Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Israeli Company Sues Apple Over Dual-Lens Cameras In iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus (macrumors.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the proprietary-technologies dept.

Corephotonics, an Israeli maker of dual-lens camera technologies for smartphones, has filed a lawsuit against Apple this week alleging that the iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus infringe upon four of its patents. Mac Rumors reports: The patents, filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between November 2013 and June 2016, relate to dual-lens camera technologies appropriate for smartphones, including optical zoom and a mini telephoto lens assembly: U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032; U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712; U.S. Patent No. 9,185,291; U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152. Corephotonics alleges that the two iPhone models copy its patented telephoto lens design, optical zoom method, and a method for intelligently fusing images from the wide-angle and telephoto lenses to improve image quality. iPhone X isn't listed as an infringing product, despite having a dual-lens camera, perhaps because the device launched just four days ago.

56 comments

  1. Re:so bold, original too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about: they tried to sell the technology to Apple, had numerous meetings and divulged loads of technical information, and then after a year Apple comes out with an almost identical design...

    Would that make you feel otherwise?

  2. Too early to say what's what by i286NiNJA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It all depends on how they actually managed to intelligently merge images in the optical assembly. It seems strange though it's not as though nobody else does similar things. It would be like stepping on a GIF patent when there's a perfectly acceptable PNG you could have used to accomplish the same thing.

  3. Re:so bold, original too by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but I think Apple gave Xerox a bunch of stock options in exchange for that.

    Wait, what are we talking about again?

  4. Re: so bold, original too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, almost as crazy as claiming to have invented rectangles with rounded corners.

  5. dual-lens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dual-eyes, period.

    1. Re:dual-lens? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      It's not even the first digital camera with dual lenses

    2. Re:dual-lens? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there are predecessors to that as well since dual lens cameras date to 1870. Now the purposes for dual lenses have varied, so there needs to be a very feature that's novel included for it to be patentable (theoretically)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:dual-lens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how I jump with joy, each time Apple gets a taste of its own medicine from companies that are almost as idiotic about patents as they are! serves them right! I hope Apple will lose big time! :-) god knows they deserve it... and then some!

  6. Re:Only 7 Comments? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    *lenses

  7. Goose by markdavis · · Score: 1, Funny

    "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

    1. Re:Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is what Apple will say when they sue someone next time, right? You can't selectively supported the patent system based solely on who is getting sued.

    2. Re:Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes you can. It's called the home advantage. You can expect their lawyers to say the word "Israeli" very loudly in court.

    3. Re:Goose by boudie2 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Tim Cook: Yeah, well I'm gonna sue the Jews for sinking the Titanic.
      Lawyer: An Iceberg sank the Titanic.
      Tim Cook: Iceberg, Goldberg, what's the difference?

    4. Re:Goose by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      It's called the home advantage. You can expect their lawyers to say the word "Israeli" very loudly in court.

      That sort of strategy generally doesn't end well. A lot of judges will agree before the trial begins that the parties can't mention irrelevant and potentially prejudicial things like the nationality of the patent owner without first explaining to the judge why it's important to do so in a particular circumstance.

    5. Re: Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you remember when several patents was won by Samsung but then became toothless because the US president stopped the injunction?

    6. Re: Goose by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Icebergs and the Titanic are both included in "everything."

    7. Re: Goose by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Banana Republic.

      US and China are so similar?

    8. Re:Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antisemite!!!!!
      Hitler.
      End of discussion

    9. Re:Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Israeli company is suing Apple. Take your anti-Semitic tripe and shove it.

    10. Re:Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya cause Jews are never racist. I guess you are not a student of history.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJOV_cN-JP8
      Forever Pure

  8. So you didn't even read the first claim of the pat by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I see you didn't even read the first claim of the patent.
    Just first claim requires:
    Total track length less than 6.5mm (has anyone else made a 5-element telephoto lens that small? Apple hadn't.)
    Focal less |f2|>1.5Ã--f1

    That's the first claim. Claims 2-19 get more and more specific.

  9. Slashdot ate half my post by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Slashdot ate the second half of the first claim:

    in order from an object side to an image side:
    a first lens element with a focal length f1 and positive refractive power,
    a second lens element with a focal length f2 and negative refractive power and
    a third lens element with a focal length f3,
    the focal length f1, the focal length f2 and the focal length f3 fulfilling the condition 1.2x|f3|>|f2|>1.5xf1.

