IntellectualProperty
Latest
Apple snags Liquidmetal IP, may just revive the eMac with an amorphous metal chassis
Ah, who are we kidding -- we're guessing a true, bona fide headless iMac would hit the market before the eMac ever makes a triumphant return, but it's surely a novel thought, no? In a recent 8-K filing with the SEC, Apple made public that it had essentially acquired "substantially all of [Liquidmetal's] intellectual property assets," not to mention a "perpetual, worldwide, fully-paid, exclusive license to commercialize such intellectual property in the field of consumer electronic products in exchange for a license fee." In other words, Apple just bought up the rights to integrate Liquidmetal's amorphous metal alloys into its product line, which would allow the company to create metallic wares without sweating the typical structural or strength limitations found in conventional metals. There's no mention of dollars exchanged here, nor any details on what exactly Apple plans to do with its newfound IP (shown after the break), but we're guessing the procurement team didn't sign the dotted line for kicks and giggles.
Rambus victorious in patent fight with NVIDIA, can expect neat wad of cash for its troubles
So what if Rambus doesn't really produce anything tangible these days? We're hearing the "innovation" business is going really well for the company that recently celebrated its 1,000th patent, and now there's a nice big windfall in its near future as well. The US International Trade Commission has handed down a ruling agreeing with a previous judgment that NVIDIA infringed on three Rambus patents in the design of its memory controllers, with the ultimate outcome being a ban on importing such infringing goods into the country. Of course, that's the one thing we're sure won't be happening, but NVIDIA will now have to sign up for a license to Rambus' precious IP portfolio, which might be a tad bit costly given that GeForce, Quadro, nForce, Tesla and Tegra chips are named as being in violation -- aside from Ion, that's pretty much NVIDIA's whole hardware business.[Thanks, Marc]Update: NVIDIA, unsurprisingly, has said it will appeal the ruling. [Thanks, Xero2]
The fashion industry survives without copyright protection -- can the rest of us?
I really dig this TED talk from USC's Johanna Blakely about how the lack of copyright and patent protection for clothing design has accelerated the creative pace of the fashion industry, and I think she nails it when she points out that digital technologies have collapsed copyright law's traditional distinction between ideas and tangible expression. It's become so easy to create, copy, remix, and share that those definitions don't really apply anymore. On the other hand, I don't think simply doing away with IP protections entirely is the answer. (I'm a lawyer, after all.) While I'm not saying fashion is easy, I would argue that it's easier for fashion designers to iterate and differentiate, and that the harm done to Gucci by ripoff handbags is much less damaging than the harm done to an author or musician by someone who copies their work -- unlike the Gucci bag, the customers for original books and music often are the same people who buy the fakes, and not everyone will seek out the original. What's more, I often find that arguments against IP protections are often made very idealistically, where competition, remix, and creativity only produce happy results, but sometimes things get stolen simply because it's easy and cheap to make money that way, and IP laws provide protection against that sad reality. The real question, in my mind, is how best to balance those protections against creative freedoms, not whether we're protecting ideas or expressions. Anyway, it's a great presentation that everyone should watch -- check it after the break.
App Store filling up with spammers and clones of popular apps
Marco Arment has noticed a growing problem on the App Store; as hits emerge from among the free and paid apps, some companies are doing a little search scamming. They're ripping off the names, styles, and sometimes even the art of popular iPhone apps. He went to get the popular Angry Birds game and found that there are companies actually selling apps with "Cheats" and "Trivia" added on to the titles, often reusing the artwork from the original game. Certainly, some of these fall into a legal gray area (Angry Bird is technically another game, even though it's obviously hopping on the back of the more popular title), but some of them are straight up scams, and the angry reviews and terrible ratings prove that's the case. Arment calls out a few companies (whose titles are still on the App Store, as of this writing). He says that developers who feel an app is infringing on their trademarks can send a message to appstorenotices@apple.com to let Apple know about the problem. We'd love to see Apple clean house on these, but of course, we're not yet sure of their position. They may have some guidelines that define how close an app can get before it's actually infringing, but some of these are clearly over the line. We'll have to wait and see what actions Apple decides to take.
