Posted on 10/02/2010 11:33:09 PM PDT by Swordmaker
A private Delaware company by the name of Olympic Developments AG, LLC, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the California Central District Court Los Angeles Division against several major technology companies including Apple Inc., Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., DirecTV, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Nintendo of America, Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment of America, LLC, Sony Electronics, Inc. and Valve Corporation. The lawsuit, in context with Apple specifically, appears to be concerning the sale of goods through Apple's iTunes and App Stores via an iPad or iPhone in a manner claimed in the patents-in-suit.
Nature of the Complaint
According to court documents, "this is a patent infringement action to stop Defendants' infringement of Plaintiff's United States Patent No. 5,475,585 entitled "Transactional Processing System" (the "''585 patent"; a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) and United States Patent No. 6,246,400 entitled "Device for Controlling Remote Interactive Receiver" (the"'400 patent"; a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B) (collectively, "the patents-in-suit"). Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the '585 patent and '400 patent with respect to the Defendants. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
The Alleged Patent Infringement In-Part
According to court documents, "plaintiff [Olympic Developments AG, LLC] is informed and believes that Apple owns, operates, advertises, controls, sells and otherwise provides hardware, software and websites for "online music, application and bookstore services" including via the iPad and iPhone ("the Apple devices") and iTunes Store and App Store ("the Apple websites"), both accessible through the Apple devices and via the iTunes software client. Upon information and belief, Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '585 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, systems and methods for purchasing products and services and processing corresponding financial transactions, including via the Apple websites and Apple devices. Upon information and belief, Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '400 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, systems and methods for remotely selecting and receiving desired programming selections, including via the Apple Websites and Apple devices. More particularly, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Apple has and/or requires and/or directs users to access and/or view and/or purchase products from a remote programming system at the iTunes Store and App Store via an iPad or iPhone remote receiver device in a manner claimed in the patents-in-suit. Upon information and belief, Apple has also contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, and/or actively induced others to infringe one or more claims of the patents-in-suit via the Apple websites and the Apple devices, in this district and elsewhere in the United States."
Patent Images
The first patent Figure 1B noted below is from patent 5,475,585 entitled "Transactional Processing System." The second patent Figure 12 is from patent 6,246,400 entitled "Device for Controlling Remote Interactive Receiver."
The filing on behalf of Olympic Developments AG, LLC was made by Attorney Steven W. Ritcheson on September 28, 2010. The Presiding Judge is noted as being George H Wu. It should be noted that no further information could be found online in respect to this Delaware Company.
Notice: Patently Apple presents only a brief summary of certain legal cases/ lawsuits which are part of the public record for journalistic news purposes. Readers are cautioned that Patently Apple does not offer an opinion on the merit of the case and strictly presents the allegations made in said legal cases / lawsuits. A lawyer should be consulted for any further details or analysis. About Comments: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments. On most legal cases, comments will be closed
The idea is also obvious and extremely broad. I doubt it would stand up to even a cursory challenge.
You might be a bit bias swordmaker.
Exactly. None of these companies are using this technology detailed in the file.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
I call it as I see it. I read both patents, allmost. You might try it before you accuse me of being biased.
The 585 patent: Transactional Processing System.
The 400 patent: Device for Controlling Interactive Receiver.
Incidentally, although the news reports are singling out the suit against Apple as the lead defendant, the plaintiff has named Microsoft, Amazon, Son, DirecTV, and a veritable who’s who of Internet retailers as targets. This “idea” patent was granted in 1995, where have the law suits been in the intervening 15 years???
I would note the mention of “Delaware Company” as a caution to this article.
More likely, what the writer meant was “Delaware Corporation” which is akin to a legal “front” organization.
It is extremely easy in some states (like DE ) to file as a “corporation”, ie., a legal business, regardless of where you are actually located.
If you are a LLC, a limited liability corp., or such, all you need is a mailing address, and the necessary paperwork and fees. You are now protected under DE law from certain legal actions, and are incredibly hard to trace as a real, honest company trying to earn an honest dollar.
Sounds like a massive con-artist scam to me.
It never ceases to amaze me how many patents are issued for ideas that the “authors” have no ideas how to produce and never even intended to produce — yet which serve admirably as snares for people and companies that actually have the brains to figure something out and make it work.
What’s it cost to file a patent? $25 bucks or so?
Then all you have to do is wait for some deep pocketed company to fund the research, pay the employees, buy the materials, do all the testing, package the product...
THEN pop out with your pretty patent papers and demand your share.
These kind of people are scum.
much as I despise apple I agree. Somebodys just looking for an easy settlement I think. Even so I hate these lawsuits everyone of them slows down the digital download market which is the ultimate consumer convenience. Enough lawsuits make companies leery about entering.
I am patenting the inhalation and exhalation of oxygen or mixture of gasses and oxygen.
Most of the Fortune 500 are domiciled in Delaware - it is business friendly. I wonder if you are thinking about NV, which fits your description more closely...
I have a DE corp, for the record...
MSFT is a Delaware corporation - as is Google ... As examples.
No disrespect toward you, allmost, but I disagree. First, the 585 patent is not a technological patent. It's not even a software patent. It's an "idea" patent. A very simple one built on a flow chart.
The 400 patent is not one either. The so called "inventor" hasn't a clue about how his keypad device with a magnetic card reader would accomplish what he proposes it would do, just that some how, magically, an engineer, taking his description of what he wants it do do, would actually someday really truely invent what his pipe dream can do. Look at his box drawings of modules in his credit card transmitter. "Let's hang a light here... Why? Cause things like this need lights, that's why!"
Ideas did not used to be patentable. You HAD to have a working device or design.
“...Ocean, by Calvin Klein...”
Yes, NV, and also Alaska are “business friendly”.
However, many con artists take advantage of those states and their business friendly laws to protect themselves from creditors, and prosecution.
A simple google search for “scams Delaware Corporations” will produce links that will show you what I mean.
Well - that would be if the courts were based on any functioning logic. Unfortunately, as the coverflow case demonstrates - logic doesn't seem to matter... You just need a court and a jury without a clue...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.