Sign in / up

back to article Troll sues Apple for daring to plug headphones into iPhone

A patent hoarding firm is suing Apple for $3m for allegedly ripping off a protected design that describes plugging headphones into a mobile phone. Intelligent Smart Phone Concepts, a Delaware company with no web presence, launched its legal action against iPhone-maker Apple in California. ISPC has demanded damages for the …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

      1. hazydave
        Reply Icon

        Re: 2008?

        That's no really a first-to-invent case... the patent was applied for in 2002, it just took them all this time to have it granted. First to invent lets another guy come along and claim the same patent, even if these guys had already filed. That's going away next year -- in January, we're first-to-file, just like the rest of the world.

        That's actually a much better system, for the simple fact that if there are really that many different folks "inventing" the same thing, it must not be that unique. So someone files, and another guy comes along with proof they invented the patent first. That should invalidate the first guy on prior art, but the second guy also doesn't get the patent. Much better for everyone.

        And yeah, the USPTO is crazy stupid about a bunch of things. They pretty much only search existing US patents for prior art. They don't mandate that examiners "skilled in the art" -- the specific area of the patent -- thus, they grant all kinds of drek that should fail the test of obviousness. Software patents don't even have to include source code anymore, so the actual implementation of the invention -- the thing that really matters (eg, you can patent a specific implementation of an algorithm, but in theory, you can't patent an algorithm) -- isn't included in the patent anymore.

        1 0
  2. Deadly Headshot
    Facepalm

    2008? Prior art much?

    My 'phone uses an identical design. I got it in 2005. I think my old 'phone (1997ish) had a similar one...

    1 0
    1. Joseph Lord
      Reply Icon

      Re: 2008? Prior art much?

      Filed: March 1, 2002 so priority date could be in 2001.

      It still looks like a load of rubbish to me but you need to go with the 1997ish phone rather than the recent one to have useful prior art. Most earlier phones had proprietary headphone connectors so I don't know if they practiced this.

      2 0
      1. Roland6 Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: 2008? Prior art much?

        Filed: March 1, 2002 so priority date could be in 2001.

        From what I can determine the key feature being patented is a physical dual ported audio solution:

        The first port is intended for a typical telephony earpiece and mic combination. The second port is audio out only and was obviously intended to support higher quality audio for radio/music playback - obviously the 'inventors' were thinking along the lines of combining a mobile phone (with it's proprietary I/O interface with a Walkman and it's stereo jack interface, but failed foresee the level of integration that actually occurred. Interestingly, they omit the usage of the audio lead as the aerial for the radio...

        In the context of pre-2001 devices, I suspect that there will be little prior art for this specific combination of audio I/O, similarly for newer devices as it would seem that Sony/Nokia et al all used a single combined high quality audio input/output jack to support all audio (and radio aerial). So my question is whether Apple implemented a single combined port or used two ports on some of it's devices.

        1 0
        1. Bill Stewart
          Reply Icon

          Re: 2008? Prior art much? Apple wasn't doing two-plug solution

          I haven't looked at an iPhone 1 in a long time, but I'd be surprised it had a dual plug as shown in the diagram. I've had Nokia phones that had separate jacks for the audio headset and the telephony headset-with-mike, but that's two separate interfaces, not a dual plug. (Also being Nokia, you tended to need a really _special_ snowflake of a connector to do anything at all with it, because the standard connectors everybody else used didn't break often enough or cost as much.)

          0 0
      2. Whitter
        Reply Icon

        Re: 2008? Prior art much?

        Simply changing the connector's shape (to a known standard) isn't inventive. It might be clever - but not inventive. And in this case, had been done already anyway.

        0 0
  3. John70

    USPTO

    How was this ever awarded?

    It's time for Judges to tell patent trolls if they are not using "their invention" they should lose the patent.

    1 1
    1. thomas k.
      Reply Icon

      Re: USPTO

      Same should go for copyright - if the work is not made available to purchase, if falls into the public domain.

      Would love to rebuild my collection of opera recordings, most of which are no longer avaiable.

      1 5
      1. Amonynous
        Reply Icon

        Re: USPTO

        "Same should go for copyright - if the work is not made available to purchase, if falls into the public domain."

        Really? So you fundamentally disapprove of the concept of property and the rights of the owner of that property to do with it what they will? In which case you won't mind if I pop round to your house, sit on your sofa, drink your beer and invite everyone passing by to do the same because you haven't offered to sell it to us?

        5 3
        1. frank ly
          Reply Icon

          Re: USPTO

          I understand your point, at a 'technical' level. However, if you drink his beer then you are really stealing it from him in that you deprive him of the monetary value and the ability to enjoy his own property. If you and a bunch of other strangers invade his house, then you deprive him of the right to quiet enjoyment of his own home.

          If the composer of an opera, or the main singers have some strange idea that they never want their work to be enjoyed by the public again, then fair enough, the performance really does 'belong' to them and they would be rightly angry if their work was made available. I can't imagine any 'damage' to a record company if recordings that they refused to ever release (due to lack of projected profit) were made public property.

          Yes, the record company own that recording and have the right to do as they wish with it, or not do anything if they so decide. But, I really can't see why you chose such an emotive analogy to express your disagreement.

          0 1
          1. Amonynous
            Reply Icon

            Re: USPTO

            @frank ly "I understand your point, at a 'technical' level."

            The point I am trying to make is not an emotive one, or a 'technical' one, it is a legal one. Property rights are established in law, they are not some fundamental underlying law of the universe. In the beginning, if you had the biggest pointy stick, you got to decide what was your property and what was not. More recently, the state (local warlord, monarch, democratic parliament, revolutionary council, dictatorship, whatever system currently prevails where you are) has the biggest stick and formalises property rights through the rule of law. In other words you have certain rights over both tangible and intangible things because the law says that you do, and for no other reason unless you want to go back to warfare as the primary means of dealing with property disputes. As we all know nation states and revolutionaries/terrorists (depending on your viewpoint) still do use violence as a means of resolving property disputes.

            Copyright is one of those rather unusual property rights that is (largely) agreed upon on a global basis, if not implemented and enforced uniformly by those states that have agreed to it. Ultimately if I create something and have the copyright on it, it is my choice as to whether I sell it now, later or not at all. If the state, commerce or others can arbitrarily decide that I no longer have those rights, how exactly is that different than stealing someone's beer? If Cameron/Clegg decided to build a motorway through your house and not compensate you for the loss of your property and the inconvenience, would that be okay?

            The argument that I have not lost some monetary value is spurious. Under our system of law, property rights are not about whether something has monetary value or not, they are about the right of the individual (or legal entity) to own something and to decide what they will or will not do with it, which includes making money out if it if they so wish. Hence my attempt to contrast the rather woolly thinking that stealing someone's IP is fine but stealing someone's beer is not.

            1 0
      2. MrXavia
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Down

        Re: USPTO

        "Same should go for copyright - if the work is not made available to purchase, if falls into the public domain."

        bad idea

        2 0
        1. John G Imrie
          Reply Icon

          Re: bad idea

          Why?

          There are lots of things I would like to buy. Old CD's, DVD's only available in foreign, but still English speaking, markets. Books that are no longer in print. Old Computer games. I'd even pay a premium for them. But I simply can not legally get hold of them because the company that holds the IP rights refuses to make new copies.

          Come on you guys. Take may money, don't force me to become an IP Pirate.

          3 0
          1. Tom 7
            Reply Icon

            Re: bad idea

            And you might want to buy the misses but it gives you absolutely no right to buy her. I don't care how much cash you have if I don't want to sell it you can just fuck off.

            Or can I have that Ming vase that you've never ever put a flower in - after all youre not using it?

            2 0
        2. John 110
          Reply Icon
          Go

          Re: USPTO

          No, I think @thomas k is correct here. The important piece of his statement is "if the work is not made available to purchase..."

          If the original owners of the copyrighted work or their accredited agent are no longer interested in profiting from their work, then I see nothing wrong with it being made freely available so that others can still enjoy it. (NOT resell it for profit, that's not in the spirit of the thing.)

          I'm thinking of out-of-print books and music here, but fill your own passion in.