    1. Re:Slashdot ate half my post by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Still doesn't sound like it should be patentable.

  10. Good artists copy; Great artists steal by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs taught Tim Cook well.

    1. Re:Good artists copy; Great artists steal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      hope he also gave him medical tips

  11. Re: so bold, original too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, almost as crazy as claiming to have invented rectangles with rounded corners.

    or sliding from one side to another to unlock something

  12. What about Samsung?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Total track length less than 6.5mm (has anyone else made a 5-element telephoto lens that small? Apple hadn't.)

    Pretty sure Samung has

    And how exactly is taking a lens design with multiple elements and making it smaller novel?

    The second half sounds like it just continues a generic recipe for making a camera lens, rather than being "specific" it seems absurdly broad.

    We'll see how it shakes out, but if it goes badly every camera maker that includes a camera is in trouble.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What about Samsung?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets bring apple to justice first; then worry about the other camera makers.

    2. Re:What about Samsung?? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because creating a legal precedent absolutely wouldn't be a problem for everyone else's legal defense, especially if they happen to have less resources than Apple (which would be everyone).

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:What about Samsung?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how exactly is taking a lens design with multiple elements and making it smaller novel?

      There is something called Physics which is rumored to be a rule-breaking bitch at extremes (small and big)

  13. Apple: living and dying by the sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple just won a stupid, ridiculous patent lawsuit against Samsung.

    Now Apple is being sued over a stupid, ridiculous patent.

    Patent law is evil. And Apple, which lives by that sword, is now on the other end of the blade.

    1. Re:Apple: living and dying by the sword by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Even if Apple didn’t inforce patents it would still get legal suits over patent infringement.
      Because they are about 10 million patents and undoubtedly any high tech design would come across them. And unlike trademark laws. You don’t have to inforce a patent claim to prove it is valid so you can hold onto it until someone makes a load of money and then you can get a big chunk of cash from it. Vs stopping it before they make a product and you get little.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Apple: living and dying by the sword by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      When are you people going to realize the difference between design patents and technical patents?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  14. Re:so bold, original too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apple typical thieving of other companies tech.

  15. damn, dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    harsh

    Funny, though.

  16. Re:Israeli Patents Should Be Banned by Sun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow!

    It's not common to see someone openly advocating for collective punishment.

    Is there any other group of people you think should be punished for their government's actions?

    Shachar

  17. Prior art? by greatpatton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can someone tell us why this (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9094527764/kodakv570) is not a clear prior art (and probably covered by Kodak patents)? Because by reading the claims in their patent I don't see the real difference

    1. Re:Prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's not a smart phone.

    2. Re:Prior art? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      This older patent while not exactly the same as the Corephotonics patents would seem to be necessary for the Corephotonics technique to work but Corephotonics didn't cite it in any of their patent applications. That could spell trouble for Corephotonics. Apple could challenge all of their Corephotonics patents on that basis. At the very least, Apple could force Corephotonics into a lengthy lawsuit that only ends up in cross-licensing instead of mutually assured destruction.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Prior art? by Cesare+Ferrari · · Score: 1

      On a first quick read, it appears to be on about combining two separate streams into one, with the cameras looking in different directions (so basically multiplexing), not combining two camera images into a single image.

    4. Re: Prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So prior art ?

  18. Me too by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    I have 2 eyes, I'll sue them as well.

  19. Re: so bold, original too by jbengt · · Score: 1

    Yeah, almost as crazy as claiming to have invented rectangles with rounded corners.

    No one ever claimed that. It was a design patent, not a utility patent.

  20. Re:Israeli Patents Should Be Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing innocent civilians caught in the middle is though, also so is bulldozing innocent civilians' houses, fencing off innocent civilians' land etc.

    War is not a clean duel. War is messy and those caught in between warring factions generally are collateral damage.

  21. Re:so bold, original too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And product names.

  22. Re:So you didn't even read the first claim of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in your view making things smaller is patentable and valid?

  23. Re: Israeli Patents Should Be Banned by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    They lost the land. Stop being sore losers, crybaby.