Might try going and reading the three patents involved instead of throwing out comments that display your lack of understanding and your apparent desire not to...
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.
Haptic Feedback Company Immersion Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Might try going and reading the three patents involved instead of throwing out comments that display your lack of understanding and your apparent desire not to...
When isn't Apple invoked in a lawsuit ...
Next we'll hear 'the same company that goes after us, is also the same company we also use for the technology."
We all use Samsung displays or LG... Apple doesn't make those for iPhone.... Cant it work to to haptic feedback ? Just looking at from both sides.
Next we'll hear 'the same company that goes after us, is also the same company we also use for the technology."
We all use Samsung displays or LG... Apple doesn't make those for iPhone.... Cant it work to to haptic feedback ? Just looking at from both sides.
Well I'm asking questions to understand it better. I'm by no means a patent expert so just trying to understand.
So as long as Apples haptic feedback doesn't do those things you listed they should be ok?
But if they do, even if the way it's coded is totally different, they are infringing?
[doublepost=1455311538][/doublepost]
I'm trying to understand but don't have the time to read through patents and patent law in the US, I only get 30 mins lunch break!
Just a helpful 'in a nutshell' reply would put an end to my incessant questions
(Like Kdarlings, thanks)
I did start my post with "I know nothing", but you're right. Mods - please ensure only patent lawyers pass any comments on this subject.
That's fine and a very good idea. No need to assume the worst. Remember: internet headlines are often click bait
That's right. However, Immersion picked out certain iOS device models, so they must be seeing something they believe infringes.
It depends on the patented method and how specific it is. And how good the judge is at defining claim construction. And of course, how influential the lawyers, on each side, are with the jury.
I'll give you a past example. One of the patents Apple sued Samsung about a couple of years ago was the late 1990s so-called "universal search patent". That's where you type in a search phrase and it looks in memory, on storage, and on the internet. (Yes, obvious patent, but there you go.)
Now, Apple's patent method called for multiple search code modules to look each place. However, there was a comma missing in the claim description, so you could actually read it two ways: either the modules were exactly the same, or they were different. To most people, it was clearly the former definition. But Apple's lawyers claimed the latter definition in the trial.
The reason this was important, was because Apple knew that Samsung's search implementation used different modules. So if Apple's patent was ruled to be about using same modules, then Samsung would not infringe Apple's patent. Case over.
So for weeks pre-trial, there was a court debate about the claims construction and what it meant. Even old technical dictionaries dating back to the time of the patent were brought in, to try to determine what the inventor might've been thinking at the time. In the end, Judge Koh came down on the side of Apple's (lawyers') latest interpretation, which kind of doomed Samsung with the jury.
Now, mind you, Samsung had NOT COPIED A SINGLE LINE OF APPLE CODE. Nor had they even seen Apple's method. Nor did they have to, because they had simply came up with the same (rather obvious, even to high school programmers) way of doing it. Doesn't matter, because software infringement is rarely about actual copying. Instead, it's about who patents it first.
--> Likewise, Apple could easily have come up with the same methods Immersion did. But Immersions' claimed patent methods are even less detailed than in the Apple example above. They also list a lot of minor variations, which makes their patent even harder to avoid.
So since Immersion's patents don't go into details about any particular method of coding, it'd be really tough for Apple to avoid infringement no matter how they did it. They're worse off than Samsung was.
Okay, this was longer than I wanted. Don't get me started on this stuff. These trials are not always about what's fair, but about whose lawyers are more clever
Last edited:
The problem comes when comments are made that are either flat out wrong, supposition based on incorrect or lack of knowledge, or someone who just doesn't want to know. This could all be handled with a quick little check / read (how tough is it to use Siri, OK Google, or just click the link in the OP) and a minor effort to educate ourselves.
Knowledge is power. It also reduces the aftertaste of "foot in mouth"
I don't mind teaching (do a lot of that). What I do not like doing is writing.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Apple is bound to have known about these patents, and that their competitors are licensees. I wouldn't describe it as a roll of the dice, more a decision not to licence based on a number of factors.
Apple have some of the best patent lawyers available. You can wager your favourite child that they think they can get by without the licence because -
1, They don't think they are infringing. As in, their implementation is sufficiently different.
2, They think they can invalidate the patents.
3, They actually want the case to go to court. Perhaps they want to have the patent reclassified under FRAND as it is now ubiquitous with devices of this kind. As of now no details are available on how much Apple was being asked for a licence and how this stacks up against what others are paying.
So maybe more of a strategic gamble, we'll have to wait and see who rolls snake eyes.
One cannot be forced to make their patent available to all--under FRAND or otherwise.
How about the combination of only black and white color options, same as Apple--what are the chances of that happening by coincidence? How about Samsung announcing phones in the same colors as Apple phones after the fact (see: gold phone)? It doesn't take much brainpower to see the pattern.
You mean like when Apple brought out the multi-colored iPhone 5C a half year after Xioami introduced their colorful MI-2S line?
Or when Apple came out with a rose/pink gold smartwatch with white band... the year after Samsung had already sold the same color choice?
Should Apple have avoided the above color choices just because someone had already used them? Of course not, and the same principle applies to other companies.
Sometimes color choices are chosen because they always look good. Other times they're made because another company has made a color combination popular... again, since there's rarely a new combo. So what?
The same thing happens with any physical characteristic, such as display size, where Apple followed what others had made popular.
Last edited:
It's not illegal, but the SEC typically has to review and approve certain purchases of this nature.
Immersion Corporation is a publicly traded company, so the company's board would have to approve the sale.
Apple could in theory buy a majority stake in the company or do a hostile take over if the company's board refused to approve the sale.
Again, the SEC would have to review and approve this method of acquiring the company.
If the purchase is deemed to be anti-competitive in nature, the DOJ would get involved.
In this case many of the shares are owned by the patent inventors who are the chief officers of VirnetX.
Another larger chunk are owned by mutual funds investors. I think the amount of stock available on the open market is less than 50%, and that's all that could be bought easily by Apple.
Plus, as soon as Apple bought more than 5%, they'd have to notify the SEC and state their intentions. Which would alert everyone and the stock price would surely skyrocket.
And yeah, a hostile takeover of a company that's successfully suing you, would probably set off alarms at the DOJ (Department of Justice).
Another larger chunk are owned by mutual funds investors. I think the amount of stock available on the open market is less than 50%, and that's all that could be bought easily by Apple.
Plus, as soon as Apple bought more than 5%, they'd have to notify the SEC and state their intentions. Which would alert everyone and the stock price would surely skyrocket.
And yeah, a hostile takeover of a company that's successfully suing you, would probably set off alarms at the DOJ (Department of Justice).