          3 3
          1. Number6
            Reply Icon

            Re: USPTO

            For some value of profit. How much does it cost to set up and print a single book? You can have a copy but it might cost you several hundred quid because you're the only one who's expressed interest in getting one and that's the cost to the copyright owner.

            Many things are no longer made because they are no longer profitable. How does one make them 'freely available without spending more money on them?

            I agree in principle that it's frustrating when what you want is no longer available, but that's why copyright (except in the US, which is likely to extend copyright each time Mickey Mouse reaches the end of the current period) is limited in duration so that eventually it becomes public domain.

            1 0
            1. Alan Brown Silver badge
              Reply Icon

              Re: USPTO

              > How much does it cost to set up and print a single book?

              Not much. There are always companies near universities which do this - most PhD theses need to be in bound format.

              0 0
          2. Matt Bradley
            Reply Icon

            The right to withdraw a work

            Creators have on occasion chosen to withdraw a work because of a change of heart about it. Maybe they don't feel it is up to their usual standard, or even in some cases they fell it to be morally or socially dubious.

            Recording musicians often record works which they choose not to release for one reason or another.

            Authors frequently bin works or work in progress for one reason or another.

            Software houses invariably withdraw older versions of their work when a new version is released.

            Copyright should continue to protect the owner's right to choose when and how to make their work available. It is fundamental to the principle of copyright.

            1 0
    2. Steve I
      Reply Icon

      Re: USPTO

      "It's time for Judges to tell patent trolls if they are not using "their invention" they should lose the patent."

      The danger of that is the scenario of one man in a shed who invents the teleport. He'll (probably) never be able to build it so should he lose it? His only hope is to licence it which would fit this definition of patent trolling.

      0 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: USPTO

        No, that doesn't apply. It would only apply if (a) teleportation was obvious enough to be invented by a guy in a shed and (b) someone with proper resources actually invented and built a teleportation system, and he then came along and demanded that they pay for the privilege. The fact is, that of someone really did invent something as significant as teleportation, the world really would be beating a path to his door to licence it.

        These cases are all about insignificant, unimportant things that could be independently thought up by almost anybody.

        One company I worked for would only patent things from R&D relating to its "core business", so we in the electronics department used to submit all our possibly novel circuits to the magazines that existed at the time, so we could establish prior art and not risk having some bottomhole demanding that we pay him after he bought our kit, analysed the circuitry and then filed for a patent on it.

        0 0
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: USPTO

      I write quite a bit of music in my spare time, along with doing some programming, photography, etc.

      I don't have the resources or time to actually promote this stuff, so a lot of it sits. Some if it I give away, but I don't want people to use commercially.

      Allowing people to just say, "Oh, you're not using it, I'll take that, thanks" would be monumentally unfair - essentially it would hand control of any works made by independent creators to whoever had the money to grab them first.

      Even for patents, it's a can of worms - I could invent something but have to save up the money to start a business based on it, or have to use the patent to attract investors. But someone else should be able to just appropriate my work because I didn't already have the money to immediately take advantage of it?

      Both of those ideas are essentially really efficient ways of screwing the little guy.

      0 0
  4. Crisp
    Trollface

    And still no overhaul of the patent system.

    This has gone past absurd.

    What's next? A patent on the wheel?

    0 0
    1. John Latham
      Reply Icon

      Re: And still no overhaul of the patent system.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

      1 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And still no overhaul of the patent system.

        People should not keep citing this. When it was filed in Australia it was genuinely novel and Australians had not yet invented it. It had to be filed by the white invaders to prevent the native Australians from developing technology and kicking them out.

        5 0
      2. Crisp
        Reply Icon
        Coat

        @John Latham

        I was joking! I swear I tried to think of the most absurd thing I could think of!

        I think I just lost all faith in humanity.

        0 0
  5. PsychicMonkey
    Trollface

    Have they not heard of Apple?

    if there is one firm willing to go to the expense of a full blown trial it Apple!

    0 0
  6. BigAndos
    FAIL

    I wonder if I can get a patent on humans talking to each other?

    1 0
    1. Andyb@B5
      Reply Icon

      @BigAndos

      Probably not, plenty of prior art for that....

      Now patenting them actually listening to each other, could be some mileage in that!