Microsoft says Android infringes on its patents, licenses HTC (update: talking to other Android manufacturers as well)
The lawyers up in Redmond seem to have been woken from their slumber with the sudden realization that -- oh look! -- Google's Android OS infringes on Microsoft's boatload of software patents. How specifically it does so is not identified, but Microsoft believes that elements from both the user interface and the underlying operating system are in violation of its rights. This is very much in keeping with the Windows maker's crusade to assert patent claims over Linux, which in the past has garnished it with cross-licensing deals with Amazon and Xandros, as well as a settlement from TomTom. Lawsuits are not yet being discussed here, but lest you think this is a small-time disturbance, longtime Windows Mobile / Windows Phone partner HTC has already decided to shorten its list of troubles by ponying up for a license from Microsoft that covers its Android phones -- it would be pretty insane if Microsoft sued one of its biggest and most important hardware manufacturers for patent infringement, after all. Even still, it's now an unfortunate fact that HTC is having to pay Microsoft royalties to use Google's operating system. Strange days, indeed. Update: Microsoft deputy general counsel of intellectual property Horacio Gutierrez just sent us a statement saying that the company's been "talking to several device manufacturers to address our concerns relative to the Android mobile platform." We're taking that to mean the same as above: Microsoft isn't too interested in suing any of its Windows Mobile / Windows Phone partners, so it's trying to work out patent license deals with those companies in advance of any nastiness. It's an interesting strategy: patents forbid anyone from making, using, or selling your invention, so Redmond can protect its partners while still leaving open the possibility of a lawsuit with Google itself down the line. In fact, we'd almost say it seems like Microsoft's agreement with HTC is as much of a threat to Google as Apple's lawsuit -- Redmond's basically saying you can't sell an Android device without paying a license fee, and we'd bet those fees are real close to the Windows Phone 7 license fee. Clever, clever -- we'll see how this one plays out. Here's Horacio's full statement: Microsoft has a decades-long record of investment in software platforms. As a result, we have built a significant patent portfolio in this field, and we have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to ensure that competitors do not free ride on our innovations. We have also consistently taken a proactive approach to licensing to resolve IP infringement by other companies, and have been talking with several device manufacturers to address our concerns relative to the Android mobile platform. [Thanks, Jack]
Apple files patent application for NFC e-tickets with 'extra benefits'
Apple appears to be casting an eye out to new shores, judging by the latest of its patent applications to go public. Filed in September 2008, this primarily relates to adding bonus digital content to event tickets, whereby swiping your entry pass to, say, a concert or a sports event into an electronic device would result in you gaining access to related goodies from "an online digital content service." Additional claims describe the use of an electronic device (read: iPhone or iPod touch) as the carrier of the (digitized) ticket, allowing the user access to the event itself as well as "at least one other event-related benefit." The whole thing is focused on the use of near-field communications as the data transfer method of choice, something that Apple's hardware is not yet equipped to handle. Then again, NFC interaction is also referenced in a separate patent application (from August 2009, see WIPO link below) for peer-to-peer payments, suggesting that Cupertino might have more than a passing interest in the contactless transfer tech. What do you think, will you be buying your Steelers tickets with a side order of iTunes?
Microsoft seeking patent for Windows Phone 7 Series panoramic GUI
The US Patents and Trademark Office has today made public a Microsoft patent application (serial no. 240,729) related to the graphical user interface found on the hotly anticipated Windows Phone 7 Series mobile OS. Filed in September 2008, this application describes a "contiguous background" that extends beyond the dimensions of the screen (either vertically or horizontally, but not both) with anchored "mixed-media" elements being littered atop it -- all of which is to be served on a "media-playing device." That should sound pretty familiar, given that it's the central navigational concept of both Windows Phone 7 and the Zune HD, and as such it makes a lot of sense for Microsoft to seek to legally protect its uniqueness. Before you start wondering about potential conflicts with other UIs, take note that this requires a continuous graphical background rather than a tiled or repeating image, plus space-orientating graphical elements, which should make it sufficiently nuanced to avoid any more patently unnecessary squabbles should Microsoft's claims be validated by the USPTO.
