a product to rewind and turn on CC?
[doublepost=1501274782][/doublepost]
calling 'rewind' 15 seconds a feature is a little bit of a stretch though.
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
a product to rewind and turn on CC?
[doublepost=1501274782][/doublepost]
calling 'rewind' 15 seconds a feature is a little bit of a stretch though.
I was feeling a little dorky and self-indulgent on my "LawJolla" name day.
Thanks for your reply and good points.
I haven't done a through claim analysis, and I'm only loosely familiar with Apple's implimentation, so this is a little uninformed and off the cuff.
To infringe a patent, the alleged infringement must practice each claimed element. Practicing more than the claimed elements doesn't matter. Here's how I interpret it from a neutral observer.
A method of replaying a portion of a video comprising the steps of:
receiving, during a playing of a video, a replay request to replay a portion of a video;
While Apple TV is playing, a user somehow communicates a request to replay video, e.g. a button press followed by a spoken command
storing a request position of the playing of the video responsive to the replay request;
The Apple TV marks the video position where the request was made and stores it in memory.
skipping, responsive to the replay request, the video to a replay position that is responsive a preestablished replay preference;
Apple TV's video playback skips back to a previous frame. A lot could hinge on "preestablished replay preference." I suspect it'll be interpreted as any preference, including the one Apple hard coded at the factory, but "Pre-established replay preference" is odd wording. I also suspect when they were prosecuting this patent, they had to amend this claim here to overcome an examiner objection. That prosecution history is admissible to interpret the claim(s).
enabling a playing of subtitles;
This one is obvious.
playing the video and the subtitles from the replay position; and
This one too.
discontinuing the playing of subtitles responsive to the request position.
I don't know if this is true, but there's little ambiguous about this element. If Apple extended or shortened the subtitles about the "request position", it would not infringe.
While Apple TV is playing, a user somehow communicates a request to replay video, e.g. a button press followed by a spoken command
storing a request position of the playing of the video responsive to the replay request;
The Apple TV marks the video position where the request was made and stores it in memory.
skipping, responsive to the replay request, the video to a replay position that is responsive a preestablished replay preference;
Apple TV's video playback skips back to a previous frame. A lot could hinge on "preestablished replay preference." I suspect it'll be interpreted as any preference, including the one Apple hard coded at the factory, but "Pre-established replay preference" is odd wording. I also suspect when they were prosecuting this patent, they had to amend this claim here to overcome an examiner objection. That prosecution history is admissible to interpret the claim(s).
enabling a playing of subtitles;
This one is obvious.
playing the video and the subtitles from the replay position; and
This one too.
discontinuing the playing of subtitles responsive to the request position.
I don't know if this is true, but there's little ambiguous about this element. If Apple extended or shortened the subtitles about the "request position", it would not infringe.
That was the infringement analysis. Apple will also have an invalidity defense. They will attack the patent as invalid because it is either not novel and/or obvious given the prior art at the time (essentially that the patent office was wrong to ever issue it).
Why would you think that there's no way to implement it? Supposedly Apple did, for example.
Anyone who wants to comment on a patent thread, should first read the patent Claims section.
https://www.google.com/patents/US6408128
Check out Claims 1 and 2. And/or read LawJolla's post above.
I think the novel part is having the closed captioning turn on and then back off again where you left off.
So a mechanical button that you pressed on a VCR from 2002 -- or maybe a DVR -- is the same as asking Siri "What did they say?" Right. And throw in Time Travel too.
[doublepost=1501285793][/doublepost]
This is a button on a DVR or a VCR. That goes back so you can hear a sentence or two. Apple uses speech recognition to do the same thing. But the idea of letting you go back and hear a portion again is not the method, but an idea. That can't be patented.
[doublepost=1501285793][/doublepost]
This is a button on a DVR or a VCR. That goes back so you can hear a sentence or two. Apple uses speech recognition to do the same thing. But the idea of letting you go back and hear a portion again is not the method, but an idea. That can't be patented.
You gotta like Apple... (or hate 'em)
They introduce a feature to make t more convenient and take the fun out of rewinding or fast forwarding in this digital world, then a company comes along an slam dunks Apple for it.
Kinda makes u think, well why did Apple introduce it in the first place? Because they like everything that Siri can do.
They introduce a feature to make t more convenient and take the fun out of rewinding or fast forwarding in this digital world, then a company comes along an slam dunks Apple for it.
Kinda makes u think, well why did Apple introduce it in the first place? Because they like everything that Siri can do.
If you would simply read the patent claims, you'd know that claim #2 is about doing it via voice command.
My lay opinion seems to be the relevant point is rewinding: whether you do it with a voice command, winking the eye, sticking up a finger, clapping your hands together or wiggling your ears, should not be relevant. IMO, that is what is wrong with the patent system.
