Advertisement: Parallels Desktop 6 with Enhanced 3D Graphics for Games and Parallels Mobile app for the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch! Buy now!
“The lawsuit appears to be concerning the sale and enabling of downloaded video content like movies and HDTV programming on iTunes to all of Apple’s hardware including the iPhone, iPad and Apple TV,” Purcher reports. “Multi-Format Inc., is seeking a ‘reasonable royalty’ from Apple and has further asked the court to consider tripling the damages accessed if the damages are not found by a jury – according to the inclusion of sub-section 284 of the U.S. legal Code found in their complaint.”
Purcher reports, “The patent that is at the heart of this lawsuit is RE38,079 (‘the ‘079 Patent’) entitled: Multi-Format Audio/Video Production System.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple added video to iTunes Store on October 12, 2005. What’s Multi-Format Inc. been doing for the last five years?
Apparently, trolling.
reading the claim, it doesn’t include the Intel MacPro, the iMac or the laptops. What is it about those computers that exclude them form the claim?
MDN: “What’s Multi-Format Inc. been doing for the last five years?”
Likely looking for investment money to fund their patent defending business model and looking for favorable jury locations.
Apple – California
Multi-Format – New Jersey
Middle ground – Illinois
A obvious signal of compromise right off, meaning their pockets might not be deep enough to carry on a lengthy suit. But they obviously have enough to fund the costs of going to Illinois.
Since Apple has been in the process lately of paying everyone else off, perhaps they can get theirs too?
Not Bizarre enough for you? Sorry
If I read the patent application correctly, this patent was applied for in 1997. A little late?!
“What’s Multi-Format Inc. been doing for the last five years?”
Waiting for Apple to rack up lot’s of sales, therefore suing for higher damages. Of course it comes out now as Apple moves to a streaming-only model.
I’m more surprised that the lawsuit didn’t pertain to studios using Final Cut to produce TV, HDTV, Movie content. I don’t get the iTunes distribution tactic.
the patent app is a “process”, not the actual hardware. the only interface it talks about is the rgb cabling from a video camera. they do not spell out the process of how the size of the original video is modified to fit on a different screen other than to say the video adapter chip will do it.
this falls under the stupid patents list, like trying to patent walking, or how you put money in your wallet. worthless, and they should be sued for what little they are worth.
Wait a minute, “…asked the court to consider tripling the damages accessed if the damages are not found by a jury”
So if the damages are not found by a jury, are they still considered damages? How can you triple something that does not exist?
“Apple added video to iTunes Store on October 12, 2005. What’s Multi-Format Inc. been doing for the last five years?”
K-Mart has a lawyer layaway plan?
@MacDust “How can you triple something that does not exist?”
Multiply by zero.
http://www.geekologie.com/2007/06/house_tunnel.php
This patent appears to address the creation, editing, conversion, and manipulation of production quality video content using computers (create a new/different copy). I don’t see where where the sale, distribution, or consumption of video applies to what they have referenced as an infringement unless the reformatting by the device (like 1080p content viewed as 720p on the iPad) is taken as a ‘conversion’. But then, the original video was not altered, so it shouldn’t apply. Looks like trolling.
I patented water. Go thirsty or go broke – your choice.
This patent has a priority date of April 21, 1993 for those of you can’t read the front of a patent correctly. It’s a continuation in part of another application from that date. So, they have pretty early priortiy date and may squeeze some $$ out of Apple. Of course, priority date isn’t everything though.
@MacDust
How does a business ‘lose profits’ it hasn’t made yet?
Just the mystery of life I suppose.
If Apple claimed that this is all just an extension of Quicktime (which a lot of it is), then they will have priority — Quicktime came out in December 1991.
@RamaFan: You can “lose profits” by not getting paid by someone who should have to pay you a license fee. If you have a valid (!?) patent, you can demand this. Of course, the defendant may be able to prove your patent invalid, in which case you didn’t lose anything when they refused to pay you.
To address some another misunderstanding some people seem to have: Unlike trademark, you can sit on a patent. You don’t lose the ability to sue by not suing everyone possible, or by waiting for years. You can pick and choose who to sue, and when, as long your patent hasn’t expired.
Apple might have a good chance to defeat this (I haven’t read the patent), but it might be cheaper to settle. Also, the fact that this patent stretches back to a priority date in 1993 means at least two things:
1. Better chance it is valid – that’s a long time ago for the kind of tech they describe in this ( admittedly poorly-written) article.
2. The patent expires in 2013, so they’ve waited about as long as they could.
Triple damages, a favorite ploy, common to copyright trolling lawsuits. It’s supposed to scare the defendant into settling out of court. Trouble is, courts (other than the eastern district of Texas) usually require substantial evidence the defendant acted willfully or in bad faith.
When, oh when can we get significant tort reform? Easy answer: never. Because the SCOTUS made it legal for corporations to have unlimited influence by donations.
Stupid like this is the reason at age 42 I decided to go to Law School.
This shows why Software Parents must be eradicated. This is really stupid. And it stifles competition.
Software patents must die!!!
Put it this way. They knew about apple infringing in 2005. Thwysbould have stopes them then. Not now you snooze you loose.