PDA

View Full Version : Apple Sued (Again) Over Playlists After Paying $8m Judgement




MacRumors
Jul 20, 2011, 05:38 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/20/apple-sued-again-over-playlists-after-paying-8m-judgement/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/ipod_family_packaging.jpg

A few weeks ago, Apple lost a small jury trial (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/apple-loses-out-in-east-texas-jury.html) related to a single patent related to downloadable playlists. The lawsuit was originally filed in June 2009 and accused Apple of infringement related to the "iPod classic, iPod mini, iPod shuffle, iPod nano and iPod Touch". The verdict awarded $8 million to patent holder Personal Audio LLC -- a very small chunk of Apple's $76 billion in cash.

Now though, Personal Audio LLC is suing Apple again, over the same patent. But this time, it's accusing Apple of infringing with different products: "the iPod Nano Generation 6, iPod Shuffle Generation 4, iPod Touch Generation 4, iPhone 4, and iPad 2" -- all products Apple has released since the first lawsuit was originally filed.

Florian Mueller at FOSS Patents explains (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/playlist-troll-who-was-awarded-8.html):
Obviously the purpose of the second lawsuit is to expand upon the success of the first trial and squeeze even more money out of Apple...

This new lawsuit is more than just a nuisance for Apple to deal with. Damages in connection with the iPhone and iPad could could be substantially greater than in the previous trial that focused just on various iPod products. Also, Personal Audio LLC may now have an even better case for claiming willful infringement -- and one of Personal Audio LLC's prayers for relief is a request for an injunction.Just one more lawsuit for Apple Legal to deal with.

Article Link: Apple Sued (Again) Over Playlists After Paying $8m Judgement (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/20/apple-sued-again-over-playlists-after-paying-8m-judgement/)



res1233
Jul 20, 2011, 05:49 PM
No matter what happens, the lawyer always wins. :D Unless he loses too many cases...

WiiDSmoker
Jul 20, 2011, 05:49 PM
Well it is justified. The initial case was over different products. If Apple deals out the heat on software patents they have to be able to take it too...though it's only $8 million.

striker33
Jul 20, 2011, 05:52 PM
If Apple failed to rectify the issue after the initial trial, then they only have themselves to blame. As much as I love their products, they do seem to have an attitude that suggests no one is above them.

Going to be a huge payout.

justinfreid
Jul 20, 2011, 05:58 PM
Happy to see that the posts immediately above mine don't suggest knee-jerk support for Apple.
Maybe they were in the wrong here, it's hard enough for a jury to determine let alone someone like me reading cursory coverage of the matter, but I get frustrated by MacRumors posters who sometimes express blind support for Apple in legal matters.

winston1236
Jul 20, 2011, 06:11 PM
76 billion in cash...wow

*LTD*
Jul 20, 2011, 06:14 PM
Just pay out these small fry and move on, and keep churning out great products.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 20, 2011, 06:17 PM
Well it is justified. The initial case was over different products. If Apple deals out the heat on software patents they have to be able to take it too...though it's only $8 million.

only this time it might be a lot more since they lost the first time and refused to clean up for newer products.

I would say it was a dumb move on Apples part to not pay up on some fee to begin with but instead try to dance around it and not play it.

jwsmiths
Jul 20, 2011, 06:20 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

How did their prior settlement not cover all future and
Current products? Sounds like Apple's attorney dropped the ball here.

rosalindavenue
Jul 20, 2011, 06:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple has demonstrated that they are more than willing to sue over sketchy patents. So they ought to be willing to be sued themselves.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 20, 2011, 06:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

How did their prior settlement not cover all future and
Current products? Sounds like Apple's attorney dropped the ball here.

because it was not settled. It was ended by the jury which means Apple did not get anything extra.
Apple mistake here was not getting some agreement in place to protect themselves from being farther hit. This time it could easily be willful infringement which can add a huge chunk of change (3x) to the end result. I only not be shock at all if Apple ended up having to pay out a 100mil plus at the end.

Don Kosak
Jul 20, 2011, 07:14 PM
because it was not settled. It was ended by the jury which means Apple did not get anything extra.
Apple mistake here was not getting some agreement in place to protect themselves from being farther hit. This time it could easily be willful infringement which can add a huge chunk of change (3x) to the end result. I only not be shock at all if Apple ended up having to pay out a 100mil plus at the end.