Amazon patents packaging surveillance, says it's for our own good
So here's the sales pitch: Amazon wants to film the packaging and preparation of your goods as they get ready to ship out in order to make sure your order is properly fulfilled and addressed. Stills or the whole video are then forwarded along to you, so you can check 'em out. Granted yesterday, the patent for this oh-so-complex monitoring system is actually quite specific -- it's only operative if your order includes "at least one book, food item, bottle of wine, flowers, or jewelry," so it's not like Amazon can keep everyone else from doing this -- but hey, it also references verification of "collateral items," which is a fancy way of saying it'll be used to make sure third party fliers and advertisements make it into the box along with the stuff you actually want, so it's not all roses and sunshine. [Thanks, JagsLive]
Pixel Qi and OLPC to share all current and future screen tech
Our man Nicholas Negroponte was certainly excited about pushing the state of the art forward with future versions of the OLPC when we hosted him on The Engadget Show earlier this month, and now he's got one more tool to help make that happen: the OLPC Foundation and Pixel Qi just signed a permanent and free cross-license on a slew of next-generation screen technology patents, including Pixel Qi's sweet dual-mode displays. If you're recall, Pixel Qi's Mary Lou Jepson actually developed part of the 3Qi screen tech while at OLPC, so there was some mild confusion over who owned what -- but the two organizations have solved that problem by cross-licensing all future and current IP covering multi-mode screens. See, it's easy for two tech companies to get along... especially when one is actually a charity that's not at all concerned with profits. Super simple. So -- let's get working on that OLPC XO-3, shall we?
Samsung acquires 'Android' trademark for mobile hardware sales in Korea
As it turns out, Korea operates two separate trademark systems for hardware and software. So while this doesn't affect Android OS and its distribution, Samsung's recent acquisition of the Android hardware trademark does forbid other manufacturers from releasing Android-branded devices -- whether they be a mobile phone, a PMP, PDA, GPS, DMB, or any other snappily titled mobile computer -- into the Korean market. This will be felt by local competitors like LG, who has an Andro-1 OEM handset in the works that would infringe Samsung's newfound rights. The trademark previously belonged to local supplier Triplex, who'd held it since before Google's OS came into being, and apparently using just four characters of "Android" will be sufficient to offend the authorities. Sammy's clearly decided to aggressively pursue being the premier supplier of Android phones in its backyard, and rubbing LG's nose in it must've been the chocolate frosting atop that eclair. [Thanks for the translation, Didier]
Microsoft loses second Word patent appeal, on the hook for $240 million in damages
And the intellectual property rollercoaster continues. Microsoft's second appeal of that $240m judgment banning sales of Word with features infringing on i4i's XML-related patents has been rejected, leaving the Redmond giant with a huge fine to pay atop its undoubtedly sky-high lawyer bills. The appeals court held that Microsoft was explicitly aware of i4i's patents before implementing the relevant XML code into Word -- undoubtedly because i4i had been selling an extremely popular XML plugin for years and had approached Microsoft about licensing it. Yeah, oops. Don't worry, though, there shouldn't be any consumer impact here: old versions of Word aren't affected, and current versions of Word 2007 and Office 2010 don't have the offending features. Still, Microsoft might be able to appeal yet again, depending on a panel ruling on the matter -- at this rate, we'd expect it.
Apple locks down iPhone trademark, includes 'electronic games' category
Patently Apple has sniffed out the latest, and most comprehensive, trademark registration acquired by Apple on the subject of the iPhone and we thought we'd have a peek. Already entitled to use the brand name under international categories 9 (mobile phone and digital audio player) and 38 (electronic data-transmitting device), Apple has now added category 28, which reads shortly and sweetly as a 'handheld unit for playing electronic games.' Before you freak out and start fusing this into your iPhone 4G fantasies, note that Apple filed the claim for this trademark way back in December 2007. So nothing necessarily new on the tech front, but this document provides the broadest brand protection yet -- including the bitten apple graphic alongside the name -- and could strengthen Cupertino's case in its forthcoming battle for the iPad moniker.
