Apple accused of violating patents related to media on iPhone, iPod

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A patent holder that last sued Apple in 2009 has targeted the iPhone maker again, this time accusing the company of violating two patents related to media playback.



Affinity Labs last sued Apple in 2009, accusing the company of violating three patents related to streaming and downloading of content. This week, the company fired another shot, accusing Apple of violating two more patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228: "Content delivery system and method"

U.S. Patent No. 7,778,595: "Method for managing media"

The lawsuit specifically cites the "iPhone, iPod touch and iPhone line of products," claiming that the audio systems found in Apple's portable devices violates the '228 patent. Only the iPhone is accused of violating the '595 patent.



Also named in the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is AAMP of Florida Inc., a company that makes products designed to integrate portable digital devices into car audio systems. Named in the suit are its products under the "iSimple" brand, including the iSimple Gateway product.







Affinity Labs seeks damages from the court, as well as applicable attorneys' fees, and has asked that both Apple and AAMP be prohibited from further alleged infringement. The lawsuit was filed in court on Tuesday.



The official website for Affinity Labs describes it as an "innovation company" that "can be the key to your future."



"We generate new product and business ideas and consult on intellectual property matters to help protect those ideas," the company description reads. "And while we love the role of innovator, our most valuable service may lie in fostering the innovation skills of others."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    These Eastern District of Texas lawsuits makes me wish Texas would secede from the nation.
  • Reply 2 of 28
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    These Eastern District of Texas lawsuits makes me wish Texas would secede from the nation.



    It wouldn't really help, the problem is the patents, these are doozies. Now a bunch of people will get annoyed about patent trolls and suggest impossible changes to the legal system aimed specifically at trolls while leaving Apple's IP untouched, a few of us will try to argue that the problem is endemic to the IP system and a few crazies will insist that IP is a divine right that must be protected and infringement is akin to home invasion.



    As for me, having read as far as the first claim on both patents I'm going to make a stiff drink.
  • Reply 3 of 28
    NPR and PRI's This American Life devoted an entire hour to the patent mess. It really is worth a listen.



    http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/M...t?id=201671138



    or



    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/
  • Reply 4 of 28
    tleviertlevier Posts: 104member
    Well, at least this one actually looks more legitimate and less troll-ish.
  • Reply 5 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    These Eastern District of Texas lawsuits makes me wish Texas would secede from the nation.



    I'm with you. It certainly couldn't hurt. As long as they move the sxsw music festival.

  • Reply 6 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tlevier View Post


    Well, at least this one actually looks more legitimate and less troll-ish.



    How do you figure? Affinity Labs is another "company" that produces nothing (except lawsuits) and is most likely a shell company of Intellectual Ventures, the biggest troll under the bridge.
  • Reply 7 of 28
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tlevier View Post


    Well, at least this one actually looks more legitimate and less troll-ish.



    Nope.



    First both patents are multiple continuations, then both are extremely broad and yes obvious, finally it's a non practicing entity.



    This is textbook troll.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 596member
    It would be nice if the tech blogs resisted the temptation to publish every filing of a lawsuit.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Nope.



    First both patents are multiple continuations, then both are extremely broad and yes obvious, finally it's a non practicing entity.



    This is textbook troll.



    I have read the patents Apple is suing HTC about and they are just a vague as these. Remember, this kind of nonsense works both ways. Apple (and any other company) cannot expect to play the patent game and then not find itself a target of lawsuits as well.
  • Reply 10 of 28
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,481member
    Both patents discuss things in broad terms with zero specificity. For example '228 claims to have invented the concept of a button on a screen that displays a file on the device. Both patents were filed after the publlc debut of the iPhone. '228 was filed in March 2007 and '595 was filed in January 2008. This case will be tossed.
  • Reply 11 of 28
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    I have read the patents Apple is suing HTC about and they are just a vague as these. Remember, this kind of nonsense works both ways. Apple (and any other company) cannot expect to play the patent game and then not find itself a target of lawsuits as well.



    You are preaching to the choir - I'm one of the guys saying this a fundamental problem with software patents. About all I can say for Apple's patents asserted against HTC, is that at least they're not continuations.
  • Reply 12 of 28
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    A patent holder that last sued Apple in 2009 has targeted the

    U.S. Patent No. 7,634,228: "Content delivery system and method"

    U.S. Patent No. 7,778,595: "Method for managing media"



    Well 595 was originally filed in March 2007, thats after the iPhone was shown to the public, so, the are fucked on that one.