I can only assume Apple felt confident that they could have the patent in question overturned, or that a Jury would find the claim unjustified.

That outcome is still possible for this second case -- if Apple can produce sufficient quality prior art or build an argument that the claim does not apply. Although both are now much more difficult now.

ftaok
Jul 20, 2011, 07:59 PM
because it was not settled. It was ended by the jury which means Apple did not get anything extra.
Apple mistake here was not getting some agreement in place to protect themselves from being farther hit. This time it could easily be willful infringement which can add a huge chunk of change (3x) to the end result. I only not be shock at all if Apple ended up having to pay out a 100mil plus at the end.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do play one on the internet ...

Anyways, I don't think it's a case where Apple willfully infringed on the patent. The case was filed in 2009 and a verdict was recently handed down. If the judge did not order Apple to halt production of the iPods, then Apple has the right to continue to manufacture and market devices until the case is settled or a verdict handed down. Now, I would guess that Apple will settle this case, or perhaps buy the patent/company outright. Either that or appeal the decision.

Apple would only be willfully infringing on the patents is they were to continue with new devices, etc., after the verdict. I'm guessing that Apple's lawyers are in negotiation with the patent owners right now.

Nevermind. I just skimmed over the FOSS Patent blog. Looks like Apple could be exposed for a bit of cash. Just buy them out and move on.

DTxAg
Jul 20, 2011, 08:47 PM
That outcome is still possible for this second case -- if Apple can produce sufficient quality prior art or build an argument that the claim does not apply. Although both are now much more difficult now.

Apple is likely out of luck on the issue of the validity of the patent. Having been sued once and lost, Apple will likely not be allowed to challenge the patent's validity in the second lawsuit. Apple cannot re-try that issue again.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 20, 2011, 09:54 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I do play one on the internet ...

Anyways, I don't think it's a case where Apple willfully infringed on the patent. The case was filed in 2009 and a verdict was recently handed down. If the judge did not order Apple to halt production of the iPods, then Apple has the right to continue to manufacture and market devices until the case is settled or a verdict handed down. Now, I would guess that Apple will settle this case, or perhaps buy the patent/company outright. Either that or appeal the decision.

Apple would only be willfully infringing on the patents is they were to continue with new devices, etc., after the verdict. I'm guessing that Apple's lawyers are in negotiation with the patent owners right now.

Nevermind. I just skimmed over the FOSS Patent blog. Looks like Apple could be exposed for a bit of cash. Just buy them out and move on.

I was about to say. As for the 3x part I pulled that from wiki. Reason that I figured it could break 100mil is a lot more of those devices being targeted now have been sold than the ones in the first case so you are going to have higher cost because more devices then 3x those devices.

mazz0
Jul 21, 2011, 02:40 AM
That patent sounds bloody ridiculous to me (there's a link to it on the FOSS Patents article).

haydn!
Jul 21, 2011, 06:33 AM
Surely you would have expected any decent legal team to address to the issue of subsequent/future product releases as part of the original settlement?

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 06:59 AM
What does Personal Audio LLC make? Never heard of em.

JarScott
Jul 21, 2011, 07:47 AM
I dare say, even if they do get more money out of Apple, Apple will just have made the amount again with the inveitable soon release of iPhone 4S/5. But, these people think they can take Apple on, let them, it will just backfire. Although, this article doesn't explain exactly what Apple has infringed??

CylonGlitch
Jul 21, 2011, 08:48 AM
Personal Audio LLC sounds like it is about to become another member of the Apple family. Honestly, if they lost the first one, they are likely to lose the second. They'll buy them out, then use that to see if they can make that patent stick against the Android phones. But I guess we'll never know; it will all just become quiet.

samcraig
Jul 21, 2011, 09:44 AM
What does Personal Audio LLC make? Never heard of em.

What does that have to do with anything? Do you know about every company that holds a patent?

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 09:48 AM
What does that have to do with anything? Do you know about every company that holds a patent?

It's the difference between a potential innovator and a patent troll. A patent troll has rights like every other patent holder, except they abuse them.

