Judge Rules iDevice Speaker Docks Don't Infringe On Bose Patent 67
CIStud writes "A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts has ruled that iPod, iPad and iPhone speakers docks do not infringe on a patent owned by Bose Corp. for digital audio conversion. The ruling in the case of Bose vs. small dock speaker makers SDI, DPI, Imation and others reportedly was a test case that would have set precedent for potential patent infringement by other manufacturers... and even Apple... according to the defendant's legal team. At issue: Is an iPhone, iPad or iPod a 'computer.' The judge says they aren't."
This is becoming boring (Score:1, Interesting)
Apple has patented round corners. Apple has patented the double click. Apple has patented the scrollbar. Apple has patented speakers, but only for non-computers.
I'm so tired of this "I can piss while lumping at the same time. Even if you can do it I have patented it so you have to pay me." Fuck these idiots till they die. (Is fuck-till-death patented, by the way?)
Re: (Score:2)
Is fuck-till-death patented, by the way?
Probably counts as an artistic or cultural expression, so subject to copyright rather than patent (despite its obvious utility). If you make videos, you can copyright them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Great, another patent 'category' to go with:
-over the internet
-with a computer
-with a wireless connection
-using a database
we add
-with a mobile device
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has patented round corners. Apple has patented the double click. Apple has patented the scrollbar. Apple has patented speakers, but only for non-computers.
I'm so tired of this "I can piss while lumping at the same time. Even if you can do it I have patented it so you have to pay me." Fuck these idiots till they die. (Is fuck-till-death patented, by the way?)
I just filed an application! Fuck death copycats look out!
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually RTFA, or even UTFS? Bose, not Apple, sued small manufacturers and LOST the case. This is a win for the small chaps!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't RTF* but it's obvious that Bose has prior art on expensive, shiny, thin stuff to show off to people, that has some audio related secondary function. Waaayyy before apple. Probably they were ashamed of patenting the concept as it is. Too bad, they'd have apple by the cojones if they did.
Re:This is becoming boring (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe they should patent reading the fucking article - you'd be in no danger of infringing.
Fuck-till-death can't be patented (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not to ruin a perfectly good rant, but Apple wasn't actually involved in this case. It was a suit brought by Bose against the makers of third party speaker docks for i-devices.
Computer? (Score:2)
iPod == iPhone without a cellular radio (Score:3)
For an iPod, the question is unclear.
An iPod touch is an iPhone without a cellular radio. As far as I can tell, Apple has been deemphasizing its iPod shuffle, iPod nano, and iPod classic product lines in favor of iPod touch and other iOS devices.
But for iPad and iPhone, I'd have thought the consensus was that they count as computers.
The microcontroller in a microwave oven is a "computer". The engine control unit in a car is a "computer". A video game console is a "computer". But that doesn't make them general-purpose computers in the sense that the average person thinks of when hearing "computer". An iOS device is not general-pur
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, this stuff is getting crazy. Somebody designs a system. Somebody else says, hey, if we moved this component of the system from right here to over there, making one wire longer, and one wire shorter, then it would have some benefit. It sounds like this hinged on where the DAC was placed.
Is that the kind of "innovation" that warrants patent protection?
Re: (Score:2)
It's because patents are completely out of control and ALL OF THEM need to be thrown out, Every one of them. Let's start over. If your patent application documents something that is world changing and is in no way the same as anything else, you get a patent. anything else, the patent office wipes their butts with the application and by law the lawyer that filed it must sniff it with their nose 2 mm from the page for a minimum of 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, this stuff is getting crazy. Somebody designs a system. Somebody else says, hey, if we moved this component of the system from right here to over there, making one wire longer, and one wire shorter, then it would have some benefit. It sounds like this hinged on where the DAC was placed.
It hinged on whether the DAC was part of the docking station (which was accused of infringing on a Bose patent) or part of the iDevice. If I'm accused of stealing your car, surely whether the car is placed in my garage or whether it is still placed in your garage makes a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Long precendent for that. Mobile phones that vibrate patented? Simple - put the vibrating element in the (removable) battery. So it's no longer the phone that does the vibrating, and your product is no longer infringing.
I would suggest that more than 99% of patents have precisely no innovation of worth at all nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that the term "general purpose" implied being able to do everything.
Presumably the machine I'm typing this on isn't a general purpose computer either, since I banned software from it for solving that thing that's like Pythagoras' theorem for cubes which I can't be arsed to look up.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that the term "general purpose" implied being able to do everything.
A general purpose computer is turing-complete and offers the opportunity to load arbitrary code. Since the restrictions on what code you can load are artificial (main point) and fairly easily bypassed (supporting point) I would argue that the various touch screen iDevices are clearly all general-purpose computers.
Re: (Score:2)
> I wasn't aware that the term "general purpose" implied being able to do everything.
What rock have you been hiding under for the last 30 years.
General purpose clearly implies the ability to do things with it that the manufacturer did not consider or consent to. This is what separates a PC from a toaster.
iPods are in a strange middle ground made up of PCs that are trying to pretend to be appliances. Technically they are PCs but they are subject to "policy" that prevents them from acting that way.
