News

Lawsuit: Apple Infringed on Flash Patent with iPod nano/touch

Monday, April 28th, 2008 at 10:30 PM - by

Apple Inc. is infringing on a Flash memory-related patent in its iPod line, according to a lawsuit filed by Henry Milan. The patent covers a method of connecting Flash memory to a computing device, and the lawsuit claims that Apple's iPod touch and iPod nano violate that patent.

The patent was issued on Jan 31st, 2006, and filed on November 12th, 2004. The iPod nano was introduced by Apple on September 7th, 2005, before the patent issue date, but after the application date.

Named "Flash memory drive with quick connector," the patent describes a fairly specific method for connecting Flash memory to a computing device in a way that makes the Flash memory module usable in a variety of devices using standard connectors.

The suit was filed in the Michigan Eastern Federal Court District, and seeks triple damages, as well as an injunction against Apple seeking to stop shipment of the iPod nano and iPod touch. InformationWeek reported that attorneys at Butzel Long, the law firm handling the suit, do not necessarily intend to actually pursue an injunction. Such language is often standard practice when filing suits, whether or not it is feasible.

13 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

tuscmat said:

member since 06 May 2004 with 32 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:42 pm

So many lawyers, so little time. Just another example of growth by lawsuit.

Quote this post ↓

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 305 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:06 am

They patented a flash memory kit that comes with 5 different ends, all of them already specified under the USB standard. I'm calling bullshit on this. In essence this patent would allow them to go after any one that included USB cable with their device that uses flash memory. Examples would be external hard drives, cell phones, digital cameras, external cd-rom drives, the list goes on ad nauseum.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3468 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:57 am

The land of the free?

Give me your untalented, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to make a buck,

The wretched refuse of your teeming incompetence.

Send these, the soon-to-be homeless, MS-DOS to me,

I lift my patent application beside the golden Apple!"

Quote this post ↓

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 305 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu May 01, 2008 9:21 pm

Quote
LaurieF wrote:
The land of the free?

Give me your untalented, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to make a buck,

The wretched refuse of your teeming incompetence.

Send these, the soon-to-be homeless, MS-DOS to me,

I lift my patent application beside the golden Apple!"

Yea, Apple is guilty of the same tactics.

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 2843 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Thu May 01, 2008 11:05 pm

What tactics would those be?

Quote this post ↓

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 305 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri May 02, 2008 7:38 am

Quote
Intruder wrote:
What tactics would those be?

Frivolous patents.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2003 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri May 02, 2008 3:26 pm

Quote
daemon wrote:
Quote
Intruder wrote:
What tactics would those be?

Frivolous patents.

Such as? Categorical statements aren't very credible without empirical evidence.

Quote this post ↓

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 305 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat May 03, 2008 12:07 am

http://hrmpf.com/wordpress/54/touch-sensitive-ipod/

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 2843 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Sat May 03, 2008 12:32 am

Still don't see your point. They have applied for patents that they have not yet used. These seem rather specific.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3468 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Sat May 03, 2008 6:52 am

Just ignore him - he's being a troll again.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2003 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat May 03, 2008 7:42 am

Quote
daemon wrote:
http://hrmpf.com/wordpress/54/touch-sensitive-ipod/

Why do you say that is frivolous? It patents a multitouch, gesture-based interface. Guess what the iPhone and iPod touch have. Sure, they don't use a virtual scroll wheel, but that may have been one option that Apple considered during the iPhone development. Remember that they've been working on the iPhone for quite a while--5 years? I expect that they went through several iterations of the interface design.

Design and development in the real world is not a straight line from "lightbulb" idea to product. Any competent creative company will patent any significant steps/approaches they develop to protect themselves, since they can't know what they will end up using nor what might be valuable in the future. If they don't, they shouldn't expect to succeed and whomever is in charge of R&D should be fired.

Writing a patent takes a lot of thought and experience. One needs to be fairly specific if one expects to be able to enforce it, but not so narrow that it will be easy for a competitor to avoid infringement by making some small change.

Quote this post ↓

daemon said:

member since 17 May 2007 with 305 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue May 06, 2008 10:48 am

In my opinion, a patent of human physical gestures constitutes a frivolous patent. In the listed patent that I provided, Apple was patenting physical gestures, not technology.

And Laurie, you're the one that came up with the poem, I was meerly agreeing with you.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3468 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

Tue May 06, 2008 3:02 pm

Your opinion counts for nothing - it's still a patent. What is egregious is those who claim they have a patent over something that's obvious - non-obviousness is one of the main components of US patent law, isn't it?

And I was being highly ironic…

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.