Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Florida Company Sues Apple Over Apple TV's 'What Did He Say?' Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
?Except that is an actual physical design in use. Ideas are not real and this patent in dispute is for an idea (product feature at best) that has not even been implemented yet.
Apple might have violated the patent but it’s very hard to prove any damages when there is no consumer confusion or any actual feature for Apple to infringe upon.
[doublepost=1501238602][/doublepost]
99% of it is directed at Apple because of their cash pile. That’s the biggest shame here.
The company clearly had a patant for the feature and reached out to Apple for clarification. They were ignored. Probabaly in purpose.
Best way to get Apple's attention is filed a lawsuit.
Really? You can patent ideas? Since when? Ideas _cannot_ be patented. You have to go from idea to invention, which is a big, big step further.
This is getting worse. Patents have nothing to do with consumer confusion. If this patent is valid, and Apple is infringing upon it, then the fact that Apple isn't paying license fees is "damages". There is no need for that company to have any product or any implementation. (That said, Apple will most likely either try to get the patent invalidated, which shouldn't be too difficult, or alternatively demonstrate in court that while they may be implementing the same obvious idea, they are not using any techniques demonstrated in the patent).
Last edited:
You don't have to build something (e.g. a working model) to get a patent for it.
That said, it would depend on what in particular those golf cart manufacturers got a patent for - i.e., what did the claims say. If they were granted a patent with a claim that describes a method or system which comprises X, Y, and Z, and Tesla uses a method or system that comprises X, Y, and Z, then they might have a case. Or the patent might, e.g., be expired. But they wouldn't have a patent on electric vehicles in general (not one that was still in force, anyway).
That's a description of an embodiment - an example of how the invention might be used.
The asserted claims do not include such an element - turning up the volume during replay. It is the claims that define the boundaries of the protected (intellectual) property.
[doublepost=1501244107][/doublepost]
DVDs might not have been mainstream yet, but they were available. The descriptions in this patent refer to DVDs as well as, among other things, on-demand video systems. Some of the claims, though not the asserted ones, refer to readable discs.
Last edited:
I don't know if Apple infringed or not but many larger companies tend to follow a model where they will use a patent if they can get away with it. Any monies later extracted are simply a cost of doing business. While some want to see Apple as pure and noble, the reality is that all companies (of all sizes) make both good decisions and bad decisions in the name of the almighty (insert your local currency unit here).
That analogy absolutely doesn't make sense. You are comparing evidence with the actual subject of a trial. Rounded corner wasn't an evidence.
The only point I was trying to make is that the yardstick needs to be the same for apple. If others do it then they copy, if apple does it then they are improving on the technology.
What complete crap. This company's patent for a What button is nothing more than a user definable for amount of time rewind button. That's not what Siri does with the "what did they just say" feature. This case better just get booted for the waste of time that it is.
Infringement doesn't require that everything referred to in the description part of the patent be incorporated into the alleged infringing item. But it does require that every element specified in an asserted claim be incorporated into that item. So a volume button on a tv wouldn't represent infringement of this patent because (1) some kind of input which controls volume isn't mentioned in the claims and (2) even if it were, there are other elements in the claims.
[doublepost=1501245549][/doublepost]
This is a utility patent. It expires next year, but Apple could still be liable for infringement that occurred before it expired.
[doublepost=1501245624][/doublepost]
No, you don't.
No it does not. This patent has nothing to do with a volume button. Your extreme example doesn't support the point you want to make.
This case is more akin to by doing X, I automatically achieve A, B, and C. You can't say my idea is do X to achieve A and B. Just because you don't do C, it doesn't mean you aren't violating the patent. This is what @gaximus was trying to imply with his quote. Since Apple's function doesn't turn up the volume (C) then it's not in violation. That's wrong.
See Doctrine of equivalents.
Example:
{Ride of the Valkyries plays in the background}
Apple patents a "Go Back To" function. By (X) activating Siri and invoking the go back to phrase, the ATV goes back to (A) the last instance John Wick was played and not finished. Once JW is found Siri offers to (B) continue or start from the beginning and after movie finishes (C) offers suggestions of other similar movies you might like. Nice
{Toccata and Fugue in D Minor (organ) plays in the background}
Samsung comes along a year later. They introduce a "Return To" function. It works by (X) activating Bixby and invoking the phrase "Return To" which (A) takes you back to the last instance John Wick 2 was played and not finished. Once JW2 is found Bixby offers to (B) continue or play movie from the beginning. It does not offer other movie suggestions.
Not offering movie suggestions is not a valid qualifier for getting around that patent violation.
As shown in the Apple Samsung trials, having an idea doesn't count if someone else ran out and patented it first.
Not in the Claims, it doesn't. And they are what defines the patent, not the abstract or description.
They were getting enough so, that Netflix began in 1998 by renting DVDs.
Sure there was.
That's because Apple didn't patent multitouch. They couldn't, since it had been around for decades.
What? No. Perhaps you're thinking vaguely of trademarks, which do have to be used and renewed.
Last edited:
Oh please stop this crusade of yours lately, last few weeks you were referring 'it' as China/Chinese, now you disguise it as overseas.
Other than this being a apple based site, I can't understand why people think this is an 'obvious' patent that shouldn't be patentable. This is clearly a pretty unique idea, especially at the time it was invented in the late 90's. The patent covers apples implementation almost identically. The company allegedly came to apple (before apple deployed the technology) looking to license it to them and Apple didn't license it and decided to copy it instead. This is pretty much the textbook example of why patents exist so big guys can't just steal an idea from someone without recourse. Apple should have licensed and/or purchased the patent if they were going to implement this. Instead they decided to steal it and let lawyers and their legion of fanboys defend them.
If Apple had done the right thing and purchased the patent outright then they could bully any competitor that tried to do something similar. Now if they fight this and win, everyone could theoretically use it as well. How does that benefit Apple?
This seems like they could have made it go away for a couple mil and buy the patent outright and use it to actually have a unique feature for once.
If Apple had done the right thing and purchased the patent outright then they could bully any competitor that tried to do something similar. Now if they fight this and win, everyone could theoretically use it as well. How does that benefit Apple?
This seems like they could have made it go away for a couple mil and buy the patent outright and use it to actually have a unique feature for once.
Devils' Advocate here: I'm on Apples side to fight such broad, generic patents such as this one. This company is trying to patent the use of a "short" rewind button. My gut feeling is that there is prior art. Has this guy sued DirecTV? There is a 10 second rewind on their remote, too. Tivo? Anyone else who has a similar feature? Not that I can find with a quick search.
Except then Black Mirror would be prior art to your patent, and it would be an invalid patent.
If you think this patent is invalid, show us something that describes this functionality before the patent was filed.
[doublepost=1501252270][/doublepost]
If it was patented in 1998, the patent would expire in 2018, and Siri would be free to use in 2025.