It's lik
iDevice becomes programmable when combined (Score:2)
An iDevice can be programmed
The bundle consisting of a combination of an iOS device, a Mac, and a certificate renewed for the life of the device can be programmed. The iOS device alone cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
So have you installed software to solve Fermat's last theorem? If you haven't, then by tepple's logic your computer isn't general purpose.
That is not my point of view.
Perhaps you should read the whole post - and understand it if you can - before making retarded smug comments and showing how fucking dumb you are.
Re: (Score:2)
An iPod touch is an iPhone without a cellular radio. As far as I can tell, Apple has been deemphasizing its iPod shuffle, iPod nano, and iPod classic product lines in favor of iPod touch and other iOS devices.
But all the other iPods precede the touch in terms of existence. It appears that these iPods (while they have chips in them) are probably safe from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's wrong... (Score:1)
They are computers. Judges really should be qualified in the areas they presiding over.
Re: (Score:2)
agreed. Even the iPod classic had the ability to play video games on it. I use to play tetris on it regularly when commuting to work (via train).
Ruling doesn't define computer (Score:5, Informative)
From the summary: "At issue: Is an iPhone, iPad or iPod a 'computer.' The judge says they aren't."
From page 13 of the memorandum and order [cepro.com]: "This Court declined to construct the term 'computer'." Instead, the ruling is based on where the DAC is located. The DAC in this case is inside the iDevice, rendering the claimed infringing "interface" a fancy headphone jack.
Non-obvious combination (Score:2)
You can't really claim to have invented anything by re-arranging someone else's hardware.
You can if the combination of the two is novel and non-obvious.
Combination of 7400 series ICs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were able to rewire an iPod to work as a teleportation device, I certainly would count that as an invention.
Re: (Score:2)
If I teleported your iPod with a trebuchet, would that be an innovation? It'd sure be more likely to work than an iPod based teleportation device. :)
Re: (Score:3)
The DAC in this case is inside the iDevice, rendering the claimed infringing "interface" a fancy headphone jack.
What these manufacturers have successfully argued is that because the DAC is in the iPod, rather than their devices, then they aren't infringing a patent that covers devices that convert digital audio to analog. The judge agreed that the digital to analog conversion happens inside the iDevice, so the external device is not infringing. The open question is whether Bose will now sue manufacturers who stream or transfer digital audio to external devices that do include a DAC for playback.
Btw, here's the pate [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a moment. Does this mean that I'm forced to use whatever DAC Apple deigns to put it its products-- if I want to use SPDIF, or whatever, Bose gets a cut?
Coolness problem probably (Score:1)
An US judge favors an US company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes! Where is the justice when a US judge finds for a US companies over a company from Massachusetts?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great. What does that have to do with the case at hand? The case was about Bose suing other companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a computer? (Score:2)
What is the definition of a computer then?
To me all 3 qualify. At the very least if you are going to narrowly define it, at the least the iPad is.. iPhone should be. iPod, depends on which one. A classic is an embedded computer, a touch, well, its a computer too...
Re: (Score:2)
While a nice goal, its not a good definition of a computer if you ask me.
A ECM is considered a computer by nearly everyone. But its not 'open' in the slighted. ( or the billions of other embedded computers.. )
Mainframes are considered computers, and if you just a user, you get no choice. What about a network switch? Yup, its a computer too.
Re: (Score:2)
See a few comments above. You got trolled by a bad summary. The judgment had to do with the placement of the DAC not with them not being a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the DAC is in the dock. The dock in this case is the computer, and the iThingy is the server. It's just downloading a file and playing it. How that's patentable in this day and age boggles the mind. Just because they take a traditional 'computer' app to play digital music files and package it in a single-purpose device doesn't mean they've invented anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the DAC is in the dock. The dock in this case is the computer, and the iThingy is the server. It's just downloading a file and playing it. How that's patentable in this day and age boggles the mind. Just because they take a traditional 'computer' app to play digital music files and package it in a single-purpose device doesn't mean they've invented anything.
You should really have read what this is about, because what you are saying here has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. Hint: This whole case has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Apple. Apple isn't suing anyone, and Apple isn't being sued.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge didn't make that determination - the summary did, badly.
The ruling didn't hinge on whether or not the iPhone/iOS devices are computers or not.
Re: (Score:2)
USB? (Score:2)
So at issue is the external device, not the source, which is the 'MP3' player/function thingy. What would be at risk is any USB connected Audio device because USB is almost always associated with a computer. My guess is that this goes back to the Apple/Bose iSub days.
How old is this patent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting read... (Score:2)
I know reading the friendly article (and especially PDFs linked from it) is not a certainty around these parts, but this one's pretty interesting. The article itself kind of entirely misses the point (whether the iDevice is a "computer" was pretty much completely irrelevant*), but the opinion itself taught me a lot. In particular, there are such things as "contributory infringement" and "inducement" in patent law. I did not know of such a thing until now.
All of the independent claims of the patent [google.com] explicitl