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

THX Sues Apple Over Alleged 'Narrow Profile Speaker' Patent Infringement

apolloa said:
The exact same people who gave Apple a patent for a black or white oblong with rounded corners :rolleyes:

And I like how THX used the same argument as Apple's lawyers did against Samsung: "monetary damage and irreparable harm"

And why do people state everyone wants a bite of Apple? erm, no, THX designed something and hold a patent for it and Apple are using it without abiding by patent law and paying for the technologies use. THX are totally obliged to take Apple to court for that. Because Apple would! And you would all be complaining how THX 'stole' from Apple, well this is just another example of how Apple 'steals' from others just as much IMO.
Click to expand...

"monetary damage and irreparable harm"
LOL pretty much all suits use that language.It's standard leagalese.

How is it exactly that you already know the facts of this case before any evidence has been presented?
Oh that's right!You DON'T.
Apple may be liable,I have no idea,and care very little.hopefully if the claim is valid they will settle quickly.
You obviously think Apple should sue no one who steals from them.
 
Premium1 said:
What comes around, goes around apple.
Click to expand...

Actually, apart from this being typical in the industry. I don't see why Apple should pay anything since Samsung didn't have to pay either and went on the offensive and started to invalidate most of Apple's patents, with the cheering-on of others like Google. The patent office is utterly useless, and has become a push-over, Apple couldn't protect any of its technology, even-though the Patent Office made a Steve Jobs / Apple showcase on their premises, the largest of its kind.
 
MH01 said:
Apart from protecting ones intellectual property.... Comes to mind.
Click to expand...

But they don't really use their "intellectual property" do they? It's just like Apple patenting everything they mostly won't use so they can sue for money and sales ban when another company tries to make a product with the same concept.
 
The problem I see with a lot of these so called "patents" is that the issue is not so much an invention as an idea. Patents are too easily issued on things that should not be considered patentable. It's become an era of silliness to the extreme. Face it, in the end, just like taxes on corporations, the consumer takes the hit. IMHO !! :)
 
Judas1 said:
The thing is that Apple would try to patent the use of batteries, if they changed it enough to look flashy. Everybody that isn't blind sees Apple as what it is, a patent hungry company patenting everything under the sun. BTW, if rounded corners are common place, why is it part of their patent?
Click to expand...

IBM is annually #1 in terms of patents, Samsung #2, MS #3. Apple isn't in the top 30. Apple is actually quite restrained in the number of things they choose to patent, compared to other large technology companies.

Just google "number of patents by company" if you want a source, then pick one.
 
GaryMumford said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't the iMac G5 have speakers that project the sound through slots/holes at the bottom? and this was in production 4 years before the THX patent of 2008
Click to expand...

But after they filed in 2003. Which begs the question how Apple would know about this 'art' to know they might need to license it
 
That patent should be invalidated for the sheer ridiculousness of it.

Maybe I should patent a wooden apparatus used for text and graphics generation. In one embodiment, the apparatus would contain a graphite core. One end would be fashioned to a point while the other end would employ an erasing device. The pointed end would be used to generate text and graphics while the other end would be used to erase said text and graphics.

Then I'll sue all the companies that make pencils. Silly, right? But that's exactly what they do. The whole patent industry is such a farce.
 
apolloa said:
The exact same people who gave Apple a patent for a black or white oblong with rounded corners :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Look, if you don't understand the difference between a patent and a *design patent*, or the fact that even the design patent you're mocking involved more than *just* 'flat with rounded corners' it's probably best not to advertize your ignorance.

apolloa said:
And why do people state everyone wants a bite of Apple? erm, no, THX designed something and hold a patent for it and Apple are using it without abiding by patent law and paying for the technologies use. THX are totally obliged to take Apple to court for that. Because Apple would! And you would all be complaining how THX 'stole' from Apple, well this is just another example of how Apple 'steals' from others just as much IMO.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. They're not *obliged* to do so, though they are certainly within their rights to do so. But, IF the summary is accurate and their patent is actually for a speaker system that can be *attached* to a computer or flat-screen monitor, then the speaker system built into the iMac is probably ok, because it is not designed to be attached to anything.

Beyond that, it'll come down to whether the specifics of the implementation are covered by the patent. There have been slot-style speakers since long before 2008, but the mechanics behind them aren't necessarily what is covered by the THX patent.
 
Leaping Tortois said:
I believe that in the US failure to defend your intellectual property results in the loss of that IP, therefore you need to either contact the infringing party and demand that they pay up, or sue.
Click to expand...

