“‘We will be looking very carefully at the iPhone,’ is the warning to Apple from Southampton-based touch sensor specialist Quantum Research, which already has one lawsuit proceeding against Apple for patent infringement, and is prepared to bring another,” David Manners reports for Electronics Weekly.
“‘The description of the iPhone suggests it uses a rear-surface touch screen, and has proximity sensing which can tell if it is held to the ear. That’s a QR capability,’ Duncan Bryan, licensing director at Quantum Research, told EW,” Manners reports.
Manners reports, “If Apple has used charge transfer technology, QR’s patented technology, to give the iPhone that capability, then Apple could be infringing the firm’s patent… QR is currently selling chips to Apple which it uses in products…”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Judge Bork” for the heads up.]
Related article:
Quantum Research Group sues Apple over iPod Click Wheel charge-transfer tech – January 22, 2007
Don’t forget Apple has over 200 patents of there own that everyone else should watch out for. Steve Jobs made that very clear when he announced this product.
Huh? They expect to sell Apple the chips then refuse Apple the right to use them?
Who knew your legal division could be considered a profit center? Pathetic.
No, they don’t expect to sell Apple chips and then refuse Apple the right to use them.
They want Apple to continue to buy chips from them and not shortcut them by implementing their patented IP without buying chips from them.
Evidently they want to examine the iPhone because they don’t have a contract to supply chips for the phone and are wondering how it can do things that would normally require their chips.
if Quantum thinks that Apple is going to let them license this technology to other companies they are wrong. Apple would probably acquire the company whole rather than let the competition get the touch screen technology. The purchase wouldn’t even make a dent in thier cash holdings.
MDN Magic word “going”. As in Quantum is going, going, gone…
Parasites.
Here’s the Mac-Fanatical response, typical of so many on MDN.
1. It’s Apple… so it’s okay.
2. Besides this is Microsoft’s fault somehow.
3. Oh… and you’re a troll.
4. Thirty more posts of the same posts saying the same things.
5. Stale jokes.
6. Rinse and repeat.
Too bad MPC is not very Mac-friendly, but I’m afraid I have to agree with his take on about 90% of the discussions on this board.
Oh, MPC, you forgot the racist and zenophobic posts usually interjected in the discussions somewhere. Shame on you for forgetting those.
Aren’t these the folks who named Apple in a lawsuit for using Synaptics’ clickwheel in their iPod Mini or Nano?
Always a Boring rehash of the same old rehash at MDN.
Nothing interesting, nothing new.
Why are other tech sites more interesting?
Hmmmm….because at MDN it is either everything is great that Apple does AND everything that everyone else does is total sh*t, lies, no good?
Sooooooooo predictable, soooooooooo boring.
It’s “interesting” that Quantum Research “just happens” to be the supplier of touch sensitive technology for the Chinese iPhone clone: the Meizu M8; and the Meizu M8 “just happens” to be backed by no other than Microsoft itself and runs its Windows Mobile OS.
Meizu itself is mysteriously sitting it out while more removed players like Quantum do the bidding for both Meizu and Microsoft.
A legal consultant for this news agency predicts that this case will not go to trial, since “litigation discovery” (conducted under oath) would backfire for Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, who would subsequently invite prosecution under the Federal RICO statutes for conspiring to illegally use foreign entities to attack a US corporation, i.e. Apple. The question is: how far will the boys of Redmond be willing to carry their bluff. This is a very risky and totally illegal game being waged and Federal agencies are already watching. The US DOJ, FBI and SEC are not blind afterall.
This company cannot sue Apple until the iPhone is released, because they will be able to tell if their IP has been violated?
Cisco can sue Apple over the iPhone trademark because Apple have already confirmed they are going to use that name for their product.
Anyway expect lots of lawsuits. Apple is making a big splash and everyone wants a piece of the action.
Here’s the typical PC-Apologist response, typical of so many that post here on MDN.
1. It’s Apple… so it’s okay.
2. Besides this is Microsoft’s fault somehow.
3. Oh… and you’re a troll.
4. Thirty more posts of the same posts saying the same things.
5. Stale jokes.
6. Rinse and repeat.
MDN: “move”, as in, “move on if you don’t like it” and go play with your ultra-cool UMPC brick.