Actually no. The point I want to make is about lawyers in general, and guillotines, but I won't make it here.
That's just one part, and each action alone does not qualify for a patent.
It's the combination of actions in each claim, that makes the method unique.
The question is, was the combination obvious. Well, backing up x seconds had been around for a while. Closed captioning had been around for 20 years.
Yet no one had tried patenting the combination for the explicit purpose of checking what was said, before this guy did in 1998.
Of course, maybe it was like "slide to unlock with an image"... so obvious that nobody else thought it was patentable!
Last edited:
People like this fascinate me. An inventor thought it could be patented. An attorney took the client for an application they thought could be patented. The patent examiner thought it was a valid patent. The various licensees with limitless legal resources think it's a valid patent. And the attorneys representing the plaintiff against Apple think it's a valid patent. All of these people forget in an hour more than you've ever known about patent law.
Yes, somehow, you're the expert and know the real truth. Absolutely ridiculous.
(For anyone who's curious, it's not an idea. It's a process (utility) patent.)
I anxiously await your self-aggrandizing, know it all patent law treatise or policy summation edict... that I won't read.
[doublepost=1501300641][/doublepost]
Why do you think "rewinding" is the problem with the patent system? Patents use the broadest terms possible and then amend when the patent examiner and/or patent boards push back. If prior art referenced any version of rewinding like "wiggling the ears", then this patent's claims would need to be amended to exclude such a rewind -- potentially omitting "rewind" all together.
I respectfully submit to the patent system boo birds that many brilliant people work very hard on this system. And while the system is imperfect, I humbly submit that if you were tasked with being patent law king for the day, you could do no better than the current system.
[doublepost=1501300685][/doublepost]
Well said!
Not only that, but they say in their lawsuit(which I think is where it fails)
"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."
They have no idea if Apple "implemented their technology" I would think there are multiple different ways of getting software to do this, as you point out with the Siri example right there. So, by all means, produce your code in court, and if Apples differs in any way......you lose. After all, your claiming they implemented YOUR TECHNOLOGY, not invented their own that does something similar.
It's no dirty little secret, the healthcare system, tax codes, patent laws, etc are in need of improvement. It doesn't make one captain obvious to say so, nor would I want to be king for a day to take on the job, unless the compensation was commesurate with the task at hand. On the first Tuesday in November I vote for the person that I think will place the effort into the system, that will us the most good.
The most important part of that comment is their claim that Apple is aware of their patent. That raises the possibility of finding intentional infringement, which can triple an award.
Apple uses the same wording in their lawsuits against others, citing a "belief" that there is infringement. It's just the way it's legally done.
It's not about code per se. It's about the overall method, or flow if you will.
This patent is very broadly written. Any code that implements the few claimed methods and sequence would infringe.
See LawJolla's previous post listing the primary claims, which are basically that it saves the current spot, rewinds a certain time amount (which can even depend on scene changes IIRC), then plays and turns on CC until you return to the saved spot, whereupon CC is turned off.
Pretty dirt simple and any code that does the same flow, infringes. Therefore look for Apple's lawyers to try to prove the patent is invalid.
Last edited:
That is the whole point! They have managed to get approved on something so trivial as how clock and time is displayed on the screen. That's equal of patenting how three vertical lines also known as hamburger menu transition into full scale menu container. It's impossible to obtain such design patent and yet Apple got it approved.
One is to obtain a design/look and feel patent on hardware like automobiles or watches but its whole another ballgame when you get approved for a design/look and feel patent on portion of the graphical user interface.
Sorry, prior art by eons. Better luck next timeI’m thinking about patenting the faint inaudible sounds of a heartbeat. I’ll be rich
Pretty pathetic, sounds like a patent troll or just some company who wants to get some publicity.
To keep things in perspective... remember how Apple sued Australian grocery chain because (they claimed) their logo resembled that of Apple? Because of actions like this they deserve every lawsuit coming their way.
I'm suing everyone on earth that utters, "What's for breakfast" as I had that question patented back in 2001 (oddly no on ever thought of patenting such a thing and since it's not "obvious" they granted it without question! Hooray for dumb-arse software patents that let you collect money for ANYTHING YOU CAN FREAKING THINK OF!!! Because NO ONE ever thought about rewinding something before, OBVIOUSLY.
Do you remember the Nissan lawsuit of years ago. Maybe Nissan USA deserves every lawsuit levied at them.
True, but you also can't patent an idea. You have to show the implementation of the idea. That's the quid-pro-quo in patents: you show the world how to do something, and in turn the world gives you exclusive rights to it for 20 years. Unfortunately, the USA patent system seems to be generous in giving out patents, even if the "implementation" is obvious or trivial or lacking in detail.
When I was eight I invented a laser beam powered hover monorail. Did drawings and everything. Guess I'll just wait for Elon Musk to get busy.