Apple Sued Again for Patent Infringement

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What’s this? Another patent infringement lawsuit against Apple? Yes, but before you jump to conclusions, it seems like Apple may not be in the wrong this time. Check out the track record of the company that filed the lawsuit:

St. Clair is not new to the patent infringement lawsuit game. In 2001, it sued Sony for infringing the same patents and won a $25 million judgment against the company. In 2003, it sued Canon and was awarded $34 million in damages. Since then, St. Clair has filed suit against every major camera maker in the world including Fuji, Kyocera, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus and Casio. It also filed lawsuits against Samsung, Panasonic, Nokia, HP, Kodak, LG, Motorola, RIM and Palm, among many others.
Click to expand...
 
I wish that the article would have given the full patent numbers, i would like to review them.
 
Looks like the track record has won them a lot of money. The problems with IP infringement, now of days, is that patents are starting to have more and more gray area when it comes to how the ip's actually work.
 
St. Clair is a sue happy, but not a squatter imo. They did hold the patents in those other cases, and did attempt fair negotiation with the camera companies within a few months of the launches of the infringing products.
 
What products did st. clair made? I google for it and found it is a camera shop in canada?
 
It is not about what products they make, but what patents they hold. And how does the fact that St. Clair has sued all these other companies exonerate Apple from being sued? The track record shows they have won all these cases and have entered into licensing agreements with companies. That would seem to paint a very bad picture for Apple and in no way indicate that Apple is in the clear.
 
I still think that IP's are needing to be more specific. Lets say I get a patent that says an electronic device that stores and plays music... I now own patents for every mp3 and computer made as it says more about what it does but not how it is made. This is how a lot of companies like this are winning these cases. The way these patents look is that if anything that closely resembles what they describe constitutes as IP infringement.
 
Just because St. Clair is sue-happy doesn't mean that they're in the wrong. In fact, going by the quotation in the OP, it would suggest that St. Clair are in the right and Apple is in the wrong.
 
TheBuzzer said:
What products did st. clair made? I google for it and found it is a camera shop in canada?
Click to expand...

http://planetip.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/pay-youre-on-st-clair-camera/

Between 1995-2001, St. Clair purchased U.S. patents: No. 5,138,459; No. 6,094,219; No. 6,233,010; and No. 6,323,899 (collectively, “patents-in-suit”) relating to electronic still video camera from a group of inventors (Marc K. Roberts, Matthew A. Chikosky, and Jerry A. Speasl) for $65,000.00. And then they sued major electronics and smart-phones corporations (Sony, Canon, Casio, Seiko, Epson, Fuji Photo, Fuji Film, Kyocera, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Samsung, Panasonic, JVC, Nokia, Eastman Kodak, Siemens, BenQ, Audiovox, UTStarcom, Sprint Nextel, Cingular, Verizon, Vodofone, Cellco, LG, Motorola, Palm, Sanyo, Concord, Vivitar, Petters, Polariod, Aiptek, HTC, Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile, Research in Motion (RIM), and General Imaging), alleging infringement of its patents.
 
BravO))) said:
I still think that IP's are needing to be more specific. Lets say I get a patent that says an electronic device that stores and plays music... I now own patents for every mp3 and computer made as it says more about what it does but not how it is made. This is how a lot of companies like this are winning these cases. The way these patents look is that if anything that closely resembles what they describe constitutes as IP infringement.
Click to expand...

My thoughts precisely. You read some of these patent filings and they read like a Jeopardy question with more than one translation half the time. I think on all the other suits though, it is the usual,"pay them to make them go away" mentality.
 
thesmokingman said:
Between 1995-2001, St. Clair purchased U.S. patents: No. 5,138,459; No. 6,094,219; No. 6,233,010; and No. 6,323,899 (collectively, “patents-in-suit”) relating to electronic still video camera from a group of inventors...And then they sued major electronics and smart-phones corporations...alleging infringement of its patents.
Click to expand...
Deplorable.
 
They need to change the patent process from idea to whoever makes a tangible product 1st.
 
Lebowski said:
They need to change the patent process from idea to whoever makes a tangible product 1st.
Click to expand...

Lol no way. They just shouldn't allow one to buy patents then use them to sue others with much like domain squatting.
 
why? if you hold the patents and someone is infringing why cant you sue... does it matter if you invented or you bought the rights from someone else? At the end of the day you still own it... even if you didnt invent it it is yours.

you just shouldnt be allowed to patent ideas.

You should be able to patent a process to build something so long it is a tangible process that can be demonstrated right now when they apply for the patent.
 
Whether or not they bought the patents doesn't matter. The fact still remains that those companies did not vet their product first through the correct patent search processes. Many companies have bought patents and then sued competitors for infringing on those patents, that is not at all uncommon. If those companies had compensated the previous owners of the patent or gained permission to use the service than the lawsuits would be thrown out.

Also note that it clearly says St. Clair has sued the companies only after they refused other negotiations, such as licensing rights. I hardly see any deplorable actions by St. Clair. Opportunistic, sure, but hardly at all deplorable.
 
The problem is that the vast, vast majority of software patents should never be given out in the first place.
 
