Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Iphone Patents Cellphones Communications IOS Network Networking Software The Almighty Buck News Apple Entertainment Hardware Technology

Apple Sued Over iPhones Making Calls, Sending Email (fortune.com) 134

Posted by BeauHD from the patent-troll dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: A company that seemingly does nothing but license patents or, if necessary, sue other companies to get royalties, has taken aim at Apple. But here's the kicker: the lawsuit alleges that Apple's last several iPhones and iPads violate a slew of patents related to seemingly standard features, including the ability to place calls as well as sending and receiving emails. A total of six patent infringement claims were brought against Apple by Corydoras Technologies on May 20, according to Apple-tracking site Patently Apple, which obtained a copy of the lawsuit. According to Patently Apple, the counts against Apple cover every iPhone dating back to the iPhone 4 and every iPad dating back to the iPad 2. In addition to taking issue with Apple's devices placing calls, the lawsuits also allege that the tech giant violates patents Corydoras holds related to video calling, which is similar to Apple's FaceTime, as well as displaying a person's geographic location through a feature like Find My iPhone and the ability to block unwanted calls. Last year, Apple was ordered to pay $533 million to Smartflash LLC for allegedly violating three patents related to copy protection.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Sued Over iPhones Making Calls, Sending Email More

Apple Sued Over iPhones Making Calls, Sending Email

Comments Filter:

  • wait, wut? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23, 2016 @08:22PM (#52168651)

    an iphone can make calls? no fucking way! i don't think i've ever seen my sister or her kid make a call on theirs.

    • Re:wait, wut? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Monday May 23, 2016 @08:40PM (#52168713)
      I know, this is stupid. Making calls? Making video calls? Ever see 2001: A space odyssey? Im sure there are older examples of video calling. Isn't that prior art? What the fuck?

      These patents needs to be invalidated, patents should last for a decade at the most. If you can't make money on the idea in a decade, and gain enough marketshare to fund further R&D, get out of capitalism.
      But seriously, why are these trivial patents getting through our system with so much prior art and established methods already common knowledge. No Corydoras Technologies, you did not invent the video phone, nor did you tell Apple how its done. /rant

      • Expo 67 - Canada - Eh (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23, 2016 @09:01PM (#52168777)

        In 1967 one of the ways Canada celebrated its centenary was to hold an exposition called Expo 67. I can remember being there as a kid and being entranced by something that looked like it was from the future. It had a keyboard, a telephone handset and a ~10" black and white screen. You could talk to and see the person on the other side of the hall who was sitting at a similar device. According to Bell Canada it was coming "real soon now".

      • It's common sense presumably. Except that the judges and juries in East Texas havent seen that movie yet.

        • Re:wait, wut? (Score:5, Funny)

          by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday May 23, 2016 @10:43PM (#52169115)

          It's common sense presumably. Except that the judges and juries in East Texas haven't seen that movie yet.

          Whew. That was close. You used the phrase "common sense" and the word Texas in two different sentences.

        • Let's just state the obvious (Score:4, Interesting)

          by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @04:44AM (#52169829)
          Jurors in Texas are stupid. There, I said it. Many patent trolls are located in Texas and they all prefer to file in Texas courts, since idiot juries reliably award them millions. "Your website uses usernames and passwords to log in? Why didn't you get a license from this here local Texas firm that invented that idea? Pay up now, the law is the law!" Remember that John Oliver story on patents? Samsung actually built a public outdoor ice skating rink in Marshall, TX because they're so terrified of the juries there. Apple was ordered by a Texas jury to pay a half billion dollars to a troll who held a patent on the concept of copy protection. I hate Samsung and Apple, I hate copy protection, but Texas is worse than both of them put together.

      • I know, this is stupid. Making calls? Making video calls? Ever see 2001: A space odyssey? Im sure there are older examples of video calling. Isn't that prior art?

        Try Dick Tracey. Look at his fancy wristwatch that he could make video calls with - back in the '30's!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Calydor ( 739835 )

        I'm not sure that prior art really covers "This one sci-fi movie did it".

        Being able to look at people you're talking to in real time at a distance is a common sense fantasy; it is quite another thing to figure out how to do it.

