Florida Company Sues Apple Over Apple TV's 'What Did He Say?' Feature

[MacRumors]

Florida company CustomPlay filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple today, claiming a Siri feature that allows fourth-generation Apple TV users to rewatch a portion of video with closed captioning copies its movie companion software. The case has yet to be assigned to a judge.

Using the Siri Remote, Apple TV users can ask "what did he say?" or a similar question and tvOS will rewind the TV show or movie by several seconds and resume playing with closed captioning temporarily enabled. This way, if you missed what someone said, you can conveniently go back and listen a second time.

Skip to roughly the 1:02:13 mark of Apple's September 2015 event video below to see a live demo of the feature.

Skip to roughly the 1:02:13 mark of the video​

CustomPlay owner Max Abecassis essentially argues he invented the idea first, as the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,408,128 B1, filed in 1998 and granted in 2002. The patent covers a replay function with subtitles activated by either remote control or voice control, much like tvOS's feature.

An excerpt from the patent's description:

A remote control capable of activating a replay function comprises a WHAT? button, key, or other replay function key or means, to enable a viewer by activating the replay function to automatically cause the system to: i) rewind or skip backwards the playing of the video a system default or a viewer specific previously defined amount, e.g. 20 seconds; ii) turn on the subtitle to a system default or a viewer specific previously selected subtitle language, e.g. English; iii) turn off the subtitle at either the point the WHAT? button was pressed or at some viewer specific previously defined point with respect to the time at which the WHAT? button was pressed, e.g. five seconds prior to, or after, the point the WHAT? button was pressed; and iv) increase the audio/dialog volume during the segment replayed.

In its complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, CustomPlay says it has software that uses the patent available for download on its website. The company's homepage lists apps such as PopcornTrivia and CustomPlay, each available on the App Store for iPhone.

For one app, named One Screen, CustomPlay describes a "What?" feature that does sound similar to the Apple TV's feature.

The What? function rewinds the movie a user-defined amount of time, e.g. 20 seconds, and continues playback with the subtitles automatically enabled only during the replayed portion.

One Screen, however, happens to be the only app listed as "coming soon" on CustomPlay's website. The company said it still intends to make the software available to end users, but it's unclear when. It's also unclear if similar functionality is included in its PopcornTrivia and CustomPlay apps, or DVD software for PCs.

CustomPlay's so-called "What?" feature​

CustomPlay says it contacted Apple about the potential for an exclusive business relationship in 2014. The company believes Apple is aware of its patent and, without a license, proceeded to implement its patented technology in its tvOS operating system for the latest Apple TV model, launched October 2015.

Court documents obtained by MacRumors show CustomPlay seemingly mailed letters to Apple CEO Tim Cook and three iTunes executives in July 2014, and Abecassis sent a few follow-up emails to Cook later in the year, but it's unclear if Apple responded. There is no indication of Apple responding at the very least.

CustomPlay's website says it is affiliated with Nissim Corporation, which appears to be a non-practicing entity, also owned by Abecassis. Nissim sued Apple last September for allegedly infringing upon seven patents related to DVD specifications. The two companies reached an unknown settlement in December.

Nissim's website says it has brought lawsuits against major companies such as Apple, Paramount Pictures, Time Warner, and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. All of those companies, excluding Apple, are also listed as Nissim's licensees, alongside Acer, Bose, Dell, HP, Lenovo, LG, Microsoft, Sony, and others.

CustomPlay is seeking damages of an undetermined amount from Apple, plus legal costs, and it has requested a jury trial.

Article Link: Florida Company Sues Apple Over Apple TV's 'What Did He Say?' Feature

 

[Brandhouse]

I'm going to dream up an idea, maybe I'll watch 'Black Mirror' for an idea that in the future might be feasible, but isn't now, patent it and just wait so one day I can sue everyone.

Some people need a hard smack over the head.

 

[Glavin]

Someday I'm gonna damned well find an angle on pattenting breathing.

 

[farewelwilliams]

they patented the question "What?"
...
...
...what?

 

[Gasu E.]

I'm going to dream up an idea, maybe I'll watch 'Black Mirror' for an idea that in the future might be feasible, but isn't now, patent it and just wait so one day I can sue everyone.

Some people need a hard smack over the head.

Someday I'm going to patent people saying "Someday I'm going to patent (something absurd)".

 

[scrapesleon]

bad Apple

 

[cerote]

Well the patent is spot on to what it does. Unlock some other ones battling with very vague patents.

 

[Brandhouse]

Someday I'm going to patent people saying "Someday I'm going to patent (something absurd)".

But I didn't write something to those words, so your patent doesn't apply in this case.

 

[Glavin]

But I didn't write something to those words, so your patent doesn't apply in this case.

Brandhouse and Gasu E., I found your and my posts uncomfortably close in both content and timing, so I have just now applied for and received a provisional patent on claiming "Jinx!" in an online web-format message board. The two of you owe me a Coke or I'll see you in court.

 

[DarthMoops]

I'm going to dream up an idea, maybe I'll watch 'Black Mirror' for an idea that in the future might be feasible, but isn't now, patent it and just wait so one day I can sue everyone.

It's so unlike Apple to be involved in litigation.

 

[Brandhouse]

Brandhouse and Gasu E., I found your and my posts uncomfortably close in both content and timing, so I have just now applied for and received a provisional patent on claiming "Jinx!" in an online web-format message board. The two of you owe me a Coke or I'll see you in court.

Looks like I've been caught.

 

[jdillings]

Prior art:

 

[shareef777]

I'm going to dream up an idea, maybe I'll watch 'Black Mirror' for an idea that in the future might be feasible, but isn't now, patent it and just wait so one day I can sue everyone.

Some people need a hard smack over the head.

You mean like the idea of a rectangular phone?

 

[CIA]

Usually I side with Apple on these things, but based on the description, Apple's version really does seem to be incredibly similar to the patent.

 

[macfacts]

I'm going to dream up an idea, maybe I'll watch 'Black Mirror' for an idea that in the future might be feasible, but isn't now, patent it and just wait so one day I can sue everyone. ...

So do it.

 

[TMRJIJ]

I’m thinking about patenting the faint inaudible sounds of a heartbeat. I’ll be rich

 

[solipsism]

Well the patent is spot on to what it does. Unlock some other ones battling with very vague patents.

It might be too specific. There's a reason that patents are written in a certain way.

For example, Apple could argue that "the button" on their remote only calls Siri and that that key to feature working is Siri understanding a verbal command "What did he/she/they say" and other such terms.

It could also be argued that "What did he say" (and its variants) and rewinding a video a handful of seconds with the subtitles enabled, could be deemed obvious. I know I certainly had this idea long before Apple implemented it and without having ever seen this patent until today.

Their patent also makes very specific comments about the user getting to set how far the media will jump back, which is not something the Apple TV offers. Again, too specific can hurt you with patents.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Patently annoying...

 

[lederermc]

This is ridiculous. English IS in the public domain.

 

[cmChimera]

I'm not trying to pick a side, and I don't really care who wins out here. But Macrumors users, do not confuse patents for trademarks. You can invent something, patent, and then not release it. Just because some company hasn't released this product, doesn't mean that it's not a valid patent. Also, they're not patenting the term "What," they're patenting whatever tech they use to recognize the keyphrase and rewind, and add captions.


EDIT: Saw that their patent doesn't include voice activation.

 

[psionic001]

All this stuff will be a big impediment to AI.

Siri in 2025: "Sorry, I can't respond to that question because the feature 'what did he just say?' was patented in 1998"
me: Urrrrr.... "Hey Siri, rewind 15 seconds and turn the volume up and turn subtitles on, then continue playback"
Siri in 2025: "OK"

 

[cmChimera]

All this stuff will be a big impediment to AI.

Siri in 2025: "Sorry, I can't respond to that question because the feature 'what did he just say?' was patented in 1998"

That patent would be expired.

 

[roland.g]

Usually I side with Apple on these things, but based on the description, Apple's version really does seem to be incredibly similar to the patent.

The idea can't be patented. Neither can a feature. If the software code is similar enough that's a different story.

 

[69Mustang]

It might be too specific. There's a reason that patents are written in a certain way.

For example, Apple could argue that "the button" on their remote only calls Siri and that that key to feature working is Siri understanding a verbal command "What did he/she/they say" and other such terms.

It could also be argued that "What did he say" (and its variants) and rewinding a video a handful of seconds with the subtitles enabled, could be deemed obvious. I know I certainly had this idea long before Apple implemented it and without having ever seen this patent until today.

Their patent also makes very specific comments about the user getting to set how far the media will jump back, which is not something the Apple TV offers. Again, too specific can hurt you with patents.

Siri is the "button" or means that triggers the start of the replay function; first act being asking the question. That replay function is a part of the ATV not a part of Siri.

You, me, or anyone else just having an idea is not the standard that's set for obviousness. That's not a criticism btw.

Their patent covers both user specified and system specified rollback: "i) rewind or skip backwards the playing of the video a system default or a viewer specific previously defined amount, e.g. 20 seconds

I'm not judging the merits of their patent claims. Just pointing out your points aren't as valid as you may think they are.
[doublepost=1501208746][/doublepost]

I'm not trying to pick a side, and I don't really care who wins out here. But Macrumors users, do not confuse patents for trademarks. You can invent something, patent, and then not release it. Just because some company hasn't released this product, doesn't mean that it's not a valid patent. Also, they're not patenting the term "What," they're patenting whatever tech they use to recognize the keyphrase and rewind, and add captions.

A lot of people seem to making that incorrect assumption about 'What'.

EDIT: Saw that their patent doesn't include voice activation.

IANAL but I don't think they have to specifically (or want to) say voice activation since they broadly covered it under "or means" here:
"A remote control capable of activating a replay function comprises a WHAT? button, key, or other replay function key or means, to enable a viewer by activating the replay function to automatically cause the system to:"

That can be broadly interpreted to include voice activation. Probably why it's in there.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

The biggest patent infringements come from overseas. Fight them first.