Slashdot Mirror
Apple And AT&T Sued For Infringement Over iPhone Haptic Patents (computerworld.com)
Haptic technology company Immersion has accused Apple and carrier AT&T of infringement of three of its patents in the latest iPhone models and Apple watches. Immersion, which claims over 2,100 issued or pending patents worldwide covering various aspects and commercial applications of haptic or touch feedback technology, has asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to ban the import of the specified iPhone and Apple Watch models in the U.S., besides suing for damages in a Delaware federal court, company CEO Victor Viegas said in a conference call Thursday. Immersion decided to include AT&T and subsidiary AT&T Mobility in the action because the carrier is the most significant distributor of the iPhone in the U.S.
They both will be around forever
... Seriously, going after the carriers? As much as they deserve it, they didn't make the damn device. That's like suing Walmart for a product they are selling, it makes no sense.
This is never covered in any coverage of patent cases. The actual substance. Because it is too hard for journalists to understand. So we just get the fluff.
I miss Groklaw.
FTA - "Feedback based on pressure-sensitive interactions with the touch screens."
The real question is, "Did "Immersion" actually invent anything novel, did they regurgitate an obvious concept, or did they describe something that they could not actually pull off?" IANAL, however upon examination of the three patents in question:
8,619,051 should be invalidated by prior art of a force feedback joystick.
8,773,356 is a meaningless over-broad software "method" patent.
8,659,571 is another meaningless over-broad software "method" patent.
If I were part of a patent trial jury, I would consider nullification of this and many other patent cases. If the patent system is broken, the courts are broken, and the legislature is broken, then it is our duty to make a train wreck out of patent trolls.
The LRA Haptics they used has drivers that are available with a rather complete Immersion library. If they emulated any of the movements, they are likely in violation of the concept and specific implementation. Buying the more advanced licensed chip from TI for a tiny bit more, and they would have been likely fine. This comes down to about a $1 a phone saved, so there is a minimum exact figure there plus violations.
They didn't invent the thing they claim Apple infringes in their patents, ergo trolls.
You might actually read the patents, they are generall of the form {device+feedback+specific}, the patent is really for the specific, but the full claims describe the generic feedback device, and they're trying to use the generic parts as an over-arching infringement for anything Haptic related in any device.
This was always a weakness in the patent system, you didn't have to explain what is the key novel part of the invention, so whenever they make a claim, you have to go through all the generic stuff and show it pre-existed. Trolls love this, but its really damaging.
We should abandon patents altogether.
no, I don't have a sig
Immersion pulled the same thing on Sony and Microsoft back in 2002:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_v._Sony
It was a pretty big deal, and (probably) lead to one of the big PS3 launch PR failures. Sony tried to claim that force feedback was a "last-gen feature" or some such nonsense, and didn't include it in the original "SIXAXIS" versions of the PS3 controller.
Immersion has produced some cool stuff, though. The Logitech iFeel mouse was basically a demo for their haptic feedback tech, and had some pretty interesting features.
for something that gives touch feedback and is controlled by two s/w applications.
And was around in 2007.
A force feedback joystick for gaming.
A stick shaker on an Airbus.
A pager or phone in silent mode providing more than one type of notification with the vibrator.
Experimental VR gloves.
Claim 1:
A haptic feedback system comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor,
wherein the memory stores a plurality
of pre-defined haptic effects;
an actuator drive circuit
coupled to the processor;
and an actuator
coupled to the actuator drive circuit;
wherein the processor is adapted
to output a first stored haptic effect
of the pre-defined haptic effects
in response to
a haptic effect request;
wherein the haptic effect request is a control signal generated
in response to a first application
that identifies the first stored haptic effect to be played;
wherein the output causes the first stored haptic effect to be played;
wherein the entire haptic output
in response to the haptic effect request
consists of the first stored haptic effect;
wherein an application program interface (API)
receives the haptic effect request
from the first application
and retrieves the requested first stored haptic effect,
wherein the first application is registered with the API
and a second application is also registered with the API
and has access to the first stored haptic effect.
... against a material's proper use? It begs the question why the materials' provider aren't sued.