Corephotonics Sues Apple Again Over Dual-Lens Cameras in iPhone 7 Plus and Later [Updated]

[MentalFloss]

you forgot option 4....

4) Spend 3-7 years developing a new tech for your devices (Apple likes to take their time and get it right). Someone else comes out with a similar tech prior to Apple letting theirs out into the wild (often a much less refined product). That company sues Apple... because hey, they had it "first".

Not saying thats the case here, but it is very often the case...

Example?

Even if you can give an example, what's your point? In intellectural property laws, the entitity which patents an idea first legally "owns" it. It doesn't matter if another company had the same idea and just didn't patent it, which would never happen at Apple, which is why you won't be able to give an example.

The only ideas that do not get patented immediately are ideas that are kept as trade secrets - and it's pretty much impossible to keep a smartphone technology a trade secret. And why do ideas always get patented immediately? Exactly to avoid the scenario you describe.

 

[justperry]

Cue the cultists screaming patent troll and defend theft by Apple in 3...2...1

17 posts/comments and 37 minutes TOO LATE.

 

[MentalFloss]

There's nothing new about this concept. When DSLR cameras were low resolution in the early 2000's I'd take a wide shot and then switch lenses and move in closer to take photos I'd eventually stitch together for a larger MP image.

Which is nothing like what the patents describe.

 

[mikef07]

Agree. Brave move.

Has nothing to do with being brave.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas-is-patent-capital-no-more-12218778.php

 

[Baymowe335]

It looks like Apple bought the 2nd company as a cover operation for stealing the 1st company's ideas. Not good.

Yeah, that seems like the truth to this story. They should hire you.

 

[JodyK]

It legitimately seems like there is something valid here ... the company must feel VERY confident to file in California. If the lead negotiations person blatantly did indeed say what they alleged then Apple, a company I love and respect, is headed in a bad direction.

 

[apolloa]

So, another patent Apple is ripping off, it’s getting good at this. And considering they filed suit in the same place as where Apples main HQ is registered, they are pretty confident of their inventions and patents.

Will be interesting to watch this one... but I fear unless Apples buys off the jury, or they get a biased one again, they’ll lose / settle out of court, also interesting the ones suing have left the awards up to the court. Even more evidence they are very confident in their designs and IP.

 

[ThunderMasterMind]

Well they better be filing more than one case. Many other manufacturers are doing the same thing, unless they are getting their camera units from them.

 

[69Mustang]

Wait, what?!?!?! This lawsuit wasn't filed in East Texas??

Don't they know ALL patent lawsuits are filed there and have a very good chance of winning regardless of proof?

You can't arbitrarily sue in East Texas anymore without a presence in East Texas.

Agree. Brave move.

Required move.

Any other companies being sued considering how many have dual lense cameras on their phones?

How many companies do you think this small company can take on at one time? Realistically, they probably only have enough money for one fight. If it's you, who are you going to fight? Especially after you allegedly met with the company before hand to present your product idea.

 

[dannyyankou]

Many other companies have dual cameras, I wonder why they chose to go after just Apple?

 

[BugeyeSTI]

You can't arbitrarily sue in East Texas anymore without a presence in East Texas.


Required move.


How many companies do you think this small company can take on at one time? Realistically, they probably only have enough money for one fight. If it's you, who are you going to fight? Especially after you allegedly met with the company before hand to present your product idea.

I agree but, if they are successful in the litigation it would set a precedent and other companies may be in for future lawsuits unless they pay up for the tech.

 

[iFan]

you forgot option 4....

4) Spend 3-7 years developing a new tech for your devices (Apple likes to take their time and get it right). Someone else comes out with a similar tech prior to Apple letting theirs out into the wild (often a much less refined product). That company sues Apple... because hey, they had it "first".

Not saying thats the case here, but it is very often the case...

Option 4 used to impact Apple, but in the past 10 years they've gotten incredibly good at filing patents early and often. I forget which year was the turning point, but Apple started taking this a lot more seriously after all these patent troll suits.

Last year apple was granted 2102 patents - ranked 11th in the world. Seeing how one of Apple's patents refers to Corephotonic's patent as prior artwork, this unfortunately doesn't seem to be a case of Option 4.

 

[Will.O.Bie]

Many other companies have dual cameras, I wonder why they chose to go after just Apple?

They are the biggest fish to fry, and apparently, they seem to be very confident they can win this case; classic Moby Dick scenario.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Wait, what?!?!?! This lawsuit wasn't filed in East Texas??

Don't they know ALL patent lawsuits are filed there and have a very good chance of winning regardless of proof?

Don't you know there is a no data to support the assertion that final outcomes in EDTX are more favorable to the patent owner?

