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.

26 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

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

    *lenses

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

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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

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

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

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

      Banana Republic.

      US and China are so similar?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.
  9. Re:dual-lens? by AC-x · · Score: 1

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

  10. 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

  11. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  12. Me too by nospam007 · · Score: 1

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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Re: Israeli Patents Should Be Banned by Brockmire · · Score: 1

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