Comments on: Apple sued over playback technology used in QuickTime and iPhone

By: Derek Currie

Derek Currie — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:45:31 +0000

More ‘Me Too!’ Proview fallout…

By: Derek Currie

Derek Currie — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:44:40 +0000

Apple released the first version of QuickTime on December 2, 1991... QuickTime @Wikipedia Oops EPL. Off by a decade.

By: Derek Currie

Derek Currie — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:41:01 +0000

“EPL claims that Apple went ahead anyway and used the technology used in QuickTime and the iPhone.”

Sounds like more Proview-quality desperation dumpster diving to me.

By: Walter White

Walter White — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:34:17 +0000

and where is it proven that Apple has in deed stolen or actually use the technology from Enounce?

I mean, scrubbing… speed adjustment… the idea maybe the same… but the use of technology the programming the code… did apple infringe or steal this and if so prove it as so.

By: aryugaetu

aryugaetu — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:06:04 +0000

Per Wikipedia, QuickTime’s initial release was 2 Dec 1991. Do the math. Perhaps it was something Apple added to QuickTime that came from Enounce.

By: hannahjs

hannahjs — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:41:56 +0000

Judge Dredd should adjudicate.

A Sly reference, that.

By: BigPaise

BigPaise — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:36:00 +0000

Getting Apple to “settle” by now paying a license fee for the tech may be just bait so that EPL can come back saying that Apple thus admits to willful infringement and will file a new suit on that basis. However, I am sure that Apple lawyers are wise enough to word any settlement to avoid such a thing.

By: b9bot

b9bot — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:26:06 +0000

Apple has had Quicktime many years before 2002. And why would you wait 10 years to bring this up? I just don’t understand? Why isn’t there something in the court system that bars cases like these? Waste of money if you ask me.

By: blaargh

blaargh — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:22:01 +0000

Heh, read the full article… Apple offered them 50k years ago, they refused and now 10 yrs later they’re asking for 75k (after Apple has made “billions off of their invention”. It’s gotta be pretty frustrating for Apple to get shakedowns like this – they know it’s cheaper to pay the idiots off than to go to court…EPL priced it perfectly.
That patent is garbage as well… I’m sure Apple can find plenty of prior art – every DAW and movie player could do that since day one…

By: eldernorm

eldernorm — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:12:09 +0000

How is it that EVERYONE has the patent on such items as
Quicktime
moving images
saving images
looking at images
etc
etc

I mean we keep seeing these patent trolls coming out of the woodwork years later with patents for basically the same generic “I think images should exist, be able to be moved, saved and seen in some order” type patents.

If Apple has to pay one of these, there should be a proviso that that company MUST pay for any future lawsuits vs that operation. Pit the “patent holder” against the “patent holder” and let them fight it out.

Just a thought.

By: Observer

Observer — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:46:32 +0000

10 years later? Yeah riiiiiight.

Good luck with that.