 

[dannyyankou]

They are the biggest fish to fry, and apparently, they seem to be very confident they can win this case; classic Moby Dick scenario.

I actually think they might have a case here, but if they’re suing, they might as well go after everyone they can.

 

[Will.O.Bie]

Don't you know there is a no data to support the assertion that final outcomes in EDTX are more favorable to the patent owner?

Touche!

 

[oneMadRssn]

you forgot option 4....

4) Spend 3-7 years developing a new tech for your devices (Apple likes to take their time and get it right). Someone else comes out with a similar tech prior to Apple letting theirs out into the wild (often a much less refined product). That company sues Apple... because hey, they had it "first".

Not saying thats the case here, but it is very often the case...

This is never the case, because it is legally impossible. If the timeline is as you suggest, where Apple develops the tech in secret before someone obtains a patent on it, then Apple's research would be prior art to that patent and it would be invalid. So, no, this can't happen.

 

[Apache1]

I thought this technology went back as far as 1982 when a company Cyberware in Monterey, CA developed dual camera systems to do 3D body scans that were used to generate 3D models. The first well known body scan was used when Robert Patrick as T-1000 in Terminator 2 was converted to liquid metal.

 

[jayducharme]

Was there ever any litigation between LinX Imaging and Corephotonics?

Interesting thought, but it appears the LinX technology had a different purpose than Corephotonics'. LinX developed mobile cameras that were closer in function to Lytro's light field devices, allowing for greater image manipulation after the picture was taken. Perhaps that's what enables Portrait Mode and other iPhone tricks.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0750456704/apple-buys-camera-technology-company-linx

 

[5105973]

Many other companies have dual cameras, I wonder why they chose to go after just Apple?

Well if they are telling the truth, it sounds like it was Apple whom they approached with their intellectual property, hoping to strike a licensing agreement of some sort. It doesn’t sound like they approached Huawei or Samsung or anybody else.

 

[69Mustang]

I agree but, if they are successful in the litigation it would set a precedent and other companies may be in for future lawsuits unless they pay up for the tech.

The presumption you're making is 1. other company's implementations might violate corephotonics patents. 2. other companies haven't already licensed their patents. 3. corephotonics wants to spend time and money in litigation.

Now, they could turn into the most monstrously litigious company in the history of the world. That has nothing to do with your original question.

 

[5105973]

The presumption you're making is 1. other company's implementations might violate corephotonics patents. 2. other companies haven't already licensed their patents. 3. corephotonics wants to spend time and money in litigation.

Now, they could turn into the most monstrously litigious company in the history of the world. That has nothing to do with your original question.

Aggghhhhhh, your avatar! Notchman!

 

[69Mustang]

Aggghhhhhh, your avatar! Notchman!

Can you blame me? That was too funny.

 

[gavroche]

Example?

Even if you can give an example, what's your point? In intellectural property laws, the entitity which patents an idea first legally "owns" it. It doesn't matter if another company had the same idea and just didn't patent it, which would never happen at Apple, which is why you won't be able to give an example.

The only ideas that do not get patented immediately are ideas that are kept as trade secrets - and it's pretty much impossible to keep a smartphone technology a trade secret. And why do ideas always get patented immediately? Exactly to avoid the scenario you describe.

I could give examples, but i won't. From your glib and angry statement you aren't even open to actual conversation or discussion. You know it all, and we are all just morons living in your world.
[doublepost=1510083198][/doublepost]

Option 4 used to impact Apple, but in the past 10 years they've gotten incredibly good at filing patents early and often. I forget which year was the turning point, but Apple started taking this a lot more seriously after all these patent troll suits.

Last year apple was granted 2102 patents - ranked 11th in the world. Seeing how one of Apple's patents refers to Corephotonic's patent as prior artwork, this unfortunately doesn't seem to be a case of Option 4.

Well, there another issue with similar patents. For example, having dual cameras. Two different companies could have had similar patents that both deal with dual cameras, albeit in different methods. So suppose Apple has one patent and Company X has a different one. They can sue apple. Says nothing about their chances of winning. Apple can easily go into court and present evidence how their usage is more in line with their patent. Dummies like MentalFloss apparently think that just because someone sues you they have a valid case.

 

[StevieD100]

you forgot option 4....

4) Spend 3-7 years developing a new tech for your devices (Apple likes to take their time and get it right). Someone else comes out with a similar tech prior to Apple letting theirs out into the wild (often a much less refined product). That company sues Apple... because hey, they had it "first".

Not saying thats the case here, but it is very often the case...

First to file gets the patent. It was first to invent but it got changed. From memory this was over 10 years ago.