May 25, 2012 - 05:30 PM EDT — AAPL: 562.29 (-3.03, -0.54%) | NASDAQ: 2837.53 (-1.85, -0.07%)

Apple sued over infringement of camera tech patents; Sony, Canon forced to pay millions for same IP

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 · 6:05 pm · 24 Comments

“A lawsuit filed by St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants has targeted Apple for allegedly using camera technology protected by several patents,” Electronista reports. “The four patents, each relating to digital camera systems, were originally issued to a company named Personal Computer Cameras, although St. Clair purchased the technology between 1995 and 2001.”

Electronista reports, “Soon after finishing its acquisition of the patents, St. Clair in 2001 filed an infringement suit against Sony. The jury reportedly awarded the patent holder $25 million in damages. A similar suit aimed at Canon lead to over $34 million in damages, while Fuji was forced to pay $3 million.”

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

♥ Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended for Mac - Student and Teacher Edition DVD (65171323) only $249!
♥ Blowout: Apple 15.4" MacBook Pro i7/4Core/2.0GHz/4GB/500GB (MC721LL/A) only $1,549.99 + Free Shipping from MacMall
♥ Mac Madness Save 25% on Parallels Desktop 7!
♥ 15% Off Compatible Ink. 10% Off All Others (excludes OEMs). Free Shipping over $55. Coupon: 123BLOSSOM, Expires 6.18.12
♥ Save up to 60% at the Hammacher Schlemmer Special Values Sale-While supplies last.
♥ Dragon Dictate for Mac 2.5 - New! Simply Smarter Speech Recognition
♥ Up to 30% OFF Accessories from Verizon Wireless
♥ Limited Time Offer: Get free ZAGGsmartbuds when you buy a ZAGGsparq!

Comment Feed

24 Comments

1 2 Next »

Lava_Head

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:07 pm · Reply

Another one jumping on the Apple gravy train me thinks
Fujifilm

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:10 pm · Reply

Clearly Apple has stolen this technology and will pay dearly, just like Canon and Fujifilm did. Apple must not be allowed to steal other people’s technology.
iQuack

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:11 pm · Reply

It is good gravy I suppose. :/
G4Dualie

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:17 pm · Reply

Clearly? Hey fuji what do you know that we don’t?
Chas

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:25 pm · Reply

@fuji

Try telling that to Micro$oft!

=:~)
patent troll (not)

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:34 pm · Reply

I say prior art, for Apple, since they had the first digital camera, the QuickTake.
IDArgyll

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:35 pm · Reply

I seem to remember an Apple Quicktake that I used to own about 1995. Why was nobody suing since then? Perhaps Apple doesn’t use that exact IP. If so, they’re going to make enough off of the sales to pay anyway. But I think Apple would’ve researched that.
ChrissyOne

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:35 pm · Reply

@ Fujifilm

Dearly? $35 million? That’s pocket change honey. Don’t be such a tool.
Gabriel

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:36 pm · Reply

“St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants”? Yeesh… that name just screams “patent vultures.”

The patent system should reward companies which bring actual products to market. Instead, all it’s doing is rewarding patent vultures, who do nothing but get rich at the expense of the companies who do make actual products – an “innovation tax” with no upside for anyone except those banking on getting rich from the “lawsuit lottery” system.
don

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:47 pm · Reply

STFU Fuji… you still owe money to Kodak!
KingMel

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:55 pm · Reply

The patent process is broken and will eventually crush society (and you thought Wall Street or Social Security or Climate Change would be the doom of humanity). I am sickened every time I see one of these lawsuits. I have no doubt that at least a few of them have merit, but I suspect that the patent trolls dominate the courts.

From the article:
“The “’459 patent,” “’219 patent,” and “’010 patent” hold the title “Electronic Still Video Camera with Direct Personal Computer (PC) Compatible Digital Format Output,” while the “’899 patent” is entitled “Process for Use in Electronic Camera.”

I haven’t read the patent. But it seems pretty darn obvious to me based on the title.
fujifilm

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 7:04 pm · Reply

Kodak is a bit player in today’s world Don. It’s Fujifilm time.
Gabriel

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 7:19 pm · Reply

If only some company would file a patent on methods of abusing the patent system… there’d be no shortage of companies to sue for that!
@G4Dualie

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 7:24 pm · Reply

“Clearly? Hey fuji what do you know that we don’t?”

Well, for one thing, he seems to understand what sarcasm is. =p
@Gabriel

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 7:27 pm · Reply

I think you’ve just become my hero.
BMW

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 7:37 pm · Reply

This is Absolutly Disgusting! These Lawsuits are getting out of hand. Many people dont even want to do business anymore because greedy dumb people sit back with imaginary inventions waiting to take advantage of actual productive people who make things happen. The patent system should be for actual products that are in production . Not just ideas that sit in a vault waiting to sue a company that is productive. I am to the point that being American is becoming an Embarrasment.
People sue and whine and complaine about everything and demand more more form the people who work.
Very sad in deed!
Apple is no dumb company, payback is going to be a pain .
The Other Steve

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 8:16 pm · Reply

Be carfull before suing Apple. Their attorneys have a way of invalidating someone’s claims.
Jeff

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 8:20 pm · Reply

While I have no doubt that most of these suites are from patent trolls. The statement that patents should only be for those that can produce a product is going just a little overboard. There are legitimate reasons that some inventors can not produce what they have invented. Some time you may have the brains and technology to say design something unique using a simulator you can prove your invention has merit but maybe a prototype would cost hundreds of thousand of dollars so they approach a large company with an idea that they wisely got a patent for and that company rejects the request and builds the product without compensating the inventor. These things do happen but their needs to be a time limit on when you can state your claim and 10 years is way to long.
KenC

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 12:01 am · Reply

Given the size of those awards and the number of digital cameras those companies have sold, I’d wager, Apple owes less than $1M. Why haven’t they sued Nokia? Everyone says they have great digital cameras on their phones and they sell so many!
Mr. Reeee

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 9:11 am · Reply

@KenC… nearly every Mac sold in the past 4 years and a few iPods have built-in digital cameras capable of producing still and video.

@BMW… “I am to the point that being American is becoming an Embarrasment.” What took you so long?

While traveling, it’s frustrating AND irritating trying to explain the systemic idiocy of the American populace and the government… regardless of who sits in the White House, although that’s improved considerably since 2008!!