Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Haptic Feedback Company Immersion Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple

As is often the case, I seriously question why many patents are granted at all, and the system in general is deeply flawed, but at least this company isn't just a troll, and they do have actual products.

What I don't get is the list of devices starting with the iPhone 6. If it was just the 6s (and any recent MacBook where the trackpad simulates a click sensation using vibration), I'd get it. And if they're patenting any pattern of vibration as an indicator then every model of iPhone since... not sure, the 3GS at least? ...would apply, since they can use a variety of notification buzz patterns and let you create your own. I'd argue it's a stupid patent to exist, but at least it would make sense.

But what does the 6 have in terms of haptic feedback that the 5s also doesn't?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brad9893, ohio.emt, Wowereit and 3 others
Let me guess, here's a legit company that actually develops and makes and patents touch technology, and all the Apple fans will simply ignore ALL that and label them patent trolls 🙄

They certainly do seem to protect their inventions and patents as already said, they took Sony to court for one. If you want to use their tech, license it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SirCheese, rjohnstone, Demo Kit and 11 others
DeftwillP said:
Lol...are they saying they created haptic feedback and own all rights to it?
Click to expand...

Heh. Why not? Seems to be a popular thing to do. Heck, Apple tried to trademark "Multitouch" for themselves, even though it's an industry standard term. Fortunately, Jeff Han (of TED demo fame) talked the USPTO out of granting it at the last moment. But not everything is watched that closely.

At first quick glance, the three Immersion patents seem to be basically about:
  • Allowing one program to interrupt another already playing a haptic.
  • Figuring out the correct haptic to play by checking what kind of "object" on the screen was touched.
  • Preventing haptics from getting out of sync with the user's touch.

Ironically, those look like many patents that Apple itself has sued others over: simple methods which are made to look novel by including lots of extra words and variations.

So it goes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone, Demo Kit, Dave.UK and 7 others
lol, i love apple called it taptic rather than haptic. I think this is one of those cases where apple is not licensing for some reason, like extortionate fees compared to what google pays or where they consider it to be different technology all together. Force touch is most definitely unique compared to buzzing a motor on a screen touch.

Why does everyone cite rounded edges in patent issues? that was a look and feel issue and as such was trade dress / design not a patent.

Again i don't think this should be a patent anyway because it's based on an idea that is too broad and not specific. If it was a patent for using a certain type of motor and on certain types of devices and under certain types of input then fair enough but force touch is new, the motor is not a motor but a bar and magnet and the device is specifically to replace a click. if you patented that a mouse button clicked you'd fail, so why does this company get carte blanche on all non mechanical feedback?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhfenton, Oberhorst, Recognition and 1 other person
Why are the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus listed? As far as I know, their vibration feedback is the same as all previous iPhone releases. So I don't understand their inclusion. The 6S, 6S+, and Apple Watch would likely make sense though for the 3D Touch feedback assuming they really do infringe. In that case, why not the MBPs too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt and Wowereit
Well, at least for a change it's not a patent troll and a company that actually invented the technologies they are suing over... I was waiting as I read to see who they bought the patents from and then was surprised that they actually make things. That's the 1st time in a long time a suit like this has been that case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
MacAddict1978 said:
Well, at least for a change it's not a patent troll and a company that actually invented the technologies they are suing over... I was waiting as I read to see who they bought the patents from and then was surprised that they actually make things. That's the 1st time in a long time a suit like this has been that case.
Click to expand...

The recent VirnetX case is also from a company owned by the inventors of the patents and code libraries they sue Apple (and everyone else) over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone, Dave.UK, Avalontor and 2 others
apolloa said:
Let me guess, here's a legit company that actually develops and makes and patents touch technology, and all the Apple fans will simply ignore ALL that and label them patent trolls 🙄

They certainly do seem to protect their inventions and patents as already said, they took Sony to court for one. If you want to use their tech, license it.
Click to expand...

Lol oh you know how it is around here. When Samsung 'copies' Apple "rounded corners" oh the outrage! Samsung always copies apple! Apple invented rounded corners!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirCheese, Demo Kit, Dave.UK and 1 other person
CarlJ said:
Interesting side note, these are called Botts' dots, in honor of their creator, and have their own Wikipedia page.
Click to expand...

This is the NZ version
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/network/operating/safely/doc/rumble-strips-info-sheet.pdf
Audio tactile pro led markings, commonly known as rumble strips, help prevent drivers from running o the road or straying across the centreline.

