MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Apple Online Store

5 Day Most Commented

Opinion Archive

Current Headlines

Latest Joy of Tech

  • Latest Joy of Tech!

MacNN

AppleInsider

Macworld UK

TUAW

MacRumors

Yahoo! Finance AAPL

iTunes Top 10 Albums

Mac OS X Downloads

Sat, Aug 30, 2008 - 07:57 AM EDT  —  AAPL: 169.53 (-4.21, -2.42%)  |  NASDAQ: 2367.52 (-44.12, -1.83%)

Apple sued over iPod nano, iPod touch patent infringement
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 10:35 AM EDT

"Apple last week was sued for alleged patent infringement in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan," Thomas Claburn reports for InformationWeek.

"The lawsuit, filed on behalf of inventor Henry Milan by Detroit-based law firm Butzel Long, claims that Apple's iPod nano and iPod touch use Flash memory in a way that violates U.S. patent No. 6,991,483," Claburn reports.

"The patent in question, 'Flash memory drive with quick connector,' describes the union of a Flash memory drive and a connection port in a single unit that can be easily adapted to connect to a varied set of devices," Claburn reports.

"The lawsuit seeks treble damages for willful infringement and an injunction against the sale of the iPod nano and iPod touch," Claburn reports.

Full article here.

[Attribution: MacNN. Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader "Judge Bork" for the heads up.]

  • Social Web
  • E-mail






Always -- Free ground shipping with orders over $50 at the Apple Store.

Reader Feedback: ( = registered)

Apr 29, 08 - 10:36 am Comment from: Gomer37

MDN = away, as in go away.

Apr 29, 08 - 10:39 am Comment from: Nightstar

Some one need to patten the concept of stupid vague lawsuits. Then when one of these hits. Do a counter suit again them.

Good example to clean up the patten regulations...

Apr 29, 08 - 10:40 am Comment from: dbcoyle

Another lawyer patent troll... Way to syphon off the success of others, parasite.
Reason # 259-B that America doesn't make anything anymore.

Apr 29, 08 - 10:44 am Comment from: Your Mom BluRay

Here's to my Long one inside the ol' Butzel...

MDN magic word = inside

Apr 29, 08 - 10:49 am Comment from: Steve

It's truly unbelievable how vague this patent was, and that the Patent Office actually issued a patent on this "brilliant" idea is really ridiculous. What's wrong with that office of late? It is granting patents for blatantly obvious ideas to people who have no connection to these technologies and industries.

Apr 29, 08 - 10:50 am Comment from: ron

Apple should relocate their sue-able section to England, then if the maroons who sue, lose; they have to pay ALL court costs. That's one of the rules courts should employ in the USA. Get rid of the ambulance chasing scam lawyers.

Apr 29, 08 - 10:54 am Comment from: Mike

@Ron
How true. Too bad Congress is full of lawyers who would never vote for it.

Apr 29, 08 - 11:00 am Comment from: ron

Steve,"It is granting patents for blatantly obvious ideas to people who have no connection to these technologies and industries.

It's the 'government' Steve. Most of the maroons in government are already retired, or might as well be. I was in the patent office in Washington once. What a laugh!! Look at C-Span and see all the dunderheads milling around in the Senate. The 5 or 6 fat people standing by the door are stewards, they don't mill around. They just stand there waiting for pay day.

Apr 29, 08 - 11:34 am Comment from: Cubert

Read the whole description of what they are suing for.

This is the biggest joke of a patent infringement lawsuit I have seen in a LONG time!

Apr 29, 08 - 11:39 am Comment from: Cubert

@Your Mom BluRay,
A man after my own heart! And perversions, too.

tongue wink

Apr 29, 08 - 11:50 am Comment from: NCIceman

Sign of success, the leeches come crawling out of the slime. Patent law really needs an overhaul.

Apr 29, 08 - 11:55 am Comment from: papasmack

How the hell did this jack-ass get this patent approved in 2006?????. Didnt Apple have a patent on the ipod years before? Apple should sue the USPTO for idiocy for allowing this patent. When will it end?????? (Can you sue for idiocy?). Time for a tall glass of Camel Milk.

Apr 29, 08 - 12:17 pm Comment from: tumok

Soooo, He didn't invent "flash drives" and didn't invent "the concept of adaptors", but somehow invented "flash drive adaptors". Ugh!

Ooh! I need some of that iPod money too! Is it too late to invent, let's see... Hmm, how 'bout, "A casing enclosure to encase electronic components in an, um, case." That should work. Mr. Jobs, please send the checks to...

Apr 29, 08 - 01:01 pm Comment from: Pete

"Flash memory drive with quick connector"

It's not so quick!

Apr 29, 08 - 01:56 pm Comment from: Ampar

"It's not so quick!"

It's all relative. Remember SCSI chains, terminators, IDs and SyQuest drives?

Apr 29, 08 - 02:53 pm Comment from: Cubert

@Ampar,
No, but I do remember "Chains, Maims, and Erotic Feels".

No, wait. Nevermind.

Apr 29, 08 - 05:35 pm Comment from: Hm...

Whatever happened to Felicity Kendal?

Apr 29, 08 - 05:44 pm Comment from: Hm...

Actually, I meant to say:
This is Idiocy

Apr 29, 08 - 05:54 pm Comment from: bioness

Wow another vague patent

Apr 30, 08 - 02:31 am Comment from: yet another steve via iPodDailyNews

just how is this system supposed to reward and encourage innovation.

"troll" is too kind a word for these guys.

And they'll probably lose... but there is enough randomness in the legal system that they just might win something big so they keep at it. After all they RISK nothing.

Plus Apple will spend 100s of thousands on legal expenses putting all the obvious defenses into careful patent legalese. It's hardly original, applicable, or non-obvious.

This system is supposed to be to protect real inventions.

Yes Apple can afford it. But we'd all be better off if they needed less lawyers and instead hired more engineers. Think about that next time there's a bug or a poorly implemented feature in a product.

And honestly--knowing this is a reasonably technical audience--would someone really making a contribution to innovation and technology sit around and come up with ideas like "USB connected to flash drive" and then go to the bother and expense to patent the damned thing.

In fact, I have an idea. We could write a computer program to come up with "inventