Posted on 09/22/2010 6:30:50 PM PDT by Swordmaker
A private New Jersey Corporation by the name of Multi-Format Inc., has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in the Northern District of Illinois East District Court. The lawsuit appears to be concerning the sale and enabling of downloaded video content like movies and HDTV programming on iTunes to all of Apple's hardware including the iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. Multi-Format Inc., is seeking a "reasonable royalty" from Apple and has further asked the court to consider tripling the damages accessed if the damages are not found by a jury – according to the inclusion of sub-section 284 of the U.S. legal Code found in their complaint.
The Alleged Patent Infringement In-Part
A New Jersey Corporation by the name of Multi-Format Inc. is suing Apple for alleged patent infringement. The patent that is at the heart of this lawsuit is RE38,079 ("the '079 Patent") entitled: Multi-Format Audio/Video Production System.
The alleged patent infringement is laid out in-part as follows: "Apple has made, used, sold, offered for sale and/or imported products which enable the downloading and viewing of video programs, including, but not limited to, the personal computers, including the Power Mac G5, iPhone (including 3GS and 4G), iPad, iPod classic, iPod nano, iPod Touch, Apple TV, and iTunes products, throughout the United States, including in this judicial district. These acts by Apple have directly infringed at least claim 20 of the '079 Patent…"
"Apple has also committed and will continue to commit acts that constituted, with its knowledge of the '079 Patent, knowing and intentional inducement of the infringement of at least claim 20 of the '079 Patent by others within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) through, among other things, its acts of making, using, marketing, distributing, providing, testing, configuring, selling and/or offering to sell in the United States and importing into the United States Power Mac G5, iPhone (including 3GS and 4G), iPad, iPod classic, iPod nano, iPod Touch, Apple TV, and iTunes products; and allowing, authorizing or otherwise providing capability and/or access to third parties or its customers to, inter alia, download and view video programs. The use of the referenced products by Apple's customers or other third parties to, inter alia, download and view video programs, constitutes direct infringement within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
Apple's infringement has occurred with knowledge of the patents-in-suit and willfully and deliberately in violation of 35. U.S.C. § 284. For example, Apple was given actual notice of the patents-in-suit on or about November 13, 2009, when Multi-Format provided Apple with actual notice of the '079 patent and informed Apple of Multi-Format's belief that Apple was infringing the '079 patent. Apple has failed to adequately respond to Multi-Format's allegations of infringement and, upon information and belief, has not taken necessary steps to avoid infringement. Instead, Apple has continued to infringe the '079 patent, in an objectively reckless manner, with complete disregard of Multi-Format's rights in the '079 patent."
The Relief Sought in this Case
"Multi-Format demands judgment against Apple, including its affiliates, offers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them." The key judgment is:
"An award to Multi-Format of such damages as it shall prove at trial against Apple that is adequate to compensate for their unlawful conduct, said damages to be no less than a reasonable royalty, together with prejudgment interest from the date infringement of the '097 patent began."
The filing on behalf of Multi-Format Inc., was made by their attorneys NIRO, HALLER & NIRO out of Chicago, Illinois. Multi-Format seeks a trial by jury. Multi-Format Inc., is a private company categorized under "Motion Picture Producers and Studios."
OR YOUR ...not having to answer the same question multiple times from people that you, who are too lazy to read the post ARTICLE.
You like to download music TO DEFEAT PURCHASE of SAME and you are mad at Apple because they do things to thwart your efforts.
Poor baby... go back to your mom's basement and leave the men and women alone!
The iTunes Store hasn't had copy protection on music for a while. And AFAIK, all legal video services use some sort of copy protection.
That this patent was even granted shows the sad state of our patent system.
I down loaded the I phone software yesterday. Wonder if they will include me in the suit as “all persons in active concert or participation with them.”
What the heck kind of legal mumbo-jumbo is that? If the jury does NOT find damages, then they ask the court to TRIPLE damages? What??? is that kind of like "Heads I win, tails you lose?"
When was the patent granted? Such details and processes have been in use for a very long time in the area of video production... particularly on the Macintosh platform...
Details, details... don't confuse the haters with details (and the truth)... it just makes them mad.
Lest we forget what got Apple into the DRM business in the first place - it was a requirement many of the publishers/labels required to give them license to carry/sell their music and videos. The labels were very skeptical of online sales of their material in digital downloadable format. They demanded security to prevent piracy (which of course is a moving target at best). What I find interesting is that those same labels have not required the same protection from other sellers (Amazon being one).
Filed in 98, issued in 03. Running a source video through a series of filters including telecine (frame rate change from 24fps) and resize to achieve the desired effect dates at least back to the mid 90s for computers.
Jobs had already gotten one label to agree to non-DRM music before the Amazon store beta appeared. Eventually they all agreed.
They're lawyers. How deep are your pockets???
Yup... something that has been done since Movies were being sent to TV... at 30 frames per second in less than widescreen. Note also that this is a process that Apple does not do... it is done by the companies that convert the movies to digital format and place them on either DVD, BluRay, or digital HD storage formats from whatever original 24 frame per second format they were recorded in... film, analogue video or what have you. This invention—if valid,which I doubt, since they really don't tell how they accomplish this feat, just that it can be done—simply does not apply to Apple any more than it would apply to any cable, satellite or other provider who sends a movie that winds up being displayed on a TV that is shown at a display that is other than the original width or aspect ratio in pixel sizes.
I think what you have there is a failure of editing and writing...
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.