        We have sci-fi that allows instantaneous cross-galaxy communication through various handwavings; if someone actually figures out how to DO it should that not be patentable because movies did it first?

        That said, patenting how to make phones place phone calls seems a little ... weird.

        • Being able to look at people you're talking to in real time at a distance is a common sense fantasy; it is quite another thing to figure out how to do it.

          If the "how to do it" is important, then please explain why it is infringement if somebody figures out his own way of how to do it. You can't have it both ways. Typically those bogus patents don't event contain a description of the how to do part...

      • I know, this is stupid. Making calls? Making video calls? Ever see 2001: A space odyssey? Im sure there are older examples of video calling. Isn't that prior art? What the fuck?

        I have something new for you!

        http://archive.ncsa.illinois.e... [illinois.edu]

        Video calls are there. It also skewers facebook, twitter, etc all the way from 1909. The guy had a real read on human nature. I have not yet found anything else of his which is nearly so good however.

      • irony noun: irony the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. See "Rounded Corner Patents"

      • I know, this is stupid. Making calls? Making video calls? Ever see 2001: A space odyssey? Im sure there are older examples of video calling. Isn't that prior art? What the fuck?

        Forget 2001. That didn't come out until 1969. "The Jetsons" cartoon featured video calling ALL the time, and that predated 2001 (at least the movie) by at least half a decade.

        Not only that, but when I was a kid back in the 1960s, our local museum had a WORKING videophone exhibit by Bell Labs/Western Electric!!!

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Hallow ( 2706 )

        How about 1927's Metropolis - http://www.openculture.com/201... [openculture.com]

    • an iphone can make calls? no fucking way! i don't think i've ever seen my sister or her kid make a call on theirs.

      Have them switch away from AT&T

    • look up Marconi, Popov, Fessenden, deForest, et al. you can add Edison to the list. some guys named Bell and Morse also. fella named Armstrong talked upon the earth...

  • Trivial patents (Score:3)

    by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Monday May 23, 2016 @08:24PM (#52168657)

    They should be abolished. Patent trolls aren't the problem, if patent trolls get banned they will buy fake businesses and sell ten manually made phones for 6k$ each.

  • Patented the idea of patenting the invention of "patent trolling" yet?

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday May 23, 2016 @08:28PM (#52168677) Journal
    The more stupid patent lawsuits we have, the more likely we will see patent reform.

    Right now, none of the big guys want patent reform, because it helps them keep down competitors, and some of them make a good chunk of money from it. If we want to see patent reform, then they're going to have to start hurting. Bring on the patent trolls, I say!

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Monday May 23, 2016 @08:47PM (#52168731)
      The more stupid lawsuits we have, the more stupid lawsuits we'll have. Why would the lawyers stop the gravy train just when it's getting going?

      • well there are two sets of lawyers. offensive and defensive. The defensive ones only make money if the company is profitable. and stupid patents lawsuits are expensive.

        Now they are both offensive to normal people, but defensive lawyers will get sick and tired of the BS from the offensive lawyers and change the laws so they have to do less work.

        remember a lawyer for a company earns several million a year sitting on their ass. why get off of it and do work when you can get paid to do nothing?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

          The defensive ones only make money if the company is profitable.

          [citation needed]

          I see you haven't had many dealings with lawyers.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by phorm ( 591458 )

        Lawyers can only work within the (broken) law. If big entities like Apple start feeling pain from shit like this, then they'll probably lobby for at least some patent reform.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      One teeny tiny problem with the idea of patent law reform bound to patent abuses, lawyers. Lawyers make the most money with patents, filing them and attacking with them and defending from them and oh wait, the fuckers write those laws that make them a shit bucket ton of money, filing them and attacking with them and defending from them. Seems like we have to change the way laws are written first and how they are 'interpreted' in the courts and to prevent abuses by the legal system that it drives on purpose

      • we have to change the way laws are written first

        That's so impossible (under the current system) so as to be an impossible hurdle to change Some would say an excuse for inaction.

        As difficult as it may be, a single Constitutional Amendment (in the US) can remove IP creation as a Federal power. If Oklahoma wants to keep up this craziness, let the vendors decide whether they want to sell their phones and tablets there.

