Apple settles with Minerva, gets sued by Emblaze
updated 09:55 am EDT, Fri July 30, 2010
Emblaze takes action on Apple after patent warning
Apple has been embroiled in two lawsuits in the past day, starting with a quietly negotiated deal settling a two-year-old lawsuit from Minerva. The two asked Eastern District of Texas Judge Charles Everingham to dismiss the case after privately reaching an agreement, the terms of which aren't known. Companies such as Minerva, which are billed as "patent trolls" since they make no products of their own, often hinge their businesses on either royalties on sales or large cash settlements.
Minerva had accused Apple in early 2008 of violating a patent it had just obtained for a "mobile entertainment and communication device in a palm-held size" that had a cellular connection and which could both download music as well as take photos. It alleged that the iPhone fit the description despite the patent having being granted over half a year after the iPhone first hit stores.
Simultaneously, Emblaze has acted on warnings to Apple and on Thursday sued the company for purportedly violating a media streaming patent. It has charged that the iPhone, iPod touch, Mac OS X and now the iPad copy Emblaze's technique of streaming without a dedicated server through their implementation of HTML live streaming. Microsoft has also been accused of similar violations through the IIS Smooth Streaming technique that underlies Silverlight.
Unlike Minerva, Emblaze has been involved in creating products and is best known for the Else Intuition touchscreen mobile OS; it focuses on media playback and one-handed use. The Israeli company was to have produced its own phone, the First Else, but killed the project after it didn't receive much interest in the hardware. [via TechCrunch]







Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Aug 2001
Granting doesn't matter
It alleged that the iPhone fit the description despite the patent having being granted over half a year after the iPhone first hit stores.
The date a patent is granted is immaterial to whether there is violation. It's about when it was filed. In fact, the whole point of filing is to 'lock in' your invention while waiting for approval so no one else can 'steal' your idea and get something on market before you get your patent approved.