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

[Carnegie]

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.

The description of certain embodiments (in a patent application) isn't what really matters though. Such descriptions can help to understand, e.g., what the claims describe or why the invention is useful. But it is the claims, and the wording thereof, that really matter. The claims carve out the territory that is legally protected by the patent.

The claims (i.e. the elements of the claims) are worded more generally and are less limiting in terms of what system configurations would be covered by the patent. For instance, the first independent claim doesn't require that a user be able to set how far back the video would jump. It just refers to "a replay position that is responsive a preestablished replay preference." That preestablished replay preference could, in theory, be the amount (of time that a video skips back) that Apple has built into the functionality.
[doublepost=1501209491][/doublepost]

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

If a system comprises all of the elements referred to in a claim, then it infringes regardless of what the code used to implement those elements looks like - and how similar or dissimilar it is to other code. It is the idea of doing X, Y, and Z (etcetera) in combination that is patented in this case, not the code used to accomplish those things.

 

[The Cappy]

That got a patent? And we can't sue the patent clerks for malpractice?

 

[Macaholic868]

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

Agreed but software patents are stupid in the first place in most cases. Even more so if the patent holder doesn’t attempt to bring a product to market using the patent in question until they see dollar signs when somebody else finally does it. Software is written in a programming language. Just like with any other text copyright should apply in all cases but patents should be a lot more rare than they are today.

Imagine if authors could patent the “idea” behind their stories. If they could get a “literary” patent. An author patents a coming of age tale where a troubled young man from meager means and a young girl from a wealthy family meet, fall in love, are torn apart by their family’s distaste for one another and ultimately come to their senses, get past it and get back together. Then the patent holder doesnt write the novel or short story that fits the mold, waits until somebody else does then sues them in court. If you could patent that scenario do you know how many fewer books and crappy movies would exist in the world? On second thought, check that, let’s roll with literary patents.

On a serious note if you copy someone else’s code or UI design then you should be guilty of copyright infringement. If you, on the other hand, take some preconceived scenario that’s never really been brought to market and you actually do it on your own without copying code or UI from an existing piece of software then you should be guilty of absolutely nothing.

 

[charlituna]

bad Apple

or not really bad. after all, just cause this company says doesn't mean its true. plus we don't have all the details about what was said, assuming they did contact Apple. keep in mind that something like this might have been in the works for 2-3 years before Apple announced it so it is possible that they had already had the thought on their own.

as for the patent. just ideas really shouldn't be patented and that's what it sounds like this was. just an idea. a slightly detailed one but still just the idea. so its possible that Apple will prevail because they actually improved on the idea with actual method and tech.

 

[roland.g]

The description of certain embodiments (in a patent application) isn't what really matters though. Such descriptions can help to understand, e.g., what the claims describe or why the invention is useful. But it is the claims, and the wording thereof, that really matter. The claims carve out the territory that is legally protected by the patent.

The claims (i.e. the elements of the claims) are worded more generally and are less limiting in terms of what system configurations would be covered by the patent. For instance, the first independent claim doesn't require that a user be able to set how far back the video would jump. It just refers to "a replay position that is responsive a preestablished replay preference." That preestablished replay preference could, in theory, be the amount (of time that a video skips back) that Apple has built into the functionality.
[doublepost=1501209491][/doublepost]

If a system comprises all of the elements referred to in a claim, then it infringes regardless of what the code used to implement those elements looks like - and how similar or dissimilar it is to other code. It is the idea of doing X, Y, and Z (etcetera) in combination that is patented in this case, not the code used to accomplish those things.

So by that rationale the first company to build and patent (which of course this troll has no product using the patent in the marketplace) an all electric vehicle, a car that uses no other form of fuel but a such and such battery delivering power to the wheels in x, y, and z combination shall have a patent on electric vehicles and no other automakers may build electric vehicles that use the same sort of methods. Hmm. I guess the golf cart manufacturers of the world should sue Tesla and Toyota and Chevy and Nissan.

 

[pat500000]

We need to ban suing.

 

[kstotlani]

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.

I wonder what you think about the rounded corners patent that Apple fought over.

 

[cmChimera]

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.

You're definitely correct. I haven't really looked at either patent to see if that fact would be significant or not. It was just an observation. But you're right, a patent could be broad enough to cover voice activation without specifically mentioning it.
[doublepost=1501212603][/doublepost]

We need to ban suing.

That'd be great right? Why care about your rights if you can't do anything about it?

 

[CarlJ]

The patent seems to cover Apple's implementation reasonably well. The patent also looks like it should not have been granted. It doesn't seem sufficiently unobvious. I'm sick and tired of companies using the system to farm other companies (that came up with similar ideas on their own) as a crop.