    The other is a year before the iPod and is pretty much about how the device communicates with a car kit and stereo etc. However, I am sure that there were PDA's etc before 2000 which used a 'soft' button to represent a media file and by selecting this 'soft' button caused it to playback. So if thats the angle they are going on there is plenty of prior art around.
  • Reply 13 of 28
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    Both patents were filed after the publc debut of the iPhone. '228 was filed in March 2007 and '595 was filed in January 2008. Both patents discuss things in broad term, with zero specificity. For example '228 claims to have invented the concept of a button on a screen that displays a file on the device. This case will be tossed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post


    Well 595 was filed in 2007 thats a year after the iPhone came out so they are fucked on that one.



    They're both continuations and claim the priority of the original patents which in both cases is 2000.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JamesJpn View Post


    NPR and PRI's This American Life devoted an entire hour to the patent mess. It really is worth a listen.



    http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/M...t?id=201671138



    or



    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/



    That is really a splendid program. The moment when they trace Lodsys back the Nathan Myrhold's (sp?) company, and to the same apparently empty office in Marshall, Texas -- that's the capper. Also, the program drew my attention to the fact that the patent office resisted giving software patents for years until forced into it by two Supreme Court decisions in the '90s, that's the kind of insight that only good, investigative journalism can give you. Hats off to This American Life.



    Who's throttling American prosperity? Not malpractice suits. Not consumer protections. It's this kind of bullcrap that has no productive use whatsoever. Funny how you don't get the big Republican machine talking about this, huh?



    I say, copyright software, except maybe for codecs or other very complicated, difficult programming that vastly expands what we can do. Then, say the maximum term is five years, or ten if you reapply for the patent.
  • Reply 15 of 28
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    I have read the patents Apple is suing HTC about and they are just a vague as these. Remember, this kind of nonsense works both ways. Apple (and any other company) cannot expect to play the patent game and then not find itself a target of lawsuits as well.



    Nice try but having read both sets in detail (not skimming), I would have to categorically disagree with you. Are you sure you read these patents thoroughly and/or understand the concepts expressed? I cannot fathom how you could make that claim if you did.
  • Reply 16 of 28
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    Quote:

    These Eastern District of Texas lawsuits makes me wish Texas would secede from the nation.



    The secessionists have conveniently forgotten how horrible a period in the state's history it was before they became a state and how utterly broke they were and how hard Texas fought for statehood.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    dualiedualie Posts: 331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post


    The secessionists have conveniently forgotten how horrible a period in the state's history it was before they became a state and how utterly broke they were and how hard Texas fought for statehood.





    And now it's become the tail that wags the dog.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    They're both continuations and claim the priority of the original patents which in both cases is 2000.









    edit: Found it: This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/947,755 (filed Sep. 23, 2004 and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,324,833, to issue Jan. 29, 2008) entitled "System and Method for Connecting a Portable Audio Player to an Automobile Sound System," which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/537,812 (filed Mar. 28, 2000 and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,187,947, issued Mar. 6, 2007) entitled "System and Method for Communicating Selected Information to an Electronic Device," the disclosures of which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety for all purposes.





    Surely a continuation of an existing patent to add in something you saw in January 2007 has to be complete bullshit though? That would be like me having a patent for radio in 2000 but then extending it in 2011 to cover a device made from metal and glass with a touch interface to play back music.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post


    Surely a continuation of an existing patent to add in something you saw in January 2007 has to be complete bullshit though? That would be like me having a patent for radio in 2000 but then extending it in 2011 to cover a device made from metal and glass with a touch interface to play back music.



    You might hope it, I might hope it, but US patent law seems to mostly allow it. USPTO even tried to limit continuation patents and got slapped down by the courts for it.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    It wouldn't really help, the problem is the patents, these are doozies. Now a bunch of people will get annoyed about patent trolls and suggest impossible changes to the legal system aimed specifically at trolls while leaving Apple's IP untouched, a few of us will try to argue that the problem is endemic to the IP system and a few crazies will insist that IP is a divine right that must be protected and infringement is akin to home invasion.



    As for me, having read as far as the first claim on both patents I'm going to make a stiff drink.



    Nail on head. End of thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.