Consisting of raised ribs spaced at regular intervals along the edge of a road or down the centreline, they can be felt and heard when car wheels cross over them. The rumbling e ect acts as a wake- up call for drivers that they are veering out of their lane.

Rumble strips have been used
on New Zealand roads for many years. The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) is beginning a new installation programme in 2009 to significantly increase their use on state highways.
 
alexgowers said:
lol, i love apple called it taptic rather than haptic. I think this is one of those cases where apple is not licensing for some reason, like extortionate fees compared to what google pays or where they consider it to be different technology all together. Force touch is most definitely unique compared to buzzing a motor on a screen touch.

Why does everyone cite rounded edges in patent issues? that was a look and feel issue and as such was trade dress / design not a patent.

Again i don't think this should be a patent anyway because it's based on an idea that is too broad and not specific. If it was a patent for using a certain type of motor and on certain types of devices and under certain types of input then fair enough but force touch is new, the motor is not a motor but a bar and magnet and the device is specifically to replace a click. if you patented that a mouse button clicked you'd fail, so why does this company get carte blanche on all non mechanical feedback?
Click to expand...

Go check out the patents themselves. These are not "oops" should not be patent types. They are patented in a lot more countries than just the US - you can google and pull up the actual patents easily.
U.S. Patent No. 8,619,051: "Haptic Feedback System with Stored Effects"
U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356: "Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile Sensations"
The complaints also assert infringement by the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus of the following Immersion patent:
U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571: "Interactivity Model for Shared Feedback on Mobile Devices"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avalontor, Wowereit and apolloa
I suspect two things:

1. Apple knew about these patents and since Samsung lawsuit, found that it is easier and cheaper to let the company sue first and take them to the court that has a high chance to getting some of the patents invalidated and thus making it cheaper to license later.
2. Apple has crappy lawyers who should've seen these first but they didn't.

I'm placing my bets on #1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit, Deelron, jhfenton and 1 other person
Blaze4G said:
Lol oh you know how it is around here. When Samsung 'copies' Apple "rounded corners" oh the outrage! Samsung always copies apple! Apple invented rounded corners!
Click to expand...

haha yes, and don't forget that Apple also invented the amazing colours 'Black' and 'White'.

That is the one thing that gets my back up, that the Apple lawyers actually had the balls to present a drawing of an oblong with rounded corners in a court case as evidence to sue! And then mentioned the colours black and white too! Crazy crazy crazy world, not like they didn't have enough other things to sue on, did the lawyers sit round the table and think..

hmm guy's we need a back up plan in case these solid patents don't work, any ideas

I know, how about getting Ive to draw an oblong with rounded corners and we'll accuse them of copying the shape, oh and the colours too....


Anyone on here ever regret for not being a patent lawyer these day's?? Kaching kaching kaching $$$$$
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit, Dave.UK and Wowereit
Rocketman said:
Buying the company would cost less than the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Yes, and IMO, this is the Genesis of some of these asinine litigious orgasms. :apple:
[doublepost=1455237257][/doublepost]
MikhailT said:
I suspect two things:

1. Apple knew about these patents and since Samsung lawsuit, found that it is easier and cheaper to let the company sue first and take them to the court that has a high chance to getting some of the patents invalidated and thus making it cheaper to license later.
2. Apple has crappy lawyers who should've seen these first but they didn't.

I'm placing my bets on #1.
Click to expand...

You would be smart to not bet against Bruce. :apple:
 
MikhailT said:
I suspect two things:

1. Apple knew about these patents and since Samsung lawsuit, found that it is easier and cheaper to let the company sue first and take them to the court that has a high chance to getting some of the patents invalidated and thus making it cheaper to license later.
Click to expand...

Apple's lawyers were already doing that before the Samsung lawsuit. They dragged their feet licensing basic cellular patents from Nokia, Motorola, etc... and tried to get them declared invalid. SOP.

--

Interestingly on the thread topic, Samsung's had a license for a long time. In fact, they were the very first Immersion cell phone client back in 2004. They used bits in phones, CD players, you name it.

Samsung started integrating Immersion Technology's latest TouchSense haptic engine back in 2012 with the Galaxy S3. (Samsung was using linear actuators for haptics years before Apple.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone, Demo Kit and Dave.UK
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back