Apple needs to stop publishing specs and let these guys reverse engineering the products.
At least gets to make some money off the sale of the product that these ppl will rip apart.
Just my $0.02
Nothign like biting the hand that feeds you. Doh!
>doG wrote: Here’s the typical PC-Apologist response, typical of so many that post here on MDN.
Like I said… stale joke.
What’s funny about your post against me is that I’m a Mac user.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
17″ MBP Core2 Duo
(the “g” version, not the “n” that costs $2 more)
—
>jay wrote: Too bad MPC is not very Mac-friendly
Sorry if I came off that way. Have yourself a great day, friend… wherever in the world you are.
Soon you can’t go out in the streets and fart, since that will be patented by some fat idiot, who doesn’t even know how to fart himself.
So, Mack, you don’t believe QR has the right to patent their technology? What about Apple’s patents? Obviously those aren’t valid either, right?
ahh, I may have confused you with some one else.
>jay wrote: ahh, I may have confused you with some one else.
Maybe not.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Have a great day just the same.
Macfanboy #12
Why are other tech sites more interesting?
Maybe because you are into the sixty seventh rehash of why Microsoft can’t deliver on an object oriented operating despite having 20 years to do so. Maybe you enjoy protracted discussions of CPU front side bus frequencies and RAM clock speeds?
Hmmmm….because at MDN it is either everything is great that Apple does AND everything that everyone else does is total sh*t, lies, no good?
Do you suffer from comprehension problems? Let me spell it out for you. It will save you redundant posts in the future.
This is Mac Daily News, where Mac news comes first. It’s also made abundantly clear that MDN has their own take on news stories about Apple. That means it’s an opinion on events in the news. Does this bother you, that Mac Daily News is rabidly pro Mac and enjoys pointing out the failings of companies who copy Apple’s OS initiatives and slags the people who have made a primary business out of slagging Apple?
Good. I’m glad it annoys you. I hope it gets right under your skin and gives you a rash.
>His Shadow wrote: That means it’s an opinion on events in the news.
Should they then change their name to MacDailyOpinion.com?
As for Quantum, do they actually MAKE anything? Or are they, as a quick perusal of their website suggests, merely a collection of analysts buying up dead companies for unused patents and then targeting companies that actually ship products? Huh? Anyone? 😀
I for one think the US has to get it’s collective sh!t together when it comes to patent law. The maxim should based on Steve Job’s himself, who once said “Real Artists Ship!”.
RIM and it’s Blackberry were recently the target of exactly such a company, which wasn’t a company so much as a collection of lawyers using the patents granted to long dead companies to go after actual companies with actual products.
I’m sorry, but I don’t give a damn f you thought of it first and even got a patent. If you don’t produce an actual product within a reasonable period of time, you lose. It should be that simple.
If Quantum can prove that they have a device or interface or even an actual product that uses multi touch, go for it. But if Apple came up with a new product incorporating TECHNOLOGY THEY ALREADY BOUGHT UP FRONT FROM YOU, you should be slapped with a major fine for being a nuisance.
I think most will agree with me on the thrust of my comment, but if anyone has any specifics regarding Quantum that is not evident from the article, please enlighten me.
His Shadow,
They make chips and sensors. Is that good enough for you?
>His Shadow wrote: …TECHNOLOGY THEY ALREADY BOUGHT UP FRONT FROM YOU…
This is where it gets tricky.
Apple licensed technology from Quantum. They didn’t *buy* the technology, otherwise they’d probably keep it all to themselves and you’d see no competitors with touch-screen and proximity sensing abilities (at least of the QR variety).
The license was probably for a specific product or products for a specific time. It’s doubtful QR would sell an open-ended license to Apple (ala Apple did to Microsoft) for future products and such. I can’t say that any of this is the case in this situation, but that’s generally how licensing works.
It sounds as if Quantum was surprised by the iPhone in a way that suggests Apple did not adhere to their license agreement.
Hopefully that’s not the case as I’m looking forward to buying one! If indeed Quantum has a valid claim against Apple, the introduction of the iPhone could be messy, or even worse, more expensive for the consumer.