German court finds Apple in infringement of OpenTV streaming patents
A German court has found Apple in infringement of digital content streaming patents owned by OpenTV, ruling products that currently using the technology must not be sold in the country.
The Dusseldorf District Court court handed down a ruling in favor of plaintiff Kudelski Group's OpenTV on Wednesday, finding Apple to have infringed on patents related to delivering and storing digital content to electronic devices, reports Reuters. Specifically, the suit targets iTunes, the App Store, Apple TV and devices running iOS or OS X.
OpenTV filed a similar complaint against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California last year, seeking compensation and supplemental damages for alleged illegal use of content streaming technology covered by five patents. The IP dates back to the late 1990s to early 2000s and applies to digital video, broadcast and satellite transmissions.
A pioneer in the digital television industry, OpenTV develops and licenses middleware for clients looking for interactive set-top applications. The company currently fields a range of software solutions like video-on-demand, personal video recording and enhanced television platforms used by DISH Network, QVC, CNN and other major corporations.
Parent company Kudelski Group also licenses its technology to a number of tech industry players including Cisco, Google and Disney. Aside from Apple, OpenTV has multiple cases pending against other tech firms.
The Dusseldorf District Court court handed down a ruling in favor of plaintiff Kudelski Group's OpenTV on Wednesday, finding Apple to have infringed on patents related to delivering and storing digital content to electronic devices, reports Reuters. Specifically, the suit targets iTunes, the App Store, Apple TV and devices running iOS or OS X.
OpenTV filed a similar complaint against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California last year, seeking compensation and supplemental damages for alleged illegal use of content streaming technology covered by five patents. The IP dates back to the late 1990s to early 2000s and applies to digital video, broadcast and satellite transmissions.
A pioneer in the digital television industry, OpenTV develops and licenses middleware for clients looking for interactive set-top applications. The company currently fields a range of software solutions like video-on-demand, personal video recording and enhanced television platforms used by DISH Network, QVC, CNN and other major corporations.
Parent company Kudelski Group also licenses its technology to a number of tech industry players including Cisco, Google and Disney. Aside from Apple, OpenTV has multiple cases pending against other tech firms.
Comments
In a decision Thursday, Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California granted Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss OpenTV's infringement claims with regard to 10 claims of two patents that he said failed the patent-eligibility test established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice ruling."
Not sure how the CA trial ended up (dismissed?) but it appears the German court either isn't technically qualified enough, hasn't done their homework, or could care less what the CA court figured out. Or they continue to hate Apple. The company started in 1994 so it doesn't surprise me the CA court found the ideas too abstract.
Likely will be appealed.
---
You'll have to ask Apple. Could be they feel they aren't in violation of these patents. If that's the case, they'll appeal. The point I was making is that it won't be too much of a burden if they do have to take a license. The company does license their patents, so they will license it to Apple if Apple ultimately loses the court battles. IOW, this is not big news.
---
I wasn't making a FRAND argument, but rather an argument about discriminatory, or prejudicial pricing. Anything you license or sell you must offer to all without discrimination. So while Apple's volume of video streaming, for example, may differ from another licensee and thus allow a different license fee based upon that dimension, the fee would need to be justified by Apple's volume relative to the volumes of streaming of others to which a license has been granted. Streaming volume being only an example. Point is, by whatever factors pricing is determined, those must be applied fairly to all. That's just part of anti-trust law. So Apple will get a price it can afford if it needs to license the patents by virtue of the fact others, with far less financial wherewithal, have been able to license those patents and still remain viable businesses.
(Not saying the patent is any good, that is a different question entirely.)
Don;'t worry , the above paragraph is not my point of view or based on any fact. It just want to show that your point of view is pathetically biased
Don;'t worry , the above paragraph is not my point of view or based on any fact. It just want to show that your point of view is pathetically biased
In this case it should have nothing, or very little, to do with the cost of the product [hardware], as the patents are about content delivery and not specific to enabling the hardware to function. Which is another reason the license fee should be in-line with what others pay, perhaps priced relative to aggregate volume of content streamed/delivered by each licensee. And Hermany is a relatively small part of the global market within which Apple would wish to take a license, so factors beyond Germany's specific laws regarding this matter would be taken into account in any global patent license Apple might take.