backtop

Gadgets Another iPhone Lawsuit Possibly On the Way
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - February 21, 2007 1:59 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 22 comment(s) - last by slacker57.. on Feb 22 at 11:39 AM
Quantum Research says Apple's iPhone is using its technology

A company called Quantum Research has its eyes set very close on Apple's iPhone. Quantum Research claims that the iPhone infringes on two technologies that belong to Quantum. The first is the touch sensitive technology used on the iPhone and the second is the near-field proximity sensor used to detect whether or not the iPhone is being held against a person's face.

Although no formal lawsuit has been filed, Quantum Research said that the iPhone will definitely be plucked apart when it's released. Quantum Research owns patents related to charge transfer techonology, which it licensed to Motorola as well as STMicroelectronics.

According to Duncan Bryan, Quantum Research's licensing director, the capabilities of the iPhone belong to his company. “The description of the iPhone suggests it uses a rear-surface touch screen, and has proximity sensing which can tell if it is held to the ear. That’s a QR capability,” said Bryan. Interestingly, Quantum Research also sells chips to Apple that includes many of the features advertised on the iPhone. The two companies are still in talks about the clickwheel used in products like the iPod Nano.

Apple is currently facing legal action from Cisco Systems, which owns the trademark name "iPhone" and has even used the name on its Linksys products. Cisco extended negotiations with Apple until today, claiming that it would like to come to a mutually beneficial conclusion with Apple. Analysts say it is still uncertain of whether or not Apple will come out of the courtroom with the rights to use the "iPhone" name.

Apple's iPhone is also waiting for approval from the FCC before it can hit the market. Apple's website indicates "This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
200 iPhone patents
By Shadowself on 2/21/2007 9:43:01 AM , Rating: 3
Jobs claimed during the introduction of the iPhone that Apple has filed 200 patents related to it. Maybe, just maybe, Apple has come up with its own ways of implementing these capabilities without infringing on any other patents.

At this time any comments that the Apple iPhone infringes any other patents is 100% speculation and attemtps by other companies to get their name in the news. Very few people have even touched an Apple iPhone let alone taken one apart to see how it ticks.

Personally, I wish everyone would stop talking about the Apple iPhone until Apple/Cingular announces a firm launch date when one can be bought and the exact terms and conditions.




RE: 200 iPhone patents
By OrSin on 2/21/2007 10:30:51 AM , Rating: 1
This is a site to state your option. If you dont want them then just read the headlines and leave. Get you face out of Apples but. It is very likely Apple is infringing since they bought the actually parts from Quantum to begin with.
But Also Since apple hace not sold a phone and dont even have a FCC approval I would not be paying any fees yet either. Myguess is Quantum will get thier money, just after the phone is released.


RE: 200 iPhone patents
By patentman on 2/21/2007 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 3
Shadowself is right actually. Without knowing what is in the iphone, any claims of patent infringement are based on mere speculation (I do patent law for a living). Moreover, uantum manufactures lots of components for cell phones technology as I understand it. Thus, it is not necessarily the case that because Apple buys components from Quantum, they "very likely" infringe. Patent law is a finicky finicky thing. Use of technology that "works around" patent claims is always a possiblity. Not to mention that lots of stuff can go wrong during prosecution of the application that will invalidate a patent during litigation.

If I could bump up shadowself's post I would, for it contains a valid point.


RE: 200 iPhone patents
By jmunjr on 2/21/2007 2:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
All your base belong to us.


RE: 200 iPhone patents
By slacker57 on 2/22/2007 11:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
All your base ARE belong to us.

Get it right or you have no chance to survive make your time. :P


RE: 200 iPhone patents
By Panurge on 2/21/2007 10:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jobs claimed during the introduction of the iPhone that Apple has filed 200 patents related to it. Maybe, just maybe, Apple has come up with its own ways of implementing these capabilities without infringing on any other patents.


If you read the above information, QR actually said they don't know for sure if Apple has infringed or not. They aren't filing a suit now, but are saying they will check the technology once it is released (or likely as soon as they can get any version of the device).

If this check determines that there is infringment, a suit will follow. If not, I'm sure nothing will happen. Thisi s the right way to go about suits, rather than saying, "They have something that looks like ours, let's sue!"


RE: 200 iPhone patents
By patentman on 2/21/2007 12:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
"If this check determines that there is infringment, a suit will follow. If not, I'm sure nothing will happen. Thisi s the right way to go about suits, rather than saying, "They have something that looks like ours, let's sue!"

