Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iPhone Infringes On Sony, Nokia Patents, Says Federal Jury

Posted by timothy on from the orange-you-glad-I-didn't-say-samsung? dept.

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."

11 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Live by the sword . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . 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.

    1. Re:Live by the sword . . . by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Live by the sword . . . by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Live by the sword . . . by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      . . . 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.

  2. links to patents by schneidafunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  3. patent troll? by rgbrenner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:patent troll? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. There's your problem ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:There's your problem ... by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:There's your problem ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Oh, they don't mind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.