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.

Comments

Cockroaches and patent trolls

[Iconoc]

They both will be around forever

What are the actual patents about

[aberglas]

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.

Re:What are the actual patents about

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Popular misunderstandings about Apple's "rounded corner" patent make Slashdot's ad-counter spin. Slashdot thrives in commenter ignorance.

Re: What are the actual patents about

[ThosLives]

The law is "obvious to one skilled in the art".

If the problem, as stated above, was "Have the perceived vibration be constant regardless of where the device was held", any mechanical engineer would tell you the obvious solution is to vary the amplitude and/or frequency of the vibration at the source point so the amplitude at the measurement / sense point is constant.

In fact, due to physics, this is the only way to possibly do that.

So unless the patent is some novel way of determining the sense point and then from there the desired input intensity, where "novel" means "not just doing some kind of exact or simulated wave simulation", I'd say that is indeed an obvious solution and should not have been granted a patent.

Re:Trolls

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

How about some facts?

1) The McDonalds coffee in question was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of causing serious 3rd degree burns.

2) Sheila Liebeck was, in fact, very badly burned by the coffee- a vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting.

3) During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992.

4) McDonalds revealed during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit "to maintain optimum taste". Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

5) Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would literally burn the mouth and throat.

6) The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages (she had originally only asked for $20,000). This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/c...