Just to be nitpicky, it is more likely that quantum will send cease and desist orders to Apple, engage in initial negotiations, and then initiate suit by filing a complaint. If there is no question of infringement, then companies usually settle rather than sue.


O Well, when will they learn?
By Evangels on 2/21/2007 7:53:17 AM , Rating: 1
Change the name to ApplePhone or something. Pay whatever they have to pay and get it over with it.

I just don't understand why Apple had to make a move like this even they knew what is coming after them.

I think at end, the money / fund they pay will just end up on consumers, that's why they don't care.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/21/2007 8:04:53 AM , Rating: 4
Because apple likes to get their name all over the news. They were sad that Vista and Office 2007 was stealing all the thunder so they went and got everyone talking about them again. :P


By marvdmartian on 2/21/2007 9:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
Or, like I've said in the past, call it the "iTalk". Guess that made too much sense, eh? ;)


RE: O Well, when will they learn?
By Merry on 2/21/2007 10:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
why not MacPhone?

I get the feeling this lawsuit will get settled before it reaches court, if its a credible as it appears.


An idea!
By INeedCache on 2/21/2007 11:23:31 AM , Rating: 4
Maybe Apple should make a really big screen Mac, call it the Big Mac, and then sue McDonald's over the name. Apple would for sure win over some rinky-dink outfit like McDonald's, because hey, Apple owns the world.




RE: An idea!
By patentman on 2/21/2007 12:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
You are confusing patent infringement with trademark infringement. Likely Apple would be enjoined from using the term "Big Mac" as a mark to sell its computers because the mark "Big Mac" is likely to be considered a highly famous mark and thus entitled to broad protection. As a result, Apples use of the term "Big Mac" would probably be considered by a court as likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of the goods involved, and thus an infringing use of the mark.

In short, Apple probably loses that suit.


Apple's site
By cscpianoman on 2/21/2007 2:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Either things are going really well between Apple and Cisco or Apple is jumping the gun. iPhone was plastered all over their site earlier today. If it was me, and I was Cisco, I would drop Apple in the waste basket if they prematurely started advertising like that without my approval.




RE: Apple's site
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 2:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and it occurs to me that the more entrenched Apple becomes with that name, the larger the size of the check will be that Apple pays to Cisco to use that name.

I fail to understand Apple's logic in not setting this matter before publicly announcing the product name. Before the product name was committed to publicly, Apple could have negiotiated based on the premise that if the cost is too high, they could simply use their #2 name choice instead.

But now, if they fail to reach an agreement, they either have to eat humble pie and change the name, or else battle it out in court with an uncertain outcome. Since we all know that Jobs doesn't "do" humble, the latter would seem to be most likely.


Apple and Cisco Just Settled
By mattpat on 2/21/2007 10:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Apple and Cisco just settled over the iPhone trademark. :) http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/21iphone.h...




never ending suits
By Dodg3r on 2/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: never ending suits
By AlexWade on 2/21/2007 8:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
At least this one is going to be filled before it becomes popular. Too many companies sit on the sidelines, wait for a product to sell a lot, and then say "HEY! You owe us." I think you should have a small window to fill a lawsuit.


RE: never ending suits
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 9:46:42 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, I've worked with Quantum's products and technology. They are a legit company, and they have real products built on real research and real patents. They are not patent squatters or greedy opportunists. Here's their web site if anyone is interested: http://www.qprox.com/

Obviously I don't know anything about the merits of this potential lawsuit, however, there does seem to be a pattern emerging at Apple of either a lack of due diligence and/or reckless disregard. Any product designer working in this area would be familiar with Quantum's technology; they advertise a lot in electronics trade mags.


RE: never ending suits
By patentman on 2/21/2007 12:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
Good post. Sufficie it to say that there is no way to determine whether ths potential lawsuit is credible or not until the iphone becomes available to "pick apart" as Quantum put it. Patents are only as good as their claims, so it is quite possible that Apple is using some similar technology that does not infringe Quantum's patents.


RE: never ending suits
By retrospooty on 2/21/2007 2:15:54 PM , Rating: 3
"there does seem to be a pattern emerging at Apple of either a lack of due diligence and/or reckless disregard."

Totally agreed, although I wouldnt say its "emerging" its been there a long time.


RE: never ending suits
By patentman on 2/21/2007 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Let me sue! I'm a lawyer!"


"let me post, I'm a dumbass!" </sarcasm>


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki