Apple sued over iPod nano, touch connector
updated 12:10 am EDT, Tue April 29, 2008
Dock connector lawsuit?
Apple has been sued by yet another company claiming that it infringed on a patent through components found in the immensely popular iPod media player. Filed last week in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of inventor Henry Milan by Detroit-based law firm Butzel Long, it claims that Apple violated a hardware-based patent in its connecting mechanism in the two different media players. The firm argues a violation of U.S. patent No. 6,991,483, which was filed on Nov, 12, 2004, and issued on Jan. 31, 2006, almost five months after launched the iPod nano and six weeks after Apple was contacted about alleged infringement. The patent describes a connector that combines a Flash memory drive and a connection port in a single unit that be made to a variety devices using various adapters.
Interestingly, the iPhone is not cited in the complaint, although it was introduced before the iPod touch and uses a similar single unit design for the Flash memory drive connector, according to Information Week. In addition, the report notes that the lawsuit may have been meant, in part, to precipitate licensing discussions.
"They've been very slow in responding," Butzel Long representatives told the publication. "While the iPhone is not listed in the initial complaint, it's possible that the suit could be expanded to cover the iPhone," he continued.
According to the report, the lawsuit seeks damages for willful infringement and an injunction against the sale of the iPod nano and Touch, although the lawyers apparently backpedaled on the possibility of halting current sales, as the firm was not yet sure whether it would ultimately seek an injunction.
Patent reform
04/29, 12:29am reply
Now!
ViktorCode
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2006
Prior Art
04/29, 01:29am reply
Seems that just about any tethered device that has memory would be prior art. Off the top of my head, the Newton Message Pad and early Palm Pilots connecting with cables, rather than docks. Likewise any WinCE/PocketPC devices or home embroidery machines would also be considered flash memory devices with special cables. h***, my old HP 48GX calculator, and the TI-85 I used before that would also count, although the latter just used a mini-jack for a physical connector.
All the same, this patent should have a very difficult time holding up. The caveat being that I am basing my opinion only on the description here, and not on a thorough reading of all claims made in the patent.
LenE
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: May 2004
lawsuits
04/29, 03:51pm reply
are everywhere..
thewebdrives
Administrator
Joined: Jun 2007
cool
04/29, 04:21pm reply
sue them till they are broke.
Guest
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 1999
Yep !
04/30, 03:22pm reply
I patented breathing: a process by which "air" is pulled into the lungs thru a primarily involuntary and yet sometimes voluntary action which allows a creature to "breathe" for the purposes of infusing the blood-stream and other bodily processeses with oxygen and nitrogen and other needed "gases" as requried_
You are ALL in violation of this and I demand compensation_ 50¢ from ALL 6 billion+ people on the planet_
Also - it's prior art in favor of Apple - seeing as how the patent was filed in 2004 and granted 1.5 years later - between 3 and 5 years after the iPod hit the market_ WTF?
UberFu
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Oct 2002
lawsuits
05/01, 01:59am reply
These lawsuits are getting ridiculous, who in their right mind is giving people patents for things as generic as this, seriously!
rytc
Mac Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2001
sue
05/01, 02:33am reply
sue!!!!!!
Guest
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 1999
seriously?
05/01, 12:04pm reply
this is getting ridiculous. people sue for anything these days. i blame the patent offices for patenting every-damn-thing. D
Guest
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 1999