Samsung and Kodak put an end to patent squabbles
It looks like Kodak and Samsung's 'patent squabble' can be attributed to misplaced affection. According to some newly minted PR, the companies have inked a technology cross-license that will allow each access to the other's portfolio. Details are scarce, but apparently Sammy has already made a payment to Kodak as credit towards the royalties it will owe once it dives into the classic imaging company's back catalog. And how about all that alleged patent infringement? The lovebirds have agreed to file joint requests to terminate proceedings and settle their lawsuits against each other, heralding a new era of peace, love, and cooperation -- a great way to begin a new decade, don't you think? Chuck Woolery, you've done well. PR after the break.
Kodak wins preliminary ruling in patent squabble with Samsung
Good old December, the busiest time of the year for elves, reindeer, jolly old fat guys... and lawyers, apparently. Joining the rush to make momentous decisions before Santa arrives, the International Trade Commission has made a preliminary ruling in favor of Kodak in its dispute over digital camera patents with Samsung. Though the original lawsuit included LG, an out of court settlement has left only Sammy in the firing line, and this early decision has affirmed that two of Kodak's patents were infringed in the production of its cameraphones. It's still necessary for the full commission to look at and approve the judgment, but considering Samsung's vast range of camera-equipped phones, we'd throw legal caution to the wind and start bombarding the ITC with "holiday cheer" pronto.
Apple ordered to pay damages in Opti patent case, Apple appeals
Full-time IP licensor Opti sure has been keeping itself busy in the last few years suing the likes of NVIDIA, AMD and Apple, and it looks like its case with the latter may now finally be drawing to a close. After a few years of battling it out in the courts in Texas, the judge in the case has ordered Apple to pay Opti $19 million for three instances of patent infringement, as well as $2.7 million in pre-judgment interest. The judge didn't find that Apple willfully violated the patents in question, however, which concern a memory access technology known as predictive snooping (hence the relatively small damages). Apple apparently isn't quite ready to call it a day just yet though, and has reportedly already filed a formal appeal to have the case overturned.
Intel shells out $1.25 billion to settle all AMD litigation
Intel sure sells a lot of chips, but man -- it sure blows a lot of that profit on lawyers. Just months after it got nailed with a $1.45 billion fine from the EU in an AMD antitrust case, nearly two years after AMD hit Intel with another antitrust probe and nearly 1.5 years after the FTC sparked up an investigation of its own, Intel has finally decided to pony up in order to rid itself of one of those back-riding monkeys. In an admittedly brief joint announcement released simultaneously by both firms today, Intel has agreed to cough up a whopping $1.25 billion in order to settle "all antitrust and IP disputes" with AMD. In fact, the pair went so far as to say the following: "While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development." Aside from AMD's coffers filling up with cash, the agreement also gives both firms patent rights from a new 5-year cross license agreement. Of course, we're betting that this isn't the end of this exceptionally bitter rivalry, and we highly doubt Intel wrote a check this large while grinning from ear-to-ear. That said, we're eager to see what AMD does with its newfound cheddar, and if we had our druthers, we'd sit back and watch it invest heavily into beating Intel to the punch with its next few platforms.
iPhone facing potential trademark issues in China?
Apple's on-again, off-again deal with China Unicom to officially bring the iPhone to China may still be up in the air, but it looks like it could now also be facing some trademark issues that could potentially further hold up its release. Apparently, China's Hanwang Technology owns the trademark for "i-phone" in the country, which could force Apple to make a deal with 'em before it enters the market (sound familiar?). Interestingly, Apple does actually own an "iPhone" trademark in China, but it apparently only covers computer hardware and software, while Hanwang's trademark covers mobile phones. According to Hanwang, however, the two aren't actually in talks just yet, and it's not saying what it plans to do if Apple decides to go crazy and announce a move into China without its blessing.[Via mocoNews.net]
What's in a name... on the App Store?
