Apple sued over playback technology used in QuickTime and iPhone

“EPL Holdings, a Delaware company run out of Palo Alto has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.

“The official filing with the court states that Enounce had entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Apple back in early 2002,” Purcher reports. “The actual offer for their technology came in the following month at a low ball price that Enounce refused.”

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

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Edward W.” for the heads up.]


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

    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.

    1. 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.

  2. 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…

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.