their earliest examples.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    You're right, that sort of thing is silly.



    People don't think highly of Kodak, but they were working on electronic photography long before pretty much anyone else. They did a lot of the pioneering work, the problem is that their products were before their time and Kodak didn't persevere in getting things to the market, so that doesn't help their mind share.



    Damn, you changed it.
  • Reply 31 of 47
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    The unfortunate thing, is that it goes both ways. When Apple launches their suits, they are in the right. The other companies have been borrowing, encroaching and stealing from Apple's IP portfolio for too long. It's about time. Patents Rulz. But when Apple gets sued, it's boo, hiss! Patent reform! Lawyers are evil! These companies are bad, etc.



    People need to take off their bias glasses and at least try to look at these things objectively.



    Companies suing other companies is just a part of doing business. It's a fact that must be dealt with, and seeing as Apple is worth tens of billions this is the time for every company that has been tracking Apple's growth curve with a valid or questionable lawsuit to file. You don't sue someone who can't pay.
  • Reply 32 of 47
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The digital camera that Apple worked in partnership with Kodak to develop was one of their earliest examples.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake



    Damn, you changed it.



    Sorry about that, sometimes I forget to put what I wanted to say. But the link and the name is helpful.



    They had done some research long before then, the technology wasn't ready. The first prototype was something about the size of a suitcase.
  • Reply 33 of 47
    adamiigsadamiigs Posts: 355member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BAW View Post


    The most hilarious thing about these lawsuits is always the phrase "Eastern District of Texas." Gee, I thought the legal system was supposed to be impartial and all, but obviously companies know where to file their lawsuits to get a favorable result. Frontier justice, where no doubt wheels are being greased behind the scenes for just the right outcome. Since this is a U.S. District Court, why is there not an ongoing federal investigation into their reputation for favoring certain companies even before evidence is heard? A court should not have a reputation for favoring one side or the other. I know, I know, incredible naivete on my part! :-)







    Should i bother saying it's not the court, it's the community? The trials are 100% jury trials, it's the hicks that live there that love to stick it to companies. All a company has to do is find a law office in that area and be represented by them, it's a gold mine for the community where you have law offices from all over the country opening store fronts in your town. This loophole in the system is what needs to change so that you can't just pick that area and sue there.
  • Reply 34 of 47
    icyfogicyfog Posts: 338member
    This is such a bad suit for SmartPhone Technologies LLC to file. It's stifling technological advancements.
  • Reply 35 of 47
    mrodmrod Posts: 6member
    If you read the patents themselves you will see that they are originally "PalmSource", i.e. Palm/Handspring and probably come from their experience with the Treo, which were essentially the first smartphones. (I believe the first Handspring Treo pre-dates the first Blackberry.)



    How this company which is suing came to get the patents is another matter.
  • Reply 36 of 47
    bawbaw Posts: 12member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdamIIGS View Post


    Should i bother saying it's not the court, it's the community? The trials are 100% jury trials, it's the hicks that live there that love to stick it to companies. All a company has to do is find a law office in that area and be represented by them, it's a gold mine for the community where you have law offices from all over the country opening store fronts in your town. This loophole in the system is what needs to change so that you can't just pick that area and sue there.



    Good clarification, thanks! Even more reason to investigate . . .
  • Reply 37 of 47
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    One day I'd like to see a list of all the lawsuits that Apple has pending and how many they have against other companies.



    Based on Apple's 10-Q/K SEC filings, since 2000, Apple has only initiated suits against other companies 3 times, and countersued 4 times. In all other cases and there are lots (roughly 100 but some have been combined into class-action suits), they have been sued. Though I glanced at them quickly, it looks like only one-third or less of all suits have been about patent infringement. Many are about "defective" product, stock option backdating/insider trading, false advertising, misrepresentation, unfair/deceptive business practices, breach of contract, trademark infringement, etc.



    In 2010, Apple sued HTC for patent infringement. (Not yet in a filed 10-Q)

    In 2009, Apple countersued Nokia.

    In 2008, Apple sued Psystar for copyright infringement.

    In 2006, Apple sued Burst.com to declare its patents invalid. This was a pre-emptive suit, as Burst.com, having won against Microsoft, was likely to also sue Apple.

    In 2006, Apple countersued Creative Technology.

    In 2004, Apple countersued Compression Labs.

    In 2003, Apple countersued Apple Corps.



    One could reasonably say that Apple is very hesitant to pull the lawsuit trigger.
  • Reply 38 of 47
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Based on Apple's 10-Q/K SEC filings, since 2000, Apple has only initiated suits against other companies 3 times, and countersued 4 times. In all other cases, they have been sued. Though I glanced at them quickly, it looks like only one-third or less of all suits have been about patent infringement. Many are about "defective" product, stock option backdating/insider trading, false advertising, misrepresentation, unfair/deceptive business practices, breach of contract, trademark infringement, etc.



    In 2010, Apple sued HTC for patent infringement. (Not yet in a filed 10-Q)

    In 2009, Apple countersued Nokia.

    In 2008, Apple sued Psystar for copyright infringement.

    In 2006, Apple sued Burst.com to declare its patents invalid. This was a pre-emptive suit, as Burst.com, having won against Microsoft, was likely to also sue Apple.

    In 2006, Apple countersued Creative Technology.

    In 2004, Apple countersued Compression Labs.

    In 2003, Apple countersued Apple Corps.



    Well you can throw out the backdating/insider trading. Nothing ever came of that. The advertising suits were always a gray area anyway . . . But yes, Apple doesn't seem very litigious once you have a look at the specifics.
  • Reply 39 of 47
    initiatorinitiator Posts: 104member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    "Your honour, the Apple hearing is at 2. Did you want me to order you lunch in the meantime?"



    "Sure thing sugarplum. Why dontcha rustle me up some fried chicken and some of them strawberry pies ah love so much. And hold all my calls. I gotta shine up my gun cuz I'll be usin' it as my gavel. Butt-end of course, he-he, and speakin of butt, once yer done with all the filin', why dontcha strut yer purty ass up here so ah can take a look atcha."









    Awesome. Totally hilarious!
  • Reply 40 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    You're right, that sort of thing is silly.



    People don't think highly of Kodak, but they were working on electronic photography long before pretty much anyone else. They did a lot of the pioneering work, the problem is that their products were before their time and Kodak didn't persevere in getting things to the market, so that doesn't help their mind share. This was another place where Apple dropped the ball, Kodak and Apple collaborated on a digital camera, but never updated it.



    Related, but a bit off-topic to share a small bit of anecdotal history with Kodak. Years ago, my product division made a real-time acquisition graphic board (Sbus originally, converted to PCI later). Under contract with Kodak, it was integrated into a small Sun workstation to sit inside the original Kodak photo kiosk for scanning/cropping/repro. Later, I coordinated with General Atomic for a board redesign to meet their specs (VMEbus, timing, and stress) for integration into their then-new Predator UAV's nosecone providing remote real-time image capture and interpolation. It debuted during Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait and continues (profitably sold to L3, thank you very much) in service now in Iraq and Afghanistan. From commercial kiosks to military surveillance ... a success story (less so for Kodak) of COTS dual-use technology.
Sign In or Register to comment.