Replies

Apple AND Samsung sued by patent troll for selling phones that make phone calls and send and receive email! Claim that both Apple and Samsung are infringing patents the troll purchased. Files suit in the Rocket Docket in East Texas. — PING!

Pinging dayglored, Shadow Ace, and ThunderSleeps for their ping lists because of a stupid Patent Troll.

Apple and Samsung sued by Patent Troll
selling phones that make phone calls!
Ping!

The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me

Apple usually wins these. Beat his trolling butt

A Texas patent troll under the name Corydoras Technologies LLC that first sued Samsung in March is now suing Apple with a series of patents that they acquired from Japan which they claim are "presumed valid." The company claims that 20 specific models of Apple's iPhones and iPads infringe on various claims of their patents in respect to cameras, call blocking, FaceTime calling and more.

More specifically, the official complaint filed by Corydoras Technologies covers six patents by the same title "Communication Device. The patents involved include 7,778,664, 7,945,236, 7,945,287, 7,996,037, 8,024,009 and 8,731,540. The products listed in the lawsuit include the following: the iPhone 4, 4S, 5, 5S, 5C, 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus and SE (collectively "Accused iPhones"), and the iPad 2, iPad 3rd generation, iPad 4th generation, iPad Pro, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPad mini, iPad mini 2, iPad mini 3, and iPad mini 4 (collectively "Accused iPads").

The Corydoras Technologies lawsuit file with the court states in-part that "Apple's Accused iPhones and Accused iPads are capable of voice communication. For example, the Accused iPhones are made and sold with the capability to be used in telephone calls and FaceTime Audio calls. By way of further example, the Accused iPads are made and sold with the capability to be used in FaceTime Audio calls.

Apple's Accused iPhones and Accused iPads include a camera on the same side as the display. Apple refers to this camera as the "Front camera" on the iPhone 4 and 4S, and as the "FaceTime camera" for the remaining models of Apple's Accused iPhones and Accused iPads. When this camera is in use, Apple's Accused iPhones and Accused iPads are capable of displaying a mirror image of the object, such as a person, that is in the view of this camera. More at Source: "Apple Hit With Six Count Lawsuit Over iPad and iPhone Functions"—Patently Apple

Abstracts of each patent in suit:

Patent # 7,778,664:(filed: October 20, 2006, granted: August 17, 2010) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, a video phone mode, and a call blocking mode.
Patent # 7,945,236:(filed: April 10, 2010, granted: May 17, 2011) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, and a GPS mode, wherein the image retrieved from the camera is displayed in an inverted manner when the digital mirror mode is implemented, and the current geographic location of the communication device is indicated on the display when the GPS mode is implemented.
Patent # 7,945,287:(filed: May 16, 2011, granted: May 17, 2011) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, and a sound caller ID mode, wherein the image retrieved from the camera is displayed in an inverted manner when the digital mirror mode is implemented, and upon receiving a phone call, a specific sound corresponding to the caller of the phone call is output from the communication device when the sound caller ID mode is implemented.
Patent # 7,996,037:(filed: April 10, 2010, granted: August 9, 2011) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, and a voice dialing mode, wherein the image retrieved from the camera is displayed in an inverted manner when the digital mirror mode is implemented, and a dialing process is performed by utilizing an audio data retrieved via the microphone when the voice dialing mode is implemented.
Patent # 8,024,009: (filed: April 10, 2010, granted: September 20, 2011) Communications Device: A communication device, such as a mobile phone, which implements a voice communication mode, a digital mirror mode, and an answer rejecting mode, wherein the image retrieved from the camera is displayed in an inverted manner when the digital mirror mode is implemented, and answering to a phone call addressed to the communication device is rejected when the answer rejecting mode is implemented.
Patent # 8,731,540:(filed: September 16, 2011, granted: May 20, 2014) Communications Device: The communication device comprising a multiple function implementer, wherein the multiple function implementer implements a voice communication function, a digital mirror function, a non-digital mirror function, and an email function.

Every one of these "inventions" is based on an "original" application from October 2002, which is apparently based on Apple's own iChat application which was released in OS X.2 in August 2002 which had all of the supposedly unique features described, was available on a portable communications device, the Apple MacBook, except being available on a telephone like device, which makes this all prior art and an obvious development of the technology.

Note that these are all "idea" patents and do not spell out how these ideas are to be accomplished or implemented in technology. They are also all "inventions" of one person who NEVER, EVER implemented or licensed them, because he did not have a viable technology to sell, just an obvious, already implemented in other form idea that others were already using such as AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) which was first released May 1997 and used for video messaging, Skype (August 2003), and other competing video chat services which fell by the wayside. Apple iChat's patents cited AOL Instant Messenger as prior art. iChat could be used via WIFI from computer to computer as a telephonic video device prior to the patent application these inventions. . . and the iSight camera could be used as a reversing mirror. All prior art and obvious as all get out to anyone versed in the technology.

The writer of this article is not quite up-to-date on his facts. For example, he states:

"That said, it hasn’t always worked out in the company’s favor. Last year, for instance, Apple went to court in what was called the “plaintiff friendly” U.S. District Court in Texas, only to lose the case. That one was brought against Apple by Smartflash LLC for the company allegedly violating three patents related to copy protection. Apple was ordered to pay $533 million."

The author of the article hasn't been paying attention to the latest news. The base patent in that suit was declared invalid by a Federal Appellate Court in March. That basically eviscerates the $533 million judgement. The three judge panel declared the patent—using the internet to buy things with a computer or mobile device and pay for it with a secure credit card—an un-patentable "abstract idea."

Apple (AAPL) Receives Favorable Decision in Smartflash Patent Case
March 30, 2016 12:39 PM EDT
Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) has won a verdict in a dispute over Smartflash patents.
Bloomberg said the US Patent and Trademark Office invalidated one of the claims in a $533 million suit.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board said that the patent isn't eligible for patent protection because it seeks to cover (an) “abstract idea."
The patent challenge was originally filed by Samsung.

That was the lynchpin claim at the heart of the infringement suit. Without it, the rest of the claims all fall. Now, if only someone had challenged Amazon on the same thing for their "pen-click" purchase business plan idea patent for which they get royalties from anyone who uses a one-click buying system.

This also shoots down SmartFlash's immediate second suit against Apple on devices they had not included in their first suit.

Apple should thank Samsung for not having to continue with their own appeal on the same argument. Samsung winning their Appeal case has saved Apple the legal costs as well as the $533 million!