They should sue AT&T just because they are evil. As for Apple, yeah, they probably jacked some IP a bit, but as often is the case, it's easier to pay settlements than spend the additional R&D up front. Look at how it's worked for Samsung.
Microsoft, Sony, Google, Samsung and many others have paid for the technology.
Doesn't look like your average patent troll suing Apple, it's probably legit.
No. Because Google is actually licensing their technology, unlike Apple.... if this lawsuit is valid.
From http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/27/...lawsuit-from-immersion-over-motorola-haptics/
Aren't patents all about implementation? "haptic feedback" is pretty generic. How do we know for certain Apple's implementation is infringing on these patents? Or does Immersion have patents on every possible implementation?Yeah, I can't see Apple winning this, since other manufacturers are licensing the technology...
Better questions are:
1) Did Apple & Immersion engage in talks to license the technology.
2) Did Immersion want too much in Apple's opinion?
3) If above is true, Is Apple using the legal system to get a lower "settlement" and will license the technology after it settles for a lower cost.
4) Is Apple simply using its sheer size & lawyer team to just willfully ignore it until it absolutely has to pay when the court says so.
They should sue AT&T just because they are evil. As for Apple, yeah, they probably jacked some IP a bit, but as often is the case, it's easier to pay settlements than spend the additional R&D up front. Look at how it's worked for Samsung.
AT&T is evil? As in how? They have never ever come to my house to take one of my kids...
Instead of guessing, why not put your reading skills to work; there are only 45 comments before yours.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![]()
Aren't patents all about implementation? "haptic feedback" is pretty generic. How do we know for certain Apple's implementation is infringing on these patents? Or does Immersion have patents on every possible implementation?
I am curious to see how this will play out. People say Apple can't patent the look of something. Immersion is saying they patented a sensation. Is there source code they used directly? What exactly would you license from Immersion?
Nope. That sentence applies in Criminal proceedings only. Patent infringement is covered by civil litigation.. So much for innocent until proven guilty.
I am curious to see how this will play out. People say Apple can't patent the look of something. Immersion is saying they patented a sensation. Is there source code they used directly? What exactly would you license from Immersion?
I'm not entirely sure how this all works but...
if I were make my own 'vibrator' from scratch, write the code to make it work for haptic feedback from the ground up, and then put it into my own devices to be sold. Would I be infringing on their patents?
Thanks for the explanation. Wow well that's a really broad patent then, any device that gives haptic feedback when used could be infringing?Yes you would, the patent protects the concept and described implementation (doesn't actually have to be implemented, just described). This is why people believe that software patents don't make any sense because the value is in the implementation and that copyright is enough to prevent direct copying
Immersion is saying they patented a sensation.
if it is just the idea of haptic feedback it will potentially get tossed as too vague and something that never should have gotten a patent
So far all we have is a lawsuit being filed yet people have already concluded that Apple infringed. So much for innocent until proven guilty.
Nope. That sentence applies in Criminal proceedings only. Patent infringement is covered by civil litigation.
Genius. Sue Apple for their implemented and patent granted technologies. That's a strategy only a fool can endorse.
It would be interesting for someone to estimate what Apple has paid in legal fees and fines defending against allegedly infringed patents over the years vs. what they would have paid had they simply licensed all the same patents.
I am curious to see how this will play out. People say Apple can't patent the look of something. Immersion is saying they patented a sensation. Is there source code they used directly? What exactly would you license from Immersion?
Nope apples already bagged that claim...about 5 years after every android.device Was using it...Lol...are they saying they created haptic feedback and own all rights to it?