Patent Troll Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 12/06/2009 1:26:39 AM PST by Swordmaker
St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming the company is violating several of its digital camera patents.
Filed in the United States District Court in Delaware, the lawsuit claims that Apple’s iPhone camera infringes on four separate patents including the ‘459, ‘219, ‘010 and ‘899 patents the company holds.
St. Clair is not new to the patent infringement lawsuit game. In 2001, it sued Sony for infringing the same patents and won a $25 million judgement against the company. In 2003, it sued Canon and was awarded $34 million in damages.
Since then, St. Clair has filed suit against every major camera maker in the world including Fuji, Kyocera, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus and Casio. It also filed lawsuits against Samsung, Panasonic, Nokia, HP, Kodak, LG, Motorola, RIM and Palm, among many others.
Many of the companies sued for patent infringement have entered into licensing agreements with St. Clair.
St. Clair is seeking damages and a jury trial.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
This is the very sort of thing that made Shakespeare cry- ‘first we kill all the lawyers...’
Have any of their lawsuits been thrown out?
If not, they may have a case.
Have any of their lawsuits been thrown out?
Patent trolls should be thrown out... LOL
Let inventions/patented items be protected when developed and used. Time to update and improve our patent system...
They have a non-technical, "idea" patent, with which they never produced any products... it should never have been issued. It lay moribund from 1992 until 2003, when after it was sold to two lawyers for less than $100,000, it was used to sue Sony, who actually invented a digital camera using actual technology they actually created, to extract $24 million dollars of their profits... then two years later to sue Canon to extract $34 million from them.
Apple was also one of the first makers of digital computer cameras contemporaneous with the so called invention of this idea... and the "inventors" did not sue them then 17 years ago... they may have lost the right to sue Apple due to the legal concept of laches... by waiting too long.
That explains the awesome qualify of the photos sent from a friend’s iPhone.
If Apple is infringing on another company’s patents they ought to pay up.
They’ve got however long their patent is in effect before that doctrine even starts to run.
You do understand that the whole concept of patents is that you actually patent an IDEA! It's not a specific implementation that you patent, but the concept behind one (or more) implementations. Coming up with the idea to use a rotating turret on an ammunition loader is patented; you do not patent the exact implementation that you make.
Well, you COULD patent the exact implementation, but then you'd be severely restricting your own rights, and you'd have a terrible lawyer advising you about the scope of your patent. So patents are created for an idea or concept about how to make something or some process, and you patent the concepts relating to it, not the actual, physical implementation.
It lay moribund from 1992 until 2003, when after it was sold to two lawyers for less than $100,000,
No bearing on the validity of the patent. A patent is, in effect, a Government grant to exercise a monopoly. It is at the sole discretion of the inventor to exercise - or not exercise - that monopoly. And it does not have to have uniform application; for my own patents, I can choose to bar some from using it, others are charged a licensing fee, and still others may use it freely. My sole discretion.
it was used to sue Sony, who actually invented a digital camera using actual technology they actually created,
Apparently with ideas that were already patented. If I invented the concept of a transmission, and then you build the first car and use the transmission, your inclusion of my patent within your invention does not eliminate the efficacy or scope of my patent.
then two years later to sue Canon to extract $34 million from them.
Because Canon was found by a jury to be infringing the patent, and there was legal precedent from the Sony case.
Apple was also one of the first makers of digital computer cameras contemporaneous with the so called invention of this idea...
Then they can show prior art either pre-trial or at the trial, art that would protect them from the patent. Basically Apple must show beyond a reasonable doubt that they had come up with the invention on a date prior to that documented and shown by the patent holders.
Barring that, it is solid that the invention pre-dates Apple's use of the invention. And even if it was developed independently by Apple - with no knowledge or insight of the patent - they are still infringing, per US patent law. First to invent gets rights for 17 years.
nd the "inventors" did not sue them then 17 years ago...
No bearing on the case. If you infringe my patent now, and I am aware of it, I can still come and sue you 10 years from now. The fact I choose not to do so - or am even ignorant of your infringement - does not stop me from enforcing my patent rights in the future. If you are concerned, then best get a royalty-free license or a pledge that I will not sue you for infringement; relying up "well they never cared before" is no defense at all.
they may have lost the right to sue Apple due to the legal concept of laches...
Does not apply to patent law. The only statute of limitations with patents is the 17 (or slightly variable, now) year limit of the patent. You can sue for infringements within that time period only (and in most cases, immediately following if you can prove infringement during the time the patent was in force).
I hold a few patents myself (in the field of acoustics and magnetics), and am quite aware of the legal issues. I have licensed some (non-exclusively, of course) to big companies like Microsoft. I have also successfully defended my patents from infringement, both with simple legal notices of potential infringement and with actual lawsuits being filed.
There is no "time limit" by which you must enforce your patent rights. There isn't a mandate for fair and equitable licensing fees or access. Patents are enforced solely at the pleasure of the inventor.
Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;
There is no requirement that you actually implement your patent (unless so directed by the patent office to prove your claims), or to seek to commercialize or even pursue implementing your patent. It is at the discretion of the inventor.
This camera patent is a utility patent, it is for a process - an idea on how to do something, not how it is actually done. And apparently Apple has violated a solid patent (one that has been legally defended against several market leaders). Apple most likely does NOT have proof they had prior art, or it would not be advancing to court; showing prior art is the quickest way to kill a patent, and no patent lawyer in the land would advance to litigation when the defendant has proof of prior art.
From the USPTO:
"A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine."What you are talking about scope is the sad state of patents today. Often, it's not really the device that gets invented, but the sole creativity is involved in creating the patent itself.
No bearing on the validity of the patent.
The patent remains valid, but sitting on it can affect how much money you can get. It is unfair to let a company build up a product and make millions thinking they were in the clear, when you could have told them in the beginning that they were infringing. No, the patent holder only waits until the use gets big enough to cause a larger judgment. This is unfair, and what legal doctrines of equity try to stop.
Unfortunately, in the troll-friendly Eastern district of Texas, just meeting laches doesn't automatically mean the judge will grant equitable estoppel.
Apple must show beyond a reasonable doubt that they had come up with the invention on a date prior to that documented and shown by the patent holders.
Preponderance of the evidence standard. This is a civil case.
Speaking of the Eastern district, something needs to be done to stop all these trolls from going there. You can't say you have to sue in your own district, because many of these patent trolls are companies created in the Eastern district solely for the purpose of launching one lawsuit. But I'm sure something can be done.
This patent is of the type: if someone uses takes an image with some kind of electronic camera and converts it to a digital format and stores it in a computer compatible format then they could display it on a computer screen... IT includes all kinds of neat flow chart boxes but does not explain how, exactly they would do this. Apple, at the same time as this "invention" was wending its way through the patent office was already making and selling the Apple Quicktake Digital 100 camera. A digital camera that takes an image, converted it to a digital format and stored it in a computer compativle format and could display it on a computer screen. Try again.
Don’t talk tech to me!!!!!
I have years worth of pics in my digital camera. I don’t know how they in there and I don’t know how to get them out of there.
I even have pics in my cell phone. Don’t know how to get them out of there either.
Some day the Smithsonian will have an exhibit of these pics.
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.