Requirement to protect is only for trademarks, not copyrights or patents

----------
alexgowers said:
How can you sue over a patent if you don't make any product for the public to buy.
Click to expand...

US patent laws don't require it. That's how.
 
krye said:
That patent should be invalidated for the sheer ridiculousness of it.

Maybe I should patent a wooden apparatus used for text and graphics generation. In one embodiment, the apparatus would contain a graphite core. One end would be fashioned to a point while the other end would employ an erasing device. The pointed end would be used to generate text and graphics while the other end would be used to erase said text and graphics.

Then I'll sue all the companies that make pencils. Silly, right? But that's exactly what they do. The whole patent industry is such a farce.
Click to expand...

Fails based on "prior art." Your patent would probably not be granted; but even if it were, it would be invalidated without the defendants breaking a sweat.
 
Apple has always been serious about audio. I recall my G4 Cube had (I think) Harmon Kardon speakers in nice clear acrylic balls.

The previous generation iMacs had bottom facing speakers too. Had to be close to 2007. The iPhone had a narrow bottom facing speaker also, and that was 2007.
 
Better sound needed ?

If Apple uses THX in their iPhones, why do they still sound crappy then ?

Apple doesn't mention THX in their specs.... Since Creative own 60% of this, don't you think they should have a say in this court case too ?

Finally, what do you reckon of sound bars in new Macs lines/IOS devices ...?

Should make for better sound.
 
You know, as sick as I am of these patent wars, I think they are necessary for reform. On the surface, this does seem like a frivolous patent, yes, but I have not read the actual patent nor the litigation, nor am I schooled in legal jargon. This very thread is a bit of a testament as to the power of media. Aside from the title, and a short blurb (read: body of article) I am willing to bet most people know nothing about this lawsuit, yet they are passing judgment on either side as if they were judge, jury, and executioner.
 
komodrone said:
can someone explain to me why THX waits until several products come out from Apple to file a suit? is it because they'll get more money if they wait? or does filing a suit take that long?
Click to expand...

It takes time to obtain the products for evaluation... then it takes more time for the lawyers to draft their arguments, then finally the courts take time before the case is accepted.

Things don't work instantaneously in the real world!
 
coolspot18 said:
It takes time to obtain the products for evaluation... then it takes more time for the lawyers to draft their arguments, then finally the courts take time before the case is accepted.

Things don't work instantaneously in the real world!
Click to expand...

Apple:Those are not speaker holes, those are our new improved speed holes for air flow. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I am amazed that patent actually got passed. There is nothing what so ever novel about it.

Apart from the word "Narrow" there is nothing to differentiate between what this does and a slot bandpass sub-woofer simple design does.
 
bloggerblog said:
Actually, apart from this being typical in the industry. I don't see why Apple should pay anything since Samsung didn't have to pay either and went on the offensive and started to invalidate most of Apple's patents, with the cheering-on of others like Google. The patent office is utterly useless, and has become a push-over, Apple couldn't protect any of its technology, even-though the Patent Office made a Steve Jobs / Apple showcase on their premises, the largest of its kind.
Click to expand...
Samsung still has to pay they are just getting a new trial and you don't see why apple should have to pay for something they infringe? Samsung invalidating apples patents meant they never should have been granted in the first place, this is completely different and you may wanna go read up a little on patents before you defend apple.
 
charlituna said:
US patent laws don't require it. That's how.
Click to expand...

In the absence of lost profits, the patent holder is entitled to a "reasonable royalty". Since THX does not produce speakers, they are entitled to a reasonable royalty (if the patent is valid and infringed).
 
apolloa said:
The exact same people who gave Apple a patent for a black or white oblong with rounded corners :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Holding a patent is not a be-all end-all defense. You don't have to prove to the patent office that this is a valid patent, rather you have to prove in court that this is a valid patent.

This is similar to the United States government creating a law. The law could be unconstitutional, but it will be law, until the courts decide otherwise, that it's unconstitutional.

----------
RobQuads said:
I am amazed that patent actually got passed. There is nothing what so ever novel about it.

Apart from the word "Narrow" there is nothing to differentiate between what this does and a slot bandpass sub-woofer simple design does.
Click to expand...

Patents basically put a date to something that somebody thought of. That's about it.

You have to successfully defend your patent in court to make it enforceable.
 
samh004 said:
So they have a patent for a speaker that projects sound through a narrow slot... that's a pretty handy patent to have, because no one would think of doing that... ;)
Click to expand...

It's especially funny because both the iPod touch and iPhone came out in 2007 before this patent was ever awarded to THX. Both of those had "narrow profile speakers".
 
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