  • This is getting ridiculous, what else would a phone do but make actual phone calls. The methodology Apple uses in the iPhone to make a phone call can't be THAT much different than every other phone manufacturer that they should be singled out for violating some insanely broad patent. Apple should use some of that cash it has stockpiled and stomp the trolls into the ground.
    • Thats what I was thinking. A phone sending emails? What is this, Dick Tracy?

    • Possibly somebody had an idea for a "PDA that also makes phone calls", probably never without a single working implementation or even a description that would allow one to make a working implementation, and probably it was written down before the technology to even make this practical work existed. None of which should be allowed as an enforceable patent.

      Otherwise I could just file a patent for a time machine. Now no one can create a time machine in the next twenty years without my permission. I don't ev

      • Re:Absurd! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday May 23, 2016 @10:50PM (#52169143)

        Otherwise I could just file a patent for a time machine. Now no one can create a time machine in the next twenty years without my permission.

        They'll just travel back in time and either (a) create prior art and/or (b) file a patent before you - the results will likely be paradoxical.

        • I'm picturing two new people stupidly excited about the grand opening of the patent office. The ribbon is cut (assuming anyone else gave a damn) and then it's a foot race to get their idea stamped.

          Then the patent official is confused because they have no idea what a "flux capacitor" is, or how any vehicle can reach 88 mph.

          • Then they get back to their futures and find everyone is making time machines based on their patents which expired in 1804 after the single 14 year term.

            I wouldn't want to figure out the exact date and time to file to be able to block an alternate invention while having enough time left on my patent to commercialize it.

      • Never mind the working models, patent law already excludes simple ideas that are "obvious to someone skilled in the art". You have a small portable device / computer + a radio = a PDA that can make calls. The idea is obvious even to laymen, and has appeared in speculative fiction long before this patent was filed.

        I'd be in favour of a tiered patent system. Cute ideas like XOR mouse cursors, one click shopping buttons, rounded corners or making calls on a PDA get you a tier 1 patent, meaning you don't ge

        • I also like the idea someone suggested, of making patent applications free... if it gets accepted. But if it is rejected, you pay.

          This is an interesting idea. One of the big issues with the patent system today is that the patent office approves too many patents figuring that the courts will sort it out. The courts, in turn, assume that the patent office did their job and that an approved patent should be taken as valid unless proven otherwise. This would actually give the patent office a financial incent

        • Patent law excludes such patents, but they have no practical way anymore to enforce it. The patent office is overwhelmed by applications, not by legitimate applications but the modern shotgun approach to patenting anything and everything possible. Thus patents are not reviewed unless and until there is a lawsuit over the patents. And at that point the lawyers control the process and not engineers or scientists or experts in the field.

          Corporations do this as a defensive measure. Every tech company dealin

    • Apple should use some of that cash it has stockpiled and stomp the trolls into the ground.

      They do. But it's like that whack-a-mole game, and sometimes the mole wins.

    • Apple should use some of that cash it has stockpiled and stomp the trolls into the ground.

      A wonderful idea but alas would likely get some people imprisoned. Maybe there's an Apple exec with a terminal disease who might "go rogue"?

  • But we need a law that prevents this bullshit with very stiff penalties for these extortion trolls.

    Can any slashdoters propose how such legislation would work? Something that prevents this bullshit from getting anywhere near a court of law? Perhaps some sort pre-lawsuit bullshit court that prevents it from getting anywhere at all?

    • Toss'em! [Re:I don't know how it would work....] (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday May 23, 2016 @08:49PM (#52168737) Journal

      I say outright get rid of software patents: the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Most new software ideas are created in the act of making a specific product, not mass general research labs of the kind Edison used. This means that the ideas would be created anyhow even without the royalty incentives.

      And most don't bother to mine existing patents for new ideas because most are vague, obvious, or trivial junk, often filed for defensive or legal ammunition reasons.

      Thus, the two main reasons for patents: incentives and publicizing ideas, are mostly moot these days. For every good software patent, I bet there are at least 10 junk patents.