      1 0
  7. Terry 6 Silver badge
    Angel

    Is the core of this inovative invention significantly different from the ear peice on my old transistor radio circa 1970?

    Maybe i should patent a wooden rectangular device for admission to domestic property, complete with its revolutionary sliding steel security option and optional mail entry interface.

    2 0
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      To get through the rigorous standards of nonobviousness of the USPTO, you would need to describe an email delivery agent and then add "implemented on a door".

      2 0

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. JetSetJim
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not to state the obvious...

      Indeed, specifically a 2.5mm i/o port and an 1/8" audio plug (Claims 6 & 7). Not entirely sure what aspects of this patent that Apple have ridden roughshod over in not licensing it, though.

      0 0
      1. NorthernCoder
        Reply Icon
        Go

        Re: Not to state the obvious...

        It would be more correct to phrase it "Indeed, specifically a 2.5mm i/o port -or- an 1/8" audio plug" Claim 7 only references claim 1, not 6 (although I am a bit rusty on USPTO interpretation of claim references)

        Anyhow; as I read the patent and the claims, 1 & 6 could be what the case is about.

        I don't have an iPhone, so the connector details may be incorrect (help me here).

        If the Dock connector/Ligtning can be used for Input/output of audio, a headset can be connected to it and that would be the first connector (A quick scan of a manual indicates that you can connect at least a microphone this way).

        The regular 2.5mm jack is then the other one, as outlined in claims 1 (and 6).

        As for prior art, my first thought was as most people here, that even my first phone (in 1998) had a connector for a head set. However, it didn't have -two- connectors for it, which the patent states.

        The question then is if any mobile phone maker (I'm looking at you, Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia, now) had publicized a phone in early 2002 (or possibly earlier due to the US weird "first to invent") which can serve as prior art?

        [Disclaimer: IANAL; I am an engineer who took an extra year of studies in IP]

        1 0
        1. Markl2011
          Reply Icon

          Re: Not to state the obvious...

          Isn't it a 3.5mm jack on the iPhone not a 2.5mm jack?

          0 0
          1. NorthernCoder
            Reply Icon

            Re: Not to state the obvious...

            You may very well be right.

            Adjust my previous post to 3.5mm and claim 7 in that case.

            1 0
            1. Markl2011
              Reply Icon

              Re: Not to state the obvious...

              It might be just me being pedantic but 1/8" = 3.175mm and according to the Apple web the iPhone does have a 3.5mm jack.

              0 0
        2. Adam Feldman
          Reply Icon

          Re: Not to state the obvious...

          What I'd like to know, is who holds the patent (or is it a public standard) for TRRS connectors, and when did those come into existence, because in effect, that's what the patent is for... Is it not? Whether the port appeared on the phone should pretty much be irrelevant as taking a TRRS port and putting it on a phone hardly seems patent worthy and that would be grounds for smacking down the patent (obviousness). Worth noting though, is that I couldn't find a patent filed before 2006 with TRRS connectors mentioned explicitly as TRRS. Enough ramblings from me.

          0 0
    2. Stoneshop
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not to state the obvious...

      2-way radio handsets have them, though, and what is a mobile telephone but a rather specific implementation*) of a 2-way radio handset?

      *) rounded corners optional

      0 0
  9. Androgynous Crackwhore
    Headmaster

    Two questions...

    1. When referring to one of those companies as a "troll", which one is it?

    2. When you say "The rather turgid patent in question describes...", are you sure you weren't aiming for something more like... turbid?

    0 0
    1. Amonynous
      Reply Icon

      Re: Two questions...

      "When you say "The rather turgid patent in question describes...", are you sure you weren't aiming for something more like... turbid?"

      Turbid. Adjective:

      (of a liquid) Cloudy, opaque, or thick with suspended matter: "the turbid estuary".

      Turgid. Adjective:

      1. Swollen and distended or congested: "a turgid and fast-moving river".

      2. (of language or style) Tediously pompous or bombastic: "some turgid verses on the death of Prince Albert".

      In a word, no.

      0 0
  10. Tom 35
    Devil

    Yes it's stupid

    But Apple loves to use Old_Idea+On_A_Mobile_Device = patent

    Now they get to wast time money on a bogus patent... Ha Ha

    6 0
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A wireless mobile phone? Whatever next.

    I see the patent covers "A wireless mobile phone"; as opposed to the corded mobile phone?

    Anyway I'm sure that headsets for "wireless mobile phone" appeared before 2008.

    This sort of patent is not about IP, it's about low grade extortion where it's cheaper to pay them off than to go to trial. There should be criminal law to cover this as it is a waste of court time.

    At the moment there is no way to discourage this type of "legal" process because it provides employment for lawyers and court officials at the expense of IP dependent businesses; no-one goes to jail, and there's scope for endless legal appeals so as far as the courts are concerned it's easy money.

    The US needs to do something about this before these rats gnaw their technology sector to death.

    0 1
    1. Bert 1
      Reply Icon
      Facepalm

      Re: A wireless mobile phone? Whatever next.

      "I see the patent covers "A wireless mobile phone"; as opposed to the corded mobile phone?"

      They've got a got a watertight defense here. Given the amount of time that the iphone must be plugged in to a charger, I'm not sure it could accurately be described as wireless.

      4 0
  12. Pet Peeve
    WTF?

    The patent office needs a complete blood transfusion

    The patent covers specifically a mobile phone with an integrated headset-microphone, so you can't directly claim prior art on mike-headset combos on tape recorders which go back to what, the 70s? maybe earlier?

    The first phone I had that had earbuds with a built-in mic was my first gen iphone, and that's a year before this patent was granted, so it's trivially breakable on those terms, but I'm sure you could do even better. Even lacking prior art (which isn't lacking), I think the "trivial to anyone familiar with the technology" applies here. Duh, maybe I want to hang the mic on the same wires as the earbuds? Let's patent that!

    The USPTO is dysfunctional. Everyone who approves a reversed patent should get their asses fired. I'm not a freetard - I think there's plenty of good reasons to have a patent system, but when it's not doing what it's supposed to, ENCOURGE use of new technology, then it's got to be reformed.

    Can you sue before you offer a license on a patented technology? If they offered a license at say a penny per headphone, and they really could prove it was their original idea, not simply the first to file a stupid patent that should never have been approved, then it wouldn't be an issue.

    0 0
    1. Steve the Cynic
      Reply Icon

      Re: The patent office needs a complete blood transfusion

      Tsk. Be careful of the difference between date of grant and date of filing. The patent was granted in 2008, but filed in 2002. Now, I'm not saying there were or were not phones with dual audio sockets before that date, but I think we'd all agree that 2002 is well before the release of the first iPhone...

      1 0
  13. Don Jefe
    Meh

    Patnet Office

    The biggest problem with the USPTO is the insane amount of paperwork involved. It's sort of like getting a green card. If you fill out all 75,000 forms correctly and pay the fees no one really even reads the actual merits of the application.

    The paperwork/bureaucracy doesn't help foster innovation, it just makes it so that big companies who can afford the lawyers to fill out the applications get to screw the individual with the good idea.

    1 0
  14. system11

    Kind of difficult to feel sorry for Apple given their recent behaviour, even if patent trolls are wretched.

    1 1
  15. ukgnome
    Joke

    I'm just waiting until there are enough handsets to launch my multi-lawsuit against all manufactures.

    In it my patent describes holes \ slats \ slits that are placed in front of a speaker to facilitate the hearing of the speaker if it is mounted in a case that can be utilised for mobile transportation. This only applies to devices that are no larger than 4.5 inches across.

    2 0
  16. Simon B
    Devil

    if Apple can patent a rectangle then curved corners AND have it allowed, then I hope thet get nailed by someone elses pathetic patent.

    1 0
    1. NorthernCoder
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      It's a language problem as well...

      They don't have (I hope!) a utility patent on rectangles, they have a -design- patent on "a rectangle then curved corners". Most likely this design patent is restricted to fondlephones and -slabs.

      There is a big difference both in how utility (i.e. regular) patents and design patents work, but it gets lost when calling both types simply "patents". Things would be easier if the two types had different names (in EU the term "Industrial design right" is used where USPTO uses design patent)

      0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like