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

[TimTheEnchanter]

Note to self...
Add to today's To Do List:
1. Patent "air".
2. Sue Apple for infringement of both shipping products with air and using it to cool products.

 

[gnasher729]

Patents, again.

The audience isn't listening

In that case, the patent is quite pointless.

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

There is no such patent as you claim, but I suppose you know that yourself. Mods, is "patent for rectangle with rounded corners" considered trolling nowadays?

This seems to be all about a former THX staffer joining Apple. If they can't sue the former employee they can sue the company they went to if it appears he gave patented THX information to Apple. Don't THX staffers sign noncompetes?

I think you need to learn a bit about what patents are and how they work. When you get a patent, you are given a limited time monopoly on an invention, in exchange for publishing how it works. All the information that Apple could have wanted about this patent can be downloaded for free by anyone in the world from the USPTO website.

Non-compete agreements in California, where Apple resides, are not worth the paper they are written on. You cannot in California keep someone from getting a well-paid job. (In Germany, for example, such agreements are legal and enforceable if there is reasonable compensation. If the guy had one job offer from McDonald's flipping burgers for $10k a year, or working for Apple for $5,000,000 a year, THX could stop him joining Apple by paying $4,990,000 a year to him. )

If there were any trade secrets he knew off, well, as soon as you get a patent, the trade secret is out of the window. Knowing trade secrets also doesn't stop anyone in California from getting a new job, except for the very limited situation where a judge says it would be inevitable that the trade secrets must be leaked.

I agree to a point. But I think it was more about the spirit of the lawsuit than the specific fact. I agree that facts should be used. But the point the OP was making (I believe) is that this suit (in his opinion) is akin to Apple (or anyone) suing over silly stuff.

Apple sued over a design patent (not a patent), which is basically a long list of individual design decisions, which each on its own are not protectable, but as a complete list are protectable. Samsung was always free to create a design that matches Apple's design patent in _most_, just not in all points. Samsung also has plenty of design patents of its own. In the end, a Samsung Galaxy 3 has rounded corners, but neither looks like any iPhone model ever built, nor infringes on any design patent; people believing this "rounded corner" nonsense should have asked themselves why Apple doesn't use their "rounded corner" patent against the Galaxy 3.

 

[iGrip]

Those that can, innovate,

Those that cannot, steal IP and get sued by THX.

 

[rmwebs]

THX is owned by LucasFilms.

I think this is more about getting back at the guy that Apple hired.

LucasFilm (not films) is owned by Disney. Disney have a close relationship with Apple.

THX has not been owned by LucasFilm since 2001 - it's an independently owned company.

It took me all of 3 seconds to find this information. Nuff said.

 

[HenryDJP]

Just happened to wonder if this weren't Apple, but rather a company that's been struggling for years to make it and they are on the verge of calling it quits, would THX even bother? As soon as one is successful everybody tries to bring you down so they can make a few bucks.

 

[Renzatic]

Just happened to wonder if this weren't Apple, but rather a company that's been struggling for years to make it and they are on the verge of calling it quits, would THX even bother? As soon as one is successful everybody tries to bring you down so they can make a few bucks.

Why is it when Apple sues someone, it's them protecting their hard earn innovations? Yet when someone sues Apple, they're nothing more than leaches trying to get a bit of their money?

 

[devman]

Point of interest. In a patent case you don't have to prove that they knew about it, they could be completely oblivious and it'd still go in favour of the patent holder. Proving willful infringement may allow the patent holder more damages, though.

When applying for a patent you may simply apply for the patent (Roughly $80,000 per country), in which case you may or may not be granted the patent, even if it has been done before. If it has been done before then you loose your patent and your $80,000. What one should do before applying for a patent is a world wide patent search (roughly another $80,000), which will let you know if your invention is already patented.

Australian law is a little different, but 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. If you don't then you loose your intellectual property, and everyone everywhere can use it without needing to pay licensing fees.

THX is in the right to sue (defending their IP). If apple is infringing then apple should pay up.

No, it depends on the kind of IP. You're not required to defend a patent. It's a registered trademark that you must defend or you lose it.

 

[bloggerblog]

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.

With enough never and money, you can nowadays invalidate virtually any patent, and a decision is solely based on a judges inclination, as was the case in the U.K. Samsung plays like gangsters, they were the ones that went all out on Apple copying everything down to the tv commercials.

 

[iisdan]

facepalm

You cant sue for a thin speaker, thats ********, but I cant really defend Apple ... they trademarked the name "App Store".

 

[Premium1]

With enough never and money, you can nowadays invalidate virtually any patent, and a decision is solely based on a judges inclination, as was the case in the U.K. Samsung plays like gangsters, they were the ones that went all out on Apple copying everything down to the tv commercials.

The patent office is the ones who validate/invalidate patents so really has nothing to do with judges

 

[Glideslope]

You cant sue for a thin speaker, thats ********, but I cant really defend Apple ... they trademarked the name "App Store".

I believe it has more to do with the internal shape of the channels. Maybe iFixit
could cut an iMac Cross Section?

 

[GoodWatch]

I love how anyone who speaks out against Apple, or decides that Apple did something they don't agree with is automatically labeled a troll.

And a 'hater'

 

[iGrip]

The thing is, there isn't any evidence that they did knowingly infringe on any patents. This is the thing that gets me. If people genuinely come up with the same idea independently, but one patents it first, the other guy could get sued. It makes you a little nervous about inventing anything to be quite honest... There are a seemingly endless pile of patents out there, and any one of them could be enough to sue me.

You have reason to be nervous.

But the biggest corporate behemoth in the history of the world, the one with dozens and dozens of patent lawyers at their beck and call? Not so much.