      Patents can join H-1B visas in the high abuse-to-legitimacy ratio: a game played by and for big biz to stay big at the expense of everybody else.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      But we need a law that prevents this bullshit with very stiff penalties for these extortion trolls.

      Can any slashdoters propose how such legislation would work? Something that prevents this bullshit from getting anywhere near a court of law? Perhaps some sort pre-lawsuit bullshit court that prevents it from getting anywhere at all?

      How about these 3 changes to patent law:

      1. Patents are non-transferable. In other words, they are not bookable assets.
      2. Companies can file. This is necessary for the previous point to be practical.
      3. Defenese must be for unique activity of the patent holder. (no activity = no defense) This is the punchline.

      This way patents their current role in say, the drug industry, while preventing all current trolling activities.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      I guess theoretically we could crack down on them with the laws we have now. First you'd have to start by granting fewer BS patents, which means hiring more and better patent examiners. Then you'd have to go after people who falsify stuff, including skipping over obvious cases of prior art.

      The reason this remains a problem is that we don't have enough interest in using the laws we already have, much less making any new ones. Until we start electing people who want to do something about this we all have to

  • And give it back to Mexico as a peace offering. Our legal system would then be free of a huge burden.

  • Wait....they're suing because a phone has the ability to make calls?

    Ummm, I don't wanna get all technical and shit, but that's basically what a phone does.

    What's next, suing Samsung and Toshiba because their televisions "show moving images"?

    • What's next, suing Samsung and Toshiba because their televisions "show moving images"?

      Watch it, buddy.

      I've a patent on the concept of pounding on buttons to make letters appear on a screen. I'm thinking of allowing people to licensing this concept so they can do things like communicate with computers; maybe at a trivial cost of a cent per character. I'll take that in advance, please.

    • Wait....they're suing because a phone has the ability to make calls?

      Ummm, I don't wanna get all technical and shit, but that's basically what a phone does.

      What's next, suing Samsung and Toshiba because their televisions "show moving images"?

      If these patents relate to making calls and sending emails and whatever else shouldn't they be suing samsung and all other phone makers too. You can make calls and send emails on the internet too, maybe they should sue that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        shouldn't they be suing samsung and all other phone makers too.

        They want to start off slowly with a small, little known defendant that will set a precedent, then go after the bigger guys.

  • Bottom Feeders (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23, 2016 @10:19PM (#52169047)

    Anyone else notice the company is NAMED for a species of bottom-feeding catfish?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by donaldm ( 919619 )

      Anyone else notice the company is NAMED for a species of bottom-feeding catfish?

      Well colour me surprised here it is [wikipedia.org]. Basically, Corydoras is a genus of freshwater in the armoured catfish family -- seems fairly appropriate for this companies name.

      In addition, Corydoras are generally found in smaller-sized streams, along the margins of larger rivers, in marshes and ponds -- Wow this seems familiar.

      Their feeding method is to search the bottom with their sensory barbels and suck up food items with their mouth, often burying their snout up to their eyes, one of the reasons a soft sand s

  • For a few months I sort of lived two blocks from Intellectual Ventures' office, building a ROV in the front yard. And I never got around to also building a trebuchet.
  • A court ordered Apple to pay half a billion dollars for "allegedly" doing something? Did they "literally" order that?
  • Is it me, or do these patents just sound like "take these previously invented things and put them together". Combinations of things that already have been invented should not be patent-able. On top of that, I'd live to put a very short statute of limitations on filing claims like these. You have 6 months from the time the item was publicly released on the market. That's it. No waiting about for years so you can claim larger infringement.

  • Unless they are addressing a particular technique used in the calls, they have a lot of prior art to overcome.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Corydoras == cory cat catfish == scum sucking bottom dweller patent troll.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corydoras

  • Some of the patents in the suit include sending email or making calls, but all of them recite using a front-facing camera in a "mirror mode", which seems to be what the suit's really about. They're just poorly written claims. For example, if you invent a time machine and have a patent that recites "a car, capable of driving and turning and accelerating and braking, the car including a flux capacitor and temporal modulator and fusion generator" and you sue someone who makes another time-traveling car, you're

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close