See Mirror Worlds vs. Apple.

In fact, Personal Audio LLC is a non-practicing entity.

They are PATENT TROLLS.

Shady outfits like this need to be bankrupted.

oheckyeah
Jul 21, 2011, 09:52 AM
What does that have to do with anything? Do you know about every company that holds a patent?

+1. Quit downplaying the fact that your beloved Apple have infringed on someone else's patent. You act as though it's so criminal when HTC does it to Apple, but when the tables are turned, you reply with arrogant retorts that establish you as a fanboy.

The fact remains that if HTC are "crooks" and "criminals" for stealing Apple's IP and infringing on patents, then so are Apple for doing the same.

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 09:54 AM
+1. Quit downplaying the fact that your beloved Apple have infringed on someone else's patent.

On a patent troll's patent.

samcraig
Jul 21, 2011, 09:58 AM
On a patent troll's patent.

Since you know nothing about the company (you admitted yourself) - nor the time, resources and expense of their R&D from the past - you can't possibly determine if they are a patent "troll" or not.

But sling that word around as much as you do - and the thing that is certain is that you'll a) look ignorant and b) turn the words "patent troll" into something meaningless.

Good luck.

oheckyeah
Jul 21, 2011, 09:59 AM
On a patent troll's patent.

Who cares? It's the law. Is Apple above the law?

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 10:00 AM
Since you know nothing about the company (you admitted yourself) - nor the time, resources and expense of their R&D from the past - you can't possibly determine if they are a patent "troll" or not.


http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/playlist-troll-who-was-awarded-8.html

The week before last I blogged about a $8 million jury verdict in favor of a non-practicing entity named Personal Audio LLC against Apple for the infringement of some downloadable playlist patents.

Obviously the purpose of the second lawsuit is to expand upon the success of the first trial and squeeze even more money out of Apple.

PATENT TROLLS

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/apple-loses-out-in-east-texas-jury.html

I recently wrote that the trolls' business model works very well and provided some examples. Here's the latest one: according to Bloomberg, which cites a lawyer who represents a non-practicing entity in East Texas (same district in which Lodsys filed all of its lawsuits), a jury yesterday handed down a verdict that finds Apple liable for infringement of two valid patents and awards the patent holder, Personal Audio LLC, damages of $8 million.

Originally the plaintiff wanted more than ten times as much. With the $8m verdict, Apple only has a limited incentive to appeal the decision. They might indicate an intent to appeal in order to get a "discount" from the patent holder in exchange for a definitive settlement. That's what Google did in the Bedrock case (after a $5 million verdict).

Personal Audio LLC's lawsuit against Apple and three others -- Sirius XM Radio, Coby Electronics and Archos, all of whom settled in May and July 2010 -- is a typical NPE (non-practicing entity) case. Any Google search results for "Personal Audio LLC" relate to patent infringement lawsuits.


PATENT TROLLS. Nothing but a cancer on the patent system.

oheckyeah
Jul 21, 2011, 10:03 AM
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/playlist-troll-who-was-awarded-8.html

The week before last I blogged about a $8 million jury verdict in favor of a non-practicing entity named Personal Audio LLC against Apple for the infringement of some downloadable playlist patents.

Obviously the purpose of the second lawsuit is to expand upon the success of the first trial and squeeze even more money out of Apple.

PATENT TROLLS

This reminds me of a 4 year old child who, having lost an argument and unwilling to listen to rational thoughts, puts his/her fingers in his/her ears and calls people names.

samcraig
Jul 21, 2011, 10:05 AM
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/playlist-troll-who-was-awarded-8.html

The week before last I blogged about a $8 million jury verdict in favor of a non-practicing entity named Personal Audio LLC against Apple for the infringement of some downloadable playlist patents.

Obviously the purpose of the second lawsuit is to expand upon the success of the first trial and squeeze even more money out of Apple.

PATENT TROLLS

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/apple-loses-out-in-east-texas-jury.html

I recently wrote that the trolls' business model works very well and provided some examples. Here's the latest one: according to Bloomberg, which cites a lawyer who represents a non-practicing entity in East Texas (same district in which Lodsys filed all of its lawsuits), a jury yesterday handed down a verdict that finds Apple liable for infringement of two valid patents and awards the patent holder, Personal Audio LLC, damages of $8 million.