The entire original intent of the patent system was so that, if you came up with something really unique and new, and took it to market, others couldn't simply buy one of your widgets, examine it carefully, and start flooding the market with exact copies. The notion of patents said, "because having a continuous supply of new technological innovations is beneficial to the country, if you develop a new widget and fill out and submit forms detailing exactly how it works / how to make them, and submit those to us, the government will grant you a limited period of exclusivity so only you can profit from your invention for a while, and, in turn, after that period expires, anyone can look at those plans and build their own, and/or produce them for sale." It was to secure a benefit for inventors and for the entire country. And the original term was reasonable for the speed of technological progression (and communication) of the day.

Now, you've got everyone gaming the system, so that people can come up with the same idea on their own and take it to market, and then someone else comes along and says "ha ha, I already patented that, pay up!" The lengths of time are too long for this day and age, and most software patents shouldn't be granted in the first place - too often we see situations where entire avenues of research/design are blocked off because all the obvious ways to implement something have been patented (and if they were obvious to many in that field when faced with the same problem, then they should not have been patentable ideas). If patents are used to keep others from making anything even remotely similar, then they are hindering, rather than helping, the technological progress they were originally designed to foster.

 

[Carnegie]

You're definitely correct. I haven't really looked at either patent to see if that fact would be significant or not. It was just an observation. But you're right, a patent could be broad enough to cover voice activation without specifically mentioning it.
[doublepost=1501212603][/doublepost]
That'd be great right? Why care about your rights if you can't do anything about it?

The claims asserted in CustomPlay's complaint include both independent claims which refer to "a replay request," which could include voice commands as well as other kinds of user inputs, and dependent claims which specify that the replay request is a voice command.

 

[dilbert99]

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.

Patents are a joke when you can patent something like this.

 

[gaximus]

The patent clearly states "and turn up the volume." The Apple TV does not turn up the volume, so it's not violating the patent. If it had said "and turn up the volume or not determined by a setting" like they were so specific about everything else in the patent, then maybe.

 

[InfoTime]

Remember that in 1998 I don't think DVDs were mainstream. There was no such thing as a TiVo or other DVR. You could watch digital video on a computer, but that was limited. How was their system designed to work - by rewinding a VHS tape 20 seconds?

 

[MH01]

Damit - only thing I got out of this post is that the Apple TV is don't buy on the buyers guide..... and yesterday iPods....Cook is really nailing it .

 

[69Mustang]

The patent clearly states "and turn up the volume." The Apple TV does not turn up the volume, so it's not violating the patent. If it had said "and turn up the volume or not determined by a setting" like they were so specific about everything else in the patent, then maybe.

That's not how patent violations work. It's not necessary to violate every single item in a patent to be found in violation.

 

[shyam09]

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

Too late, I already did that before you. So I'm going to sue you for using my ideas. Don't ask me for proof though because I won't give you any.

 

[cmwade77]

Honestly this one sounds like it has some merit, it is very possible to patent ideas and this one makes sense, so if the claims are true, I would imagine that Apple will have to pay some royalties.

 

[GenesisST]

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"

Siri understanding a query? That's science fiction!

 

[MH01]

That'd be great right? Why care about your rights if you can't do anything about it?

If only the legal system was actually about right / wrong.
[doublepost=1501217217][/doublepost]

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"

Problem exists today - Doubt the outcome of this will have any impact. Siri needs investment and not excuses

 

[techwhiz]

He patented an idea. In 1998 there was no way to put this into practice. Also when voice recognition became available this is a natural extension and therefore obvious to those experienced in the field of video and voice recognition. It is no different than play, rewind, fast forward. All these functions including a skip or backup function appear on a remote. A common and obvious function would be to implement those commands for a person that is disabled.

I see invalidation coming.

 

[Jsameds]

I wonder what you think about the rounded corners patent that Apple fought over.

Murder trials aren’t fighting over a speck of blood or a fingerprint, they’re fighting over a murder.

Apple didn’t fight over rounded corners, they fought over a clone of their product.

Sammy tweaked their clone a little bit here and a little bit there to avoid litigation, but the rounded corners had been forgotten about which is why Apple used them in court as evidence.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

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

Oooh. You now owe the rightful owners of what, (and what attorneys) billions of dollars.

 

[coolbreeze]

I do this all the time manually. It's pretty simple to do. Would be neat to have it done by voice, but not essential.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

That's not how patent violations work. It's not necessary to violate every single item in a patent to be found in violation.

Well in that case, that patent provides him with the means to sue every tv maker that puts a volume up button on their tv.

That's a bad patent.
Like probably nearly all the patents filed since they just started taking the money and rubber stamping everything as fast as boneheads could submit them.

 

[melendezest]

I'm going to let the courts decide this one before I make up my mind, but I have a hard time believing that Apple goes through the arduous process of implementing a software feature without finding out if a patent already exists for it.

These things are planned.

But Apple is wealthy and powerful enough to deal with the fallout, ala Cisco's "iPhone", so it wouldn't be the first time they took the chance.

Like E(vil) Corp does, Apple probably set up a rainy-day fund for such lawsuits and if and when they do come forward the litigation and settlement costs might have little impact to their bottom line.