Judge Rules iDevice Speaker Docks Don't Infringe On Bose Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rules iDevice Speaker Docks Don't Infringe On Bose Patent

Posted by timothy on Saturday July 14, 2012 @12:44AM from the but-they-are-of-course-computers dept.

CIStud writes "A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts has ruled that iPod, iPad and iPhone speakers docks do not infringe on a patent owned by Bose Corp. for digital audio conversion. The ruling in the case of Bose vs. small dock speaker makers SDI, DPI, Imation and others reportedly was a test case that would have set precedent for potential patent infringement by other manufacturers... and even Apple... according to the defendant's legal team. At issue: Is an iPhone, iPad or iPod a 'computer.' The judge says they aren't."

6 of 67 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ruling doesn't define computer by tepples · 2012-07-14 00:56 · Score: 5, Informative

From the summary: "At issue: Is an iPhone, iPad or iPod a 'computer.' The judge says they aren't."
From page 13 of the memorandum and order: "This Court declined to construct the term 'computer'." Instead, the ruling is based on where the DAC is located. The DAC in this case is inside the iDevice, rendering the claimed infringing "interface" a fancy headphone jack.
1. Re:Ruling doesn't define computer by chrb · 2012-07-14 03:13 · Score: 2
  
  The DAC in this case is inside the iDevice, rendering the claimed infringing "interface" a fancy headphone jack.
  What these manufacturers have successfully argued is that because the DAC is in the iPod, rather than their devices, then they aren't infringing a patent that covers devices that convert digital audio to analog. The judge agreed that the digital to analog conversion happens inside the iDevice, so the external device is not infringing. The open question is whether Bose will now sue manufacturers who stream or transfer digital audio to external devices that do include a DAC for playback.
  Btw, here's the patent.
iPod == iPhone without a cellular radio by tepples · 2012-07-14 01:00 · Score: 2

For an iPod, the question is unclear.
An iPod touch is an iPhone without a cellular radio. As far as I can tell, Apple has been deemphasizing its iPod shuffle, iPod nano, and iPod classic product lines in favor of iPod touch and other iOS devices.

But for iPad and iPhone, I'd have thought the consensus was that they count as computers.
The microcontroller in a microwave oven is a "computer". The engine control unit in a car is a "computer". A video game console is a "computer". But that doesn't make them general-purpose computers in the sense that the average person thinks of when hearing "computer". An iOS device is not general-purpose because Apple bans some purposes.
But this is all a moot point, as the ruling doesn't define computer.
Re:This is becoming boring by marcello_dl · 2012-07-14 01:43 · Score: 2

I didn't RTF* but it's obvious that Bose has prior art on expensive, shiny, thin stuff to show off to people, that has some audio related secondary function. Waaayyy before apple. Probably they were ashamed of patenting the concept as it is. Too bad, they'd have apple by the cojones if they did.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:This is becoming boring by jo_ham · 2012-07-14 03:55 · Score: 3, Funny

Maybe they should patent reading the fucking article - you'd be in no danger of infringing.
Re:This is becoming boring by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-07-14 05:39 · Score: 2

Not to ruin a perfectly good rant, but Apple wasn't actually involved in this case. It was a suit brought by Bose against the makers of third party speaker docks for i-devices.