As with the Highlander, ultimately you can only have one iFart app in the store. Oh sure, you can have 60+ fart apps total (scientists estimate by 2025 there will be over 2 million fart apps available), but you can't have two apps with the same name. Even tacking on "the" or similar prefixes won't help (suffixes like MK-II may work, but we haven't tried). The question I'm asking is: what's in a name? Would a fart app by any other name sell as well? And should developers worry their app name will be taken by the time they submit their app?Ultimately I wonder if there will be issues surrounding app names. But wait -- isn't that two apps named Sudoku in the pic above? Way back in August 2008 Macworld noticed several apps named Sudoku, but on a search today I could only find two apps named exactly the same and one was from EA. Of course, that doesn't mean they will appear in your app list as such, and they can appear under yet another name on your iPhone. Every other app I found with Sudoku had some modifier word before or after the name: platinum, color, dojo, expert, etc. But then, there really can be only one iSudoku, or one Sudoku Pro... and who determines which "pro" app really deserves the name? (Short answer: Apple)This isn't a huge issue, since I doubt some random person could come along and name their app IBM or Kodak or Netflix. Apple would likely nip that in the bud. But as the App Store grows, we may see a bit of a land grab, if we aren't already. The good names, the ones that are easy to search and make logical sense, will probably go first. You probably don't want to be the guy who has to name his to-do list app something really wacky, do you? I'm not sure what a solution would be, as Apple can't arbitrate every IP dispute, not can it police the business practices of every developer. In the end, it's just like domain registration -- first come, first served.
Apple wins comprehensive patent for iPhone, bares teeth at Palm
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has awarded Apple patent number 7,479,949 covering key aspects of the iPhone's multi-touch user interface. The filing, with 358 pages of drawings and Steve Jobs as its first author, comprehensively describes the iPhone operating system's interface, and how hardware on the phone interprets finger movements and taps as instructions for the software. The filing makes liberal use of the word "heuristics" -- a trial-and-error-based engineering technique that reduces the calculations necessary to arrive at a solution to a problem. Heuristics may not always be correct, but good heuristics result in something at least close to the right answer. This patent, combined with Tim Cook's statement about protecting Apple's intellectual property during their first-quarter conference call, is a shot across the bow for Palm and their new Pre smartphone. Cook said that Apple would aggressively defend their IP, and a patent covering that IP is an important shield for Apple. AppleInsider also notes that the patent covers features not seen on the iPhone, but interestingly are critical features of the Palm Pre. For example, Apple's patent mentions a touch-sensitive area that does not display visual output: a dead-ringer for the Pre's gesture area, separate from the touch screen. The Pre uses multi-touch gestures as part of its webOS interface. If the technologies in Palm's devices are found to infringe on Apple's patents, Palm will either have to change the way the device works, or license the technology from Apple. The likelihood of Apple granting Palm a license is slim to none. [Via AppleInsider.]
Palm responds to Apple's veiled threat: "we have the tools necessary to defend ourselves"
We've been waiting for this. Ever since Tim Cook made his non-specific, veiled threats in response to a direct question about how the Palm Pre "almost directly emulates the kind of touch interface" found on the iPhone, the entire tech community has waited for the next move. Now Lynn Fox, a Palm spokesperson has stepped into the fray. In a response given to Digital Daily and presumably crafted by a team of lawyers over the 2 days since the Apple analyst call, Lynn says the following: Palm has a long history of innovation that is reflected in our products and robust patent portfolio, and we have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space. If faced with legal action, we are confident that we have the tools necessary to defend ourselves. The gauntlet is thrown. Now, will Apple risk the ire of a million new and middle-aged fanboys and crush Palm's Cinderella comeback by forcing the Pre into some state of unreleased legal limbo? Or will Rubinstein and Jobs quietly sort it out over a yoghurt parfait in some strip mall in The Valley? Oh boy, this is going to be good.
