iPhone Infringes On Sony, Nokia Patents, Says Federal Jury

snydeq writes "A federal jury in Delaware has found Apple's iPhone infringes on three patents held by MobileMedia, a patent-holding company formed by Sony, Nokia and MPEG LA, InfoWorld reports. The jury found that the iPhone directly infringed U.S. patent 6,070,068, which was issued to Sony and covers a method for controlling the connecting state of a call, U.S. patent 6,253,075, which covers call rejection, and U.S. patent 6,427,078, which covers a data processing device. MobileMedia has garnered the unflattering descriptor "patent troll" from some observers. The company, which was formed in 2010, holds some 300 patents in all."

Comments

Live by the sword . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . die by the sword. I hate Sony with the heat of a thousand suns, but would love to see them make Apple write an eight figure check.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[MightyMartian]

More than likely we'll just end up with a cross-licensing deal and an end to this particular patent theater of war. Frankly, I don't think Apple's expectation was ever to permanently ban competitors devices, it was simply to delay their release into major markets long enough to cripple sales.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[Neon Spiral Injector]

A company that makes no products has no need to cross-license patents.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[NeutronCowboy]

My thoughts exactly. Yes, MobileMedia might be a patent troll, but Apple well deserves this lawsuit. I hope that Steve Jobs' thermonuclear approach to Android will backfire on an epic level: once the patent wars leave the shell of dead corporations strewn all over the landscape, people will huddle together and promise themselves "never again" And the only way to do that: no more patents.

Either that, or we wisen up and make the patent system much more reasonable (working prototype, truly limited time, no patents on math or business methods, etc.). I wonder which one will happen first.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[ArhcAngel]

Which Sony? They are so schizophrenic they frequently sue themselves.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[The Grim Reefer]

. . . die by the sword. I hate Sony with the heat of a thousand suns, but would love to see them make Apple write an eight figure check.

Unfortunately the only real winners will be the lawyers.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[GodInHell]

Only eight? I think we're in the 9 figure range, no?

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[Alien Being]

They should both be writing billions of hundred dollar checks to pay back all the money they have stolen from consumers.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[jo_ham]

They should both be writing billions of hundred dollar checks to pay back all the money they have stolen from consumers.

I'm curious. What money have they stolen from consumers?

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[maxwell demon]

The rounded corners are a design patent, which, despite it's similar name, is something completely different to a patent.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[im_thatoneguy]

A company that makes no products has no need to cross-license patents.

The *point* of this company is cross licensing. Nokia, Sony etc could establish a complicated network of cross licensing deals, or they can put it into one pool and then take out the rewards relative to their contribution to the coalition.

Apple can just pay the license fee, or contribute enough intellectual property to the pool such that it gets back a share equal to a share of the patent group.

This is how the MPEG group works. MPEG is a collection of dozens of patents from tons of people. If you have something that can make MPEG better you can simply sell your patent to the group and make a nice little royalty. Or you can get your royalty and buy MPEG licenses gaining you access to the rest of the patents.

This is how the patent system should work for complicated systems. You build a cell phone patent pool. Then if you want to create new OS you pay the license fee without having to negotiate with 50 different patent holders.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[AmiMoJo]

Apple doesn't have any valuable patents to cross license. That has always been their problem. They are up against companies that have been producing mobile tech for decades and own patents that are essential for many of the standards in use around the world. Apple has a bunch of design patents that can either be worked around or invalidated in court.

Re:Live by the sword . . .

[mdmkolbe]

Having a monopoly is one thing, banding together multiple monopolies to squeeze out competition is another.

links to patents

[schneidafunk]

patent 6,070,068, which was issued to Sony and covers a method for controlling the connecting state of a call

patent 6,253,075, which covers call rejection

patent 6,427,078, which covers a data processing device

Re:links to patents

[MachDelta]

I get the second and third patents (even if they're blindingly obvious), but that first one....

6,070,068 - In a communication terminal device, the connecting state of a call can certainly and easily be controlled without learning troublesome operating methods which are different depending on the connecting state of a call by providing controller for displaying processing items available to a call a display and controlling the call into the connecting state corresponding to the processing item which is selected and determined by the user's operation of an input unit, the user can control the connecting state of the call by merely selecting the desired processing item.

...seriously, what the fuck does that even mean?

Re:links to patents

[im_thatoneguy]

I think it means providing a GUI button for hanging up. :P

Re:links to patents

[floodo1]

The patent claims that before this awesome "invention" users had to hit either 1,2, or 3 on the keypad followed by the send button in order to manage the call waiting aspect of your phone. It also claims that you had to press a different number to control a given call waiting function (place on hold, hang up current call, combine calls into a three way call, etc) depending on what you were doing on the phone at the time, so this was confusing and cumbersome for users.

So this Sony employee "invented" a simple menu system (though the patent seems to cover any sort of system, aka apple's buttons which pop up on screen when you get a call waiting type of call) which lets you (via a scroll wheel and button, in the example) select "Hold" or "Disconnnect" or what have you by scrolling and clicking. In this way the user doesn't have to remember whether they should press 1, 2, or 3 and instead can just click on words to do what they want.

It's worthwhile to look at the images which contain samples of the menu system (as well as flow charts and block layouts of a typical GSM cell phone).

TLDR: This extremely generic/broad patent is for a simple system to handle call waiting on a cell phone. A system which is novel because it's easier to use than the old keypad based system in use at the time.

Consequently it's ridiculous.

Re:links to patents

[floodo1]

Reading that first patent is quite interesting. They basically patented a system of on screen objects that you can select in order to handle call waiting functionality....which was a new invention compared to the old way of using the 1,2,3 and send keys, which was confusing for people (according to the patent).

Highlights the ludicrousness of patents. "Hey man, this is groundbreaking stuff here, making a menu system with simple text labels instead of making people remember which number to press at which time". Pretty much NOTHING new about the idea, just the specific application to cell phones .... /LAME

patent troll?

[rgbrenner]

is there really a debate about if MobileMedia is a patent troll?

They hold patents. Check.
Specifically formed to sue other companies for patent infringement. Check
They don't make a single product or use their patents in any way. Check.

Definitely a patent troll. There is no debate.

I get it.. you hate Apple. But don't pretend like these assholes are suddenly good for everyone.

Re:patent troll?

[squiggleslash]

If they're owned by companies that actually make products, then presumably they're more of a consortium (like the MPEG LA) than a patent troll, per-se.

I don't know, I hate software patents, but I like seeing companies that trying to destroy competitors products by abusing the patent system being themselves a victim of it.

Re:patent troll?

[Coolhand2120]

They are jointly owned by Nokia and Sony. So the developers of the technology in question own the company. It is not simply a 3rd party that buys up patents to sue other companies. Because they are owned by the people who developed the technology, I wouldn't call them a patent troll.

There's your problem ...

[gstoddart]

U.S. patent 6,427,078, which covers a data processing device

Is so broad as to cover everything like a computer, but smaller.

From the actual patent:

The object of the invention is a device for personal communication, data collection and data processing, which is a small-sized, portable and hand-held work station comprising a data processing unit (2); a display (9); a user interface (10, 11); a number of peripheral device interfaces (12, 17); at least one memory unit (13); a power source, preferably a battery (3); and an application software. According to the invention the device also comprises a camera unit (14). The camera unit (14) comprises a camera (14a), preferably a semiconductor camera, and optics (14b) connected thereto, which are placed in the housing (1) of the device. Alternatively, the camera unit (14) is fitted on a PCMCIA card (15) which can be connected to the PCMCIA card slot (16) of the device. An object of the invention is also a PCMCIA card (15) provided with a camera unit (14).

I'm sorry, but that's Von Neumann architecture with some form of camera attached.

Since it starts with the definition of work-station and then simply says it is hand held, it basically is one of those "with a computer" (or in this case cell phone) patents.

I'm not going to go through each of the claims on the patent, but I'm not seeing anything in here that sounds like an invention -- just a description of a small computer with its own display. Which to me, means this patent should have never been granted.

Re:There's your problem ...

[tsotha]

Probably true, but Apple has been suing the hell out of everyone with the same kind of flimsy portfolio. Sauce for the goose.

Re:There's your problem ...

[gstoddart]

Probably true, but Apple has been suing the hell out of everyone with the same kind of flimsy portfolio. Sauce for the goose.

Maybe, maybe not.

Unfortunately, with the way the patent system is structured, every company wants to/has to patent as many things as they possibly can. And every company wants to use patents to skew the market in their favor -- either by insisting on licensing of patents which are absurd, or preventing competitors from selling similar products.

At a certain point, the lawyers do well with it, and the consumers (who invariably get all of these legal fees passed onto them) suffer.

From what I've been able to see, patents don't lead to innovation -- they lead to endless bickering among companies about who invented a rectangle with square corners, and who owns the rights to a "Device for personal communications, data collection and data processing, and a circuit card".

So many of these patents either cover something which should be fairly obvious to anybody in the field (the "with a computer" patents), or end up covering something which other people invented and have been doing for a while. I can't remember what it was, but I remember seeing something in the last 5-10 years which was the topic of a patent lawsuit, and it covered stuff I'd learned in school and which people had been talking about for a while.

This is just pissing contests between multi-nationals for the most part.

Re:There's your problem ...

[gstoddart]

Actually reading claim 1, we see a patent for a handheld computer containing a camera, that uses a radio to transmit the pictures. In claim 2, this is specified to be the cellular phone network. Now what's interesting is that the first cell-phone cameras came to market in the summer of 1997. Surely this is prior art, yes? And the whole patent is invalid?

So, I ask you, before 1995 did we have the technology for a computer to transmit images of a camera over a network? The answer, of course, is in 1991 someone had a webcam which showed the coffee pot.

From the same link, the first commercial webcam was available in 1994, which is now a year before your lower bound. So by then we'd had cameras sending stuff over the network via a computer for years.

So, now walk me through this one, since I'm apparently quite slow ... if I take something which is already being done "on a computer" and "using a network", which specific part of "hand-held computer" and "cellular network" causes this to be an "invention"?

We already had desktop computers. We already had some inklings of hand held computers. We could already hook a camera up to a computer and send images over a network. And, by 1990 we had already reached the point of being able to generalize the concept of 'network' to include arbitrary transport mechanisms (IP over Avian Carrier), so a cellular network is a specific variant of networking instead of something fundamentally new. The general problems of networking had been well discussed for years.

So, given that several years before this patent was even applied for we had mechanisms to "allow a computer to transmit the output of a semi-conductor camera over a network" -- I find it awfully difficult to figure out how this represents anything other than taking several already common things, and putting them into a smaller device which uses a cellular network.

Small isn't magic. Radio isn't magic. Cellular networks aren't magic. So to me, the first web cam of how much coffee was left covers almost all of the functional aspects of this patent -- except in a smaller box. And the last I checked "in a smaller box" isn't really sufficient to differentiate yourself as a distinct patent.

If someone had shown me this patent in 1997, I would have said the same thing -- in what way is taking something you can already do, but on a different device something which merits a patent?

Re:There's your problem ...

[gstoddart]

REALLY? Rounded corners? Who are you kidding? There's no "maybe, maybe not" about it. Get real.

You get real ... the fact is that, once the patent office granted someone a design patent, it's the same as any other patent, and enforceable.

Do I think it's a good or sensible patent? Absolutely not. Does that change the fact that it was granted? Not at all.

I think for the most part, patents don't work, are usually overly broad, and do very little to foster anything resembling real innovation.

From there all manner of stupidity ensues. If the patent office had said "Patent rounded corners? Are you insane?" and kicked out the patent, it would be a moot point. But, they didn't ... and every bit of stupidity which comes thereafter is an entirely logical result from the starting conditions.

If people are going to be granted absurd, but legally enforceable patents, what do you think will happen?

As they say, don't hate the player, hate the game -- I generally don't care which company is doing stupid things with the patent system, because the brokenness lies in the patent and legal system. But the game has turned all of the players into idiots and asshats.

Re:When?

[MickyTheIdiot]

This argument gets repeated ad nauseum, but economics says that the market determines the price. If they pass these costs off the consumen en masse then they don't sell devices.

Incoming Call Rejection Patent

[Doctor Morbius]

IncomingNumber := GetIncomingCallNumber();
RejectCall := SearchRejectedNumbersList(IncomingNumber);
If (RejectCall)
        RejectIncomingCall();
else
        AnswerIncomingCall();

There I just wrote the code to reject incoming calls if the number is in the rejected numbers list. How is this patentable?

Re:Incoming Call Rejection Patent

[MickyTheIdiot]

Enjoy your cease and desist notices!

Re:Incoming Call Rejection Patent

[jittles]

IncomingNumber := GetIncomingCallNumber(); RejectCall := SearchRejectedNumbersList(IncomingNumber); If (RejectCall) RejectIncomingCall(); else AnswerIncomingCall();

There I just wrote the code to reject incoming calls if the number is in the rejected numbers list. How is this patentable?

Except that I don't think that is what the patent covers at all. First of all, the iPhone does not let you create a filter list that automatically rejects calls. At least not until iOS 6 (and I doubt the lawsuit was filed since the release of iOS 6 and has a judgement). Instead, I think this is a patent covering the ability to tell the cell tower to stop ringing your phone because you're not going to bother answering. That, at the time it was added to cell phones, was certainly novel as far as I know. I had never seen a POTS phone that let you reject a call instead of just muting the ringer. I didn't bother reading the patent, so I could be wrong. But my guess is the patent actually comes from the Erickson side of the house, and not actually from Sony as it existed at the time of the filing.

Oh, they don't mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wealthy corporations consider patent litigation to be a cost of doing business. They are happy to accept the risk of being victimized by a patent lawsuit from another wealthy corporation, in return for the ability to squash any-and-every small upstart that might threaten their empire.