Originally the plaintiff wanted more than ten times as much. With the $8m verdict, Apple only has a limited incentive to appeal the decision. They might indicate an intent to appeal in order to get a "discount" from the patent holder in exchange for a definitive settlement. That's what Google did in the Bedrock case (after a $5 million verdict).

Personal Audio LLC's lawsuit against Apple and three others -- Sirius XM Radio, Coby Electronics and Archos, all of whom settled in May and July 2010 -- is a typical NPE (non-practicing entity) case. Any Google search results for "Personal Audio LLC" relate to patent infringement lawsuits.


PATENT TROLLS. Nothing but a cancer on the patent system.

So your relying on a BLOG and that sole viewpoint. Gotcha. No further explanation needed.

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 10:15 AM
So your relying on a BLOG and that sole viewpoint. Gotcha. No further explanation needed.

Yes, I am. Because the blog is correct.

http://www.nvannualreport.com/entities-DLLC-PERSONAL-AUDIO-LLC.aspx

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27130228/Personal-Audio-ED-Tex-Feb-12-2010-Transfer-Denied

Read the first two pages.

They don't operate anywhere. The owners' business failed years ago and now they're sitting on the patents. Just like Mirror Worlds.

PATENT TROLLS.

roadbloc
Jul 21, 2011, 10:16 AM
They are PATENT TROLLS.

And Apple aren't? :rolleyes:

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 10:17 AM
And Apple aren't? :rolleyes:

No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.

That's the difference. Do you even know what a "patent troll" is?

They are a major reason for most of your complaining that the patent system is "broken."

roadbloc
Jul 21, 2011, 10:24 AM
No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.

Not the majority of them.

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 10:26 AM
Not the majority of them.

The ones they are suing for are being used. That's the entire impetus of their lawsuits.

samcraig
Jul 21, 2011, 10:27 AM
No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.

That's the difference. Do you even know what a "patent troll" is?

They are a major reason for most of your complaining that the patent system is "broken."

Yes. They make stuff. And use not even 1% of their patents if I had to guess. And 99 percent will probably go unused but will be litigated against because they own them.

Most tech companies have thousands of patents as they create their products. Every minutia is patented. Having worked in the industry - I can assure you that EVERY company is sitting on a bunch of "crap" that will never be used. But they DID "invent" it.

Point is - and something I stated earlier - you have NO idea how much time, money, research, etc went into the patents under scrutiny since you weren't there.

The company that owns the patents are entitled to test the validity of their patents when they are infringed. Just because they don't exist now - or don't create products doesn't mean they are not entitled to litigate.

If you were an inventor and patented something... but could never find funding or that the patent on its own didn't seem like much "at the time"... but YEARS later it was required/needed - are you telling me that you wouldn't litigate? You would just suck it up?

Yeah. Right.

oheckyeah
Jul 21, 2011, 10:30 AM
No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.

That's the difference. Do you even know what a "patent troll" is?

They are a major reason for most of your complaining that the patent system is "broken."

Part of the reason the patent system exists is exactly for that reason: you shouldn't have to make products to own intellectual property. Many people have great ideas, and patent them, but are unable to market those ideas. Should they be screwed because they aren't a multi-billion dollar corporation and can't produce?

Personal Audio LLC thought of an idea before Apple, patented it, and now you're screaming bloody murder that they are "patent trolls," an educated and formal term, to say the least. The patent system has prevailed in favor of he who innovated, which in this case, was not Apple, much to your obvious dismay.

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 10:30 AM
If you were an inventor and patented something... but could never find funding or that the patent on its own didn't seem like much "at the time"... but YEARS later it was required/needed - are you telling me that you wouldn't litigate? You would just suck it up?

Yeah. Right.

Enter the Patent Troll.

samcraig
Jul 21, 2011, 10:34 AM
Enter the Patent Troll.

Ridiculous response.

oheckyeah
Jul 21, 2011, 10:37 AM
Enter the Patent Troll.

You sir, are a fanboy of the highest degree.

oheckyeah
Jul 21, 2011, 10:41 AM
No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.

That's the difference. Do you even know what a "patent troll" is?
They are a major reason for most of your complaining that the patent system is "broken."

This line made me actually laugh out loud. You toss the words "patent troll" around like its a legal term and he is inferior for not knowing your inarticulate internet lingo.

"OMG guys, u dont even no wut a patent troll is??!? LMFAO, i dont think i can talk 2 u ne more... lol."

roadbloc
Jul 21, 2011, 10:42 AM
Enter the Patent Troll.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be this biased...

*LTD*
Jul 21, 2011, 10:42 AM
You sir, are a fanboy of the highest degree.

Then don't complain about the patent system being "broken."

You have NO cause for complaint whenever any litigation takes place for any reason regarding patents.

Fair?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/

On Tuesday when I spoke with Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management. He pointed out that patent lawsuits had turned particularly unpleasant lately as a result of companies that only buy and sell patents.

In the past, Mr. Von Hippel said, if companies entered a litigious dispute “they would usually come to an agreement to simply share each other’s patents.” But he said a new genre of patent lawsuits, brought on by what he calls “patent trolls,” had changed the nature of the disputes. These companies have no interest in using the patents, Mr. Von Hippel said, but instead hope to reap large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves.

roadbloc
Jul 21, 2011, 10:47 AM
Then don't complain about the patent system being "broken."

You have NO cause for complaint whenever any litigation takes place for any reason regarding patents.

Fair?I don't think any of these posters have complained. But yeah, okay, whatever.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/

On Tuesday when I spoke with Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management. He pointed out that patent lawsuits had turned particularly unpleasant lately as a result of companies that only buy and sell patents.

In the past, Mr. Von Hippel said, if companies entered a litigious dispute “they would usually come to an agreement to simply share each other’s patents.” But he said a new genre of patent lawsuits, brought on by what he calls “patent trolls,” had changed the nature of the disputes. These companies have no interest in using the patents, Mr. Von Hippel said, but instead hope to reap large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves.

And in other news the sky is blue. Just because Apple are currently on the loosing side of a patent, doesn't mean the system 'isn't fair' or is corrupt.

Media industries are not about media, they are about copyright. The music, movie, etc industries all fight and argue about copyright ownership and there are many media based companies who exists simply just to buy and sell copyright ownership.

What makes you think any industry that involves some sort of product going to be any different?

samcraig
Jul 21, 2011, 10:47 AM
Then don't complain about the patent system being "broken."

You have NO cause for complaint whenever any litigation takes place for any reason regarding patents.

Fair?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/

On Tuesday when I spoke with Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management. He pointed out that patent lawsuits had turned particularly unpleasant lately as a result of companies that only buy and sell patents.

In the past, Mr. Von Hippel said, if companies entered a litigious dispute “they would usually come to an agreement to simply share each other’s patents.” But he said a new genre of patent lawsuits, brought on by what he calls “patent trolls,” had changed the nature of the disputes. These companies have no interest in using the patents, Mr. Von Hippel said, but instead hope to reap large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves.

Can you point to the emails, phone conversations, etc where there was a discussion on trying to reach an agreement between Apple and Personal Audio in regards to the patent. Do you know if any such discussions took place? Is it possible that Apple never engaged in such discussions and therefor were sued?

oheckyeah
Jul 21, 2011, 10:47 AM
Then don't complain about the patent system being "broken."

You have NO cause for complaint whenever any litigation takes place for any reason regarding patents.

Fair?



I don't believe I've ever complained that the system is broken. And I doubt most of the others arguing with you over "patent trolling" have either. You are assuming that anyone who dislikes Apples business practices automatically complains of a broken patent system when Apple sues. This, my friend, is incorrect and a logical fallacy on your part.

henchman
Jul 21, 2011, 10:54 AM
Coming up with an idea and filing a patent is a right.
You'd be stuoid not too.

And as someone else already pointed out, appe files a gazillion patents every year, of which most never get used.

pb12
Jul 21, 2011, 12:37 PM
PLEASE internetz: judgment not judgement. Thanks :)

slinky199
Jul 21, 2011, 01:05 PM
Ha, Apple is just another tech company.