BettiePage said:
why? if you hold the patents and someone is infringing why cant you sue... does it matter if you invented or you bought the rights from someone else? At the end of the day you still own it... even if you didnt invent it it is yours.

you just shouldnt be allowed to patent ideas.

You should be able to patent a process to build something so long it is a tangible process that can be demonstrated right now when they apply for the patent.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Trying to patent an idea is ludicrous.

A lawyer from Australia patented the wheel (it was a demonstration against some of the flaws in the Australian patent system). When you're patent system allows to you to patent an idea and not a process, then whoever claims of coming up with the idea first gets all the benefits of it and the people who actually put the effort into designing a process to do it get the shaft.
 
GORANKAR said:
St. Clair is a sue happy, but not a squatter imo. They did hold the patents in those other cases, and did attempt fair negotiation with the camera companies within a few months of the launches of the infringing products.
Click to expand...

If your company doesn't make shit, and you buy patents from someone else and then immediately start suing, you're a scumbag patent troll.

It's "buy low, sell high" except with lawsuits. They buy some patent that someone isn't interested in enforcing for a price of pennies, then start suing people.
 
Patent reform needs to take hold so we can get rid of these frivolous lawsuits. I'm thinking of invalidating any patents that haven't been manufactured by the company holding the patent in three years. If you're not building something with that patent, it must not be important to you.
 
az_max said:
Patent reform needs to take hold so we can get rid of these frivolous lawsuits. I'm thinking of invalidating any patents that haven't been manufactured by the company holding the patent in three years. If you're not building something with that patent, it must not be important to you.
Click to expand...

I agree patent trolling should be outlawed. No more patent some vague concept, sit back in the shadows until some other company releases a product that falls into that overly broad category, wait to other to use it as well, wait for it to become so mainstream that its impossible to recall, then jump out with the patent and sue all the world.

His patents are so vague that all those companies he sued never saw such simple actions as patentable. Perhaps I should patent pushing a pedal to accelerate or slow down a car

The big picture problem of these ridiculously vague and broad patents being granted is that the people at the patent offices cannot keep up with the ever-changing technology and often don't know or are unable to comprehend what they are reading and looking at.
 
"What’s this? Another patent infringement lawsuit against Apple? Yes, but before you jump to conclusions, it seems like Apple may not be in the wrong this time. Check out the track record of the company that filed the lawsuit: "

Should be "it seems like Apple mabe be* in the wrong this time." If after this is talks about the plaintiff company winning lawsuits in past history, then why would happy NOT be in the wrong? o_O Come on Steve...
 
NKDietrich said:
If your company doesn't make shit, and you buy patents from someone else and then immediately start suing, you're a scumbag patent troll.

It's "buy low, sell high" except with lawsuits. They buy some patent that someone isn't interested in enforcing for a price of pennies, then start suing people.
Click to expand...


We disagree only by a few degrees. I say they really suck, you say they really, really suck.
I agree they are scumbag patent trolls. They just are not squatters.
A patent squatter sits on a patent, knowing it is being infringed upon, sometimes for years, seldom or never attempts a fair license negotiation, and then attempts to sue.

In the past cases they usually did attempt license negotiations with in a reasonable time frame of acquiring the patents. They sued after being told to fuck off in legalese. I don't like how the patent award system works, but the remedies the system uses are acceptable.
I am a firm believer that an idea, with no possible way for a prototype or even a mock up to be made, does not deserve a patent. Just because I think xxxx will be possible 5 years from now does not give me the right to patent that idea and then sit back and wait til someone else actually does the R&D and then collect $$$$ imho.
 
GORANKAR said:
I am a firm believer that an idea, with no possible way for a prototype or even a mock up to be made, does not deserve a patent. Just because I think xxxx will be possible 5 years from now does not give me the right to patent that idea and then sit back and wait til someone else actually does the R&D and then collect $$$$ imho.
Click to expand...

Yeah no kidding. If, given the proper funding, you can't turn your idea into an actual product, then you shouldn't be able to patent it. Period.
 
phide said:
No, it's deplorable. There is really no disagreeing with this.
Click to expand...

Actually, quite a lot of people would disagree with you on this one. Patents get bought by companies in the process of making products, and then they sue other companies that are mking those products using the patented idea. It is deplorable to use another's idea without royalties, and those royalties go to whoever owns the patent.

Nothing deplorable about suing someone for patent infringement. Even if you argue that the only reason they bought the patent was to sue companies, the fact still remains that those companies were already illegally infringing on the patent. So please explain how slapping someone on the wrist for something illegal is deplorable?
 
I was reading about this at modmyi.com the other day. According to them, St Clair is also suing Apple for the following patent infringements:

459: Take image contained within lens and store in some type of memory.
219: Display the picture that will be taken in some type of display window.
010: Push button in order to capture image.
899: Make images contained within some type of memory and make them viewable in some sort of digital camera roll.
Click to expand...

Now if that isn't patent trolling, I don't know what is.
 
NoOther said:
It is deplorable to use another's idea without royalties, and those royalties go to whoever owns the patent.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, then making practically any type of technology product without paying someone royalties that include nearly any feature would be deplorable. Our patent system is so tremendously broken and nonsensical that it allows for individuals or companies to patent ridiculously broad ideas, like those Azhar listed, such as pushing a button to take a photo. Your claim is that Apple should pay royalties to utilize such a concept in their own products? Really?

No company could ever possibly afford to sell products if they're paying companies to utilize ideas like that in their own products. You're in effect suggesting that every technology company be held hostage by patent trolls and be completely unable to release products that 'infringe' upon intentionally broad and vague patents, as no technology company could possibly afford to pay royalties to trolls for a device that "displays a picture that will be taken in some type of display window" and other such nonsense. The industry would become so commercially nonviable that nobody would dare to bother entering it in the first place.

NoOther said:
So please explain how slapping someone on the wrist for something illegal is deplorable?
Click to expand...
Damages of up to $34M -- and beyond -- for a single infringement on a patent that should never have been granted in the first place is a "slap on the wrist" in your mind?
 
NKDietrich said:
If your company doesn't make shit, and you buy patents from someone else and then immediately start suing, you're a scumbag patent troll.

It's "buy low, sell high" except with lawsuits. They buy some patent that someone isn't interested in enforcing for a price of pennies, then start suing people.
Click to expand...

so can i move in your house and live with you for free then? then bring 20 of my buddies to join us. Since you didn't make "shit" and you bought the house from someone else... it's free for everyone to use right?

If those big companies don't want to buy the rights to use it, they'll have to pay. It's simple really.
 
csnv said:
so can i move in your house and live with you for free then? then bring 20 of my buddies to join us. Since you didn't make "shit" and you bought the house from someone else... it's free for everyone to use right?

If those big companies don't want to buy the rights to use it, they'll have to pay. It's simple really.
Click to expand...

You compared buying a house with buying patents?

Patents prevents innovations and inventions if people sit on them. People living in houses doesn't prevent someone else from building another house like it or finding another house like it.

St Clair was sitting on the patent, waiting for someone to infringe on it so they could make easy bucks. It's bullshit, plain and simple. Just because it's legal doesn't make it less bullshit.
 
csnv said:
so can i move in your house and live with you for free then? then bring 20 of my buddies to join us. Since you didn't make "shit" and you bought the house from someone else... it's free for everyone to use right?

If those big companies don't want to buy the rights to use it, they'll have to pay. It's simple really.
Click to expand...

You expect people to pay for the following rights?

459: Take image contained within lens and store in some type of memory.
219: Display the picture that will be taken in some type of display window.
010: Push button in order to capture image.

This is BASIC camera functions around since the beginning of cameras just subsititue Film for memory

You should not be able to patent "Click a button to take a picture" that is NOT an innovation
 
I'm with most of you. So if we get a bunch of people and we all steal the same thing its ok? right. Just cause a multitude of companies decided they would infringe doesn't mean they can't be sued. Some of them just get luckier in how much time they have left before it's their turn.
 
if you have the problem with the way the patents work, you need to talk to the congress. Not the companies who owns them. If you don't play by the rules, you will get burnt. Simple as that.

How can I not compare buying houses to buying patents? They're both properties and are owned by an entity. They didn't make it but they BOUGHT it that means they paid for the hardwork of whoever invented them. Again, if you also have problem with how the patents work, .. voice your opinions with your senator/congressman.. The company has done NOTHING wrong in purchasing it and enforcing their properties.
 
I had this sweet invention I patented a few years ago. It's for a device that attaches to a wall by any method or sits on the floor and provides a normal force to any objects placed on it, without collapsing. I have a feeling it's been ripped off a few times, so I'm going to pursue it sometime within the next few years.
 
csnv said:
so can i move in your house and live with you for free then? then bring 20 of my buddies to join us. Since you didn't make "shit" and you bought the house from someone else... it's free for everyone to use right?

If those big companies don't want to buy the rights to use it, they'll have to pay. It's simple really.
Click to expand...

Worst analogy I've seen in years.
 
Samson4EiT said:
So if we get a bunch of people and we all steal the same thing its ok? right. Just cause a multitude of companies decided they would infringe doesn't mean they can't be sued.
Click to expand...
That isn't really the point we're making. The point we're making is that these patents never should have granted in the first place, as they're far, far too broad in their definition. It's a flaw with the patent system and its abusers, not with the companies that utilize these concepts without knowledge of the patents. They're simply trying to make technology products for a market that wants them without intentionally infringing upon hundreds (or even thousands) of broadly-defined patents in a single product.

Powerage said:
I had this sweet invention I patented a few years ago. It's for a device that attaches to a wall by any method or sits on the floor and provides a normal force to any objects placed on it, without collapsing.
Click to expand...
I had an idea for a pair of muscular sacks which serve in the inhalation and exhalation of air to supply living tissue with oxygen and nitrogen. Patent pending.

Serpico said:
You are arguing with an intellectual midget on the level of TechieSooner. I suggest ignoring him and hoping he also gets the eventual banhammer.
Click to expand...
Have you noticed lately that Techie actually has a list of people he's added to his ignore list right in his sig? Strangely, I'm not on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top