Please rest assured that Apple examined the patent. Apple made a decision either that their design didn't infringe, or did infringe, but that infringement was the more profitable route compared with trying to get a license.

Please don't feel bad for Apple getting ensnared in something that they had no idea that they were doing wrong. Apple knew EXACTLY what it was doing.

And maybe, when the dust clears, it will prove to have been the most profitable way of going about things. We can only hope not.

----------

I agree. I think the root of the problem lies in the broken patent system. It's very difficult to search through all the tens of thousands of patents, as well as attempting to interpret what it's all talking about and the limitations of such patents.

Very difficult should not be a problem for Apple. And indeed, I cannot believe that they failed to do proper research.

Have some faith. Apple is perfectly capable of performing patent searches. And rest assured that they knew all about the THX patent.

----------

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?

My guess: Apple has been stringing them along in negotiations for years. THX has finally had it, and decided that if Apple would not be reasonable, then litigation was their best remaining option.

----------

Seriously? The author of this post doesn't expect Apple to take the far more typical front-line stance of non-infringement?

Apple will argue both, simultaneously. Why would they choose one, and not both?

 

[JAT]

You have reason to be nervous.

But the biggest corporate behemoth in the history of the world,

What does Walmart have to do with this?

 

[7709876]

Lol at "narow speaker placement" patent.

Who gives out this stuff seriously?

Same people who grant patents for rectangles I guess.

 

[thekev]

You cant sue for a thin speaker, thats ********, but I cant really defend Apple ... they trademarked the name "App Store".

I wouldn't dismiss it prior to reading through the actual claims. These things may or may not be grossly simplified in the way they're reported.

 

[Leaping Tortois]

My ancestor (and yours too) invented wheels and gears. Pay us.

The patent system is beyond broken.

Funny you should say that, in Australia a guy actual did manage to patent the wheel to prove a point... Luckily he let his patent go for public use

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

 

[Risco]

Apple seem to have a steal everything attitude, then wait to see who has the balls and financial clout to sue them in the court of law.

 

[bmt134]

Lawsuits are only bad when it is against Apple!

 

[Tech198]

Lawsuits are only bad when it is against Apple!

lol...

everyone hates Apple.... I like it..

Like the Marfia. ( i can't believe this isn't in the Apple's dictionary )

 

[AidenShaw]

bias in terms?

I think Apple should pay licensing fees if this is what they have used, instead of trying to question the patent`s validation.

This also means Samsung should pay up licensing fees for all the stuff they copied.

Why did you use the word "used" to describe what Apple might have done, and the word "copied" to describe what Samsung might have done?

 

[Kwill]

Narrow chance of being heard in court.

 

[apolloa]

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.



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.

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.

----------



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.

There is no such patent as you claim, but I suppose you know that yourself. Mods, is "patent for rectangle with rounded corners" considered trolling nowadays?

haha you lot can't decide if their is a patent or not for round corners etc! Well Apple do have it, and patents put a date to when someone thought of something? haha no I think they are supposed to protect intellectual property and enable you to charge for people to use that property.
And I'm ignorant because you lot are 'trying' oh so hard to defend Apples round corners patent haha. right. Yet tbrinkma posted a comment:

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.

Which is a comment spoken like a true ignorant professional armchair patent lawyer wannabe! You don't know anything about the patent, yet proclaim that Apple is fine and that THX are not obliged to sue! Man, please stop posting because it's pretty obvious Apple HAVE breached the patent otherwise THX wouldn't sue!! Is that fact not clear enough?

I get sick of these comments, oh it's perfectly fine for Apple to patent the stupidest thing and the sue the hell out of someone for it, but how dare ANYONE else sue Apple when they are guilty of ripping other peoples work of!

Face it, Apple has breached the patent as far as THX are concerned, they are suing Apple for that breach, deal with it.

Oh and yes Apple DO have a patent for round corners:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners

And lets not forget it used the design patents of the iPhone in both Black and White colours against Samsung, along with icons with round corners:

http://thecellularguru.com/2012/08/28/the-6-apple-owned-patents-samsung-violated/

A design patent is a patent, Apple has used them against Samsung in court, I am 100% right in my statement:

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

Trying to challenge that is to go against the very patents Apple used in it's court case against Samsung and thus deny the existence of those patents or the entire Apple V Samsung case!

 

[apolloa]

People forget that Apple's iPod was originally a copy of a much better device made by Creative, who Apple paid off in the end. The only thing Apple did better was the software.

I am against all the lawsuits instigated by Apple against Samsung and others, and the only constant is change, SJ was a visionary with his design concepts, but I will give Apple 5 years as the decline in their quality control and share price is already becoming more evident by the day.

Sad alas but true.

Oh no doubt, my first modern day Apple product was a third gen fatboy iPod Nano and it's amazing! It lives in my car which is why I got it for Christmas years ago, in my eyes it was an amazing tiny stunning gadget! It's still going strong!

I got dragged in to the whole Apple hype machine really did, my 2012 MB Pro is still kicking strong although the front rubber feet fell off! But it plays Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 fine, although it plays Diablo better haha, but I have see the poor quality of Apples products too with iOS being buggy and my iPhone 5 looking like it's had a battle with a tone path on it's edges

But my faith in Apple wavered with the whole patent and suing thing, it really did, I didn't think it would change so much with SJ gone but damn!

I don't think they will be going anywhere for a long time yet, and I want them to make a cheaper plastic iPhone as it'll hide the scratches better

 

[Renzatic]

But my faith in Apple wavered with the whole patent and suing thing, it really did, I didn't think it would change so much with SJ gone but damn!

You can't pin the blame for the BS patent lawsuits on Cook alone. He's only continuing what ole Steve started.