Fellow wealthy corporations are generally not a threat to one another. Even when in the same market space, they just form cartel arrangements, pay each other licence fees, and jointly dominate the market. The only real threat they face are young individuals with novel ideas forming small/nimble businesses that totally upset the existing market landscape. The fact that the ability to build such businesses is the foundation of the American dream (and very good for the economy) means nothing. All they care about is protecting them and theirs from such threats, and patent law does an excellent job of that.

To those who object that small businesses can get patents too: realize that having a patent means jack squat if you don't have the financial resources to afford the patent litigation. Small businesses never do, whether they own any patents or not.

Re:Oh, they don't mind.

[oGMo]

The only real threat they face are young individuals with novel ideas forming small/nimble businesses that totally upset the existing market landscape.

Yes but let's not pretend Apple is a "young upstart" just trying to live the American Dream. They're the problem, as much as any other large corp. And unfortunately this is a clear counterexample to your "the only real threat they face" assertion. Apple won't play nice with the other megacorps. This is really a bigger threat, because it means your cartel-esque arrangements can't be made.

I expect everyone else to band together and make an example out of Apple for any other megacorp who wants to try this in the future, which is what's essentially happening in this case.

Re:Oh, they don't mind.

[Eskarel]

The problem with Apple is that they are probably the largest abuser of the patent system going at the moment. They're not a young upstart, they're not "fighting the cartels", they're using patent law to form a monopoly cartel of one because they are even more greedy and evil than their competition. I hope people make an example out of Apple because they are working very hard on breaking the entire patent system and not in a "we're going to free this up for innovation" way, in a "no one will ever do anything at all in the mobile market if they're not us" way.

really conflicted on this

[roc97007]

I want to side with Apple on this, the patents themselves seem ridiculous. But Apple has misbehaved in exactly the same manner, for the same absurdly ridiculous details. It's apparent that it's not about the individual patents, it's a full-on mud wrestle.

Re:really conflicted on this

[ImprovOmega]

Shamelessly stealing from another post in another thread:

It's like when Hitler went to war against Stalin. You want Stalin to win, but not by too much.

Re:really conflicted on this

[headwes]

Apple is pissed off that everyone copied them. And everyone did. This is not in dispute. THIS REALLY HAPPENED.

Oooh, let me try!

Re:Every phone...

[Andy Prough]

So, you make a point of ONLY purchasing infringing devices?

those proverbial chickens are coming home to roost

[zuki]

Given Apple's current stances on these very issues, I don't expect they're going to get a lot of sympathy here

Yet beyond the mere satisfaction of seeing the bully take a couple, it does highlight how inherently flawed the patent system has become, and that whether copyrights, patents or trademarks, it's all become so lawyered up as to defeat the very purpose of these limited protections.

That it arguably poisons the well for the rest of us and human innovation at large is something future generations are going to have to come to grips with; in the meantime as I don't see any short-term end in sight. Not a good time to be a start-up in that space.

Re:those proverbial chickens are coming home to ro

[DCFusor]

Mod parent up. Succinct statement of reality, rare.
Actually, it's been bad to be a startup for awhile. You can't invent any one thing, then bring it to market without stepping on 100's of patents at least, if it is significant - and why bother if it's not? Your one measly patent has no hope against a well-lawyer armed adversary who wants to lawyer you into the ground and steal your one patent from you in bankruptcy. You need a portfolio of 100's to 1000's of patents to get them interested in cross licensing. No startup can generate that.

I was a business owner (software dev for customers), then a VC. I've had to give up both, it's just too dangerous out there to be creative.

Apple: Ignore the double-standard!

[Chas]

Because when someone else sues *Apple*, they're a "patent troll".

But when *Apple* does the same thing in suing others, they're just "protecting innovation".

Ow. Need to see an ophthalmologist now. I just rolled my eyes so hard I strained something.

Sadly probably not

[oGMo]

I hope that Steve Jobs' thermonuclear approach to Android will backfire on an epic level: once the patent wars leave the shell of dead corporations strewn all over the landscape, people will huddle together and promise themselves "never again" And the only way to do that: no more patents.

That is not the only way. The more probable approach is that the next round of "standards" won't be, that corps involved (e.g., Motorola, Samsung, Sony, and others who are usually involved in actual R&D) will patent the hell out of everything, and this time no Mr. FRAND Nice Guy. Everyone will know Apple is the enemy unwilling to share its toys in the sandbox, and no one will let Apple play. Apple gets squashed out of the market, and it's a lesson to the next company who wants to try the same approach.

Re:Slashdot... Where patent trolls are evil!!!

[Dragonslicer]

Just because one side of a dispute is evil, that doesn't mean that the other side isn't also evil. "Evil" is not some monolithic organization that only fights "Good". Sometimes evil fights evil.