Of course. I was entirely in favor of Koh asking Samsung's attorneys if they could tell the difference between an iPad and a Tab.
No one has denied Google or Samsung or anyone else due process. Why should Apple be denied due process, as well?
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.
That was my thought. One has to assume Apple were having meetings with Audience and listening to their proposals during the same period and chose who they thought were best. It most likely means the two companies had very similar technologies rather than Apple went out of their way to steal anything. Some of the knee jerk reactions in this thread assuming Apple is guilty are somewhat premature based on the story of the loser only so far.
Yeah. Giving Audience the benefit of the doubt, they could have developed this independently and Apple simply chose the better technology.
I'm as big an Apple fan as anyone, and I expect my reaction is fairly typical:
1. I have confidence/faith in Apple as a company and therefore I doubt that this story is true as characterized by the complainant. I'm sure there were meeting, etc., but I doubt that Apple used illegal and inappropriate means to steal the ideas.
2. Having said that, it's possible that it's true, in which case I will be disappointed in Apple.
3. Especially if they don't handle it appropriately. For example, there are bad apples (no pun intended) in any organization, and it's possible that some individuals did some illegal/immoral things based on the meetings and samples. If that's the case (and it wasn't some top-down decision--assuming anything happened at all) then I would hope that Apple, on learning this would fire some people and make some apologies and restitution.
But, I don't believe Apple's success is based on lying and thievery (some people do), so my guess is that this is just all sour grapes because Apple decided to go with another vendor's solution.
It's also possible that everything was aboveboard and Apple is still "guilty" of patent infringement because Noise Free got to the patent office first even though Audience and/or Apple independently invented something very similar. That would be very different that Apple stealing the technology as alleged.
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.
A lot of 'claims' but no proof. They haven't even proven that Apple used anything close to their tech much less took it from them.
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.
It's also possible that everything was aboveboard and Apple is still "guilty" of patent infringement because Noise Free got to the patent office first even though Audience and/or Apple independently invented something very similar. That would be very different that Apple stealing the technology as alleged.
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).
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.
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 [I]sensational[/I] 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.
Noise canceling headphones have been around for decades now. I'm surprised that somebody doesn't already have a patent on the technology. Those decades old products seem to work on a similar principle as the patent diagram in the OP, with an extra mic picking up ambient noise.
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.
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.
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:
Quote:
81. Apple's communication devices such as the Apple Accused Products utilize a noise cancelation system and method that is too similar to Noise Free's to be explained by sheer coincidence alone.
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:
Quote:
46. Shortly after this meeting, Apple requested the parties enter into a new Non-Disclosure Agreement. On or around July 19, 2010, Apple and Noise Free signed two Non-Disclosure Agreements; one agreement was for confidential information that Apple disclosed to Noise Free and the other was for confidential information that Noise Free disclosed to Apple ("2010 NDA's"). Noise Free did not draft these agreements.
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.
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.
'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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Did you read the complaint? If not, you should.
Unless this company is defrauding the court, Apple's got some 'splaining to do.
Oh, a false dichotomy. We all love a false dichotomy even more than a bad analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course. I was entirely in favor of Koh asking Samsung's attorneys if they could tell the difference between an iPad and a Tab.
No one has denied Google or Samsung or anyone else due process. Why should Apple be denied due process, as well?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
That was my thought. One has to assume Apple were having meetings with Audience and listening to their proposals during the same period and chose who they thought were best. It most likely means the two companies had very similar technologies rather than Apple went out of their way to steal anything. Some of the knee jerk reactions in this thread assuming Apple is guilty are somewhat premature based on the story of the loser only so far.
Yeah. Giving Audience the benefit of the doubt, they could have developed this independently and Apple simply chose the better technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Why buy when you can steal, then kill it in courts with deep pockets.
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.
Quote:
On further information and belief, Apple provided Audience with Noise Free's confidential trade secret information
Hope they have evidence to go with belief, or else it's going to be a short pre-trial hearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
A lot of 'claims' but no proof. They haven't even proven that Apple used anything close to their tech much less took it from them.
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 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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Why buy when you can steal, then kill it in courts with deep pockets.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Noise canceling headphones have been around for decades now. I'm surprised that somebody doesn't already have a patent on the technology. Those decades old products seem to work on a similar principle as the patent diagram in the OP, with an extra mic picking up ambient noise.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC
Samsung and Google exact words.
Other than diverting the story, why mention Google or Samsung?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Other than diverting the story, why mention Google or Samsung?
Because they're the biggest thieves around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
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:
Quote:
81. Apple's communication devices such as the Apple Accused Products utilize a noise cancelation system and method that is too similar to Noise Free's to be explained by sheer coincidence alone.
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:
Quote:
46. Shortly after this meeting, Apple requested the parties enter into a new Non-Disclosure Agreement. On or around July 19, 2010, Apple and Noise Free signed two Non-Disclosure Agreements; one agreement was for confidential information that Apple disclosed to Noise Free and the other was for confidential information that Noise Free disclosed to Apple ("2010 NDA's"). Noise Free did not draft these agreements.
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.
'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.