Slashdot Mirror
Bose Sues New Apple Acquisition Beats Over Patent Violations
Bose has taken issue with some of the technology embodied in products in Apple's newly acquired Beats line of headphones. As Ars Technica reports, Bose is suing Apple, claiming that the Beats products violate five Bose patents, covering noise cancellation and signal processing
Although Bose never mentions Apple in the 22-page complaint, the acquisition price of the private company may have played a part in spurring Bose to sue. The suit doesn't include a specific damage demand.
Bose has also filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission against Beats over the same infringement claims. That means the patent lawsuit filed in federal court will be stayed while the ITC case gets resolved first.
Those who can't create, litigate.
It amazes me how often news companies fail to understand technological issues: The New York Times authors are would-be novelists.
Was it smart for Apple to buy Beats by Dre?
Bose and Beats are both highly brand-focused. Bose targets the more mature quality-seeking crowd, while Beats targets the bass-hungry and fashion-conscious youth. There's some overlap, but generally I'd say their targets kept competition to a minimum, and they've pretty much cornered those targets
Apple has the best of both worlds being viewed both as high quality and a status symbol. If they start using their monster marketing teams to align peoples' view of Beats with that of Apple, Bose stands a chance of being pushed out of the market by a frightening direct competition. They've got good reason to try to stall the acquisition as much as possible
Quick, Slashdotters - tell me who to hate!
#DeleteChrome
U.S. Patent No. 5,653,765 "the placebo effect"
Bose: They have infringed on our patents for crappy sound reproduction!
Beats/Apple: Crap! We got nothin'! We weren't expecting them to play the "blunt honesty" card!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The thing that commenters over at Ars haven't picked up on - this patent is only infringed if the customer wears the headphones without playing music. Noise cancellation with added music - OK, there's prior art for that. Turn the music off - it becomes patentable technology.
The claim states that Bose is on the hook because their documentation states that you can use the headphones without music for noise cancellation only, which induces their customers to infringe Bose's patents.
How is that legit? How can not adding music create a patentable technology?
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Beats (and by extension, apple) is overpriced, overhyped shit. Bose is overpriced, overhyped shit. I sincerely hope they cost each other millions with this.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Apple is being hit by a dubious patent claim, from a company that does have a product but probably didn't invent anything, after extensive lobbying to allow exactly this sort of situation. They so deserve this. I would say "live by the sword, die by the sword" but I don't think Apple is actually in any risk of dying.
Everyone complains about boses cost, the are based in Massachusetts and they have a plant in South Carolina for 1/2 their stuff. Where do the other companies build there stuff.
A) Why didn't Bose sue Beats BEFORE Apple bought them? That makes this case sound much more about targeting a cash hoard than anything else.
2) Why didn't Apple buy Bose? Aside from the obvious answer that Apple bought branding instead of technology, Bose surely must have something Apple would want. If not, then the Beats acquisition is only about image which doesn't make much sense given that Apple has been pretty good at creating their own image over the last 10+ years.
Bose is an over-priced lifestyle product for the middle aged. Beats is an over-priced status symbol for teens. Both groups of people are unaware that products equal specs can be purchased for much less and that superior products can be purchased for the same price.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Apple bought Beats for the online-music streaming service Beats was launching, including all the licensing deals that they already completed with record companies. Apple's own crappy headphones were already better then Beats'.
> violate five Bose patents,
The correct verb is "infringes". Infringement is the specific act associated with intellectual property. Violation is for police searches and forcible insertion.
Lots of interesting chatter on here so far, but I don't see anyone making the obvious connection...
Beats have been producing headphones for a while now, and Bose have (AFAIK) bothered to either sue them, or approach them with claims of patent infringement. [ Disclaimer - this is entirely possible, and it's also possible we would not hear about such conversation ].
For Bose to come out swinging now, only *after* Apple put in a move to make the purchase, causes all sorts of issues. Other posters who have surmised this is because Bose are now frightened that with Apple financial muscle they might become a major competitor of Bose would be right. But the thing is, from a legal perspective Bose are going to be on dodgy ground and will struggle to be able to claim that this is anything other than a specious case.
It reads for all the world as though Bose were "ok" to turn a blind eye to what they assumed Beats had been doing while they were a stand-alone company, but suddenly "concerned" with patent violation the moment the Apple behemoth took an interest. Apple's lawyers will have a field day with this. Not only will they go after the patents themselves [and are likely to find either prior art and/or claims that are "obvious to a practitioner skilled in the art"] but they will of course gleefully point out that Bose had their chance to complain and blew it. Apple, they will argue, would have either not made the deal had they known of Bose intent, or would have struck the deal for substantially less.
The more you look at this, the more it looks like a shake-down deal by Bose, concerned that they will be steam-rollered by the Apple juggernaut.
In one sense it may be in the interests of the broader consumer public for Bose to win this - we have enough juggernaut multinationals stamping out choice as it is - but Bose look to be light on facts and heavy on neglicence, and that may not serve them well in court.
Pass the popcorn; this could be fun. Shame that PJ gave up on Groklaw...
I browsed a few audiophile forums in the past, and it was funny because they NEVER agreed on anything... EXCEPT for one thing... they all agreed that Bose was the worst speaker company ever. A company that sold products based purely on marketing.
Dre sold it off just in time for a patent suit to come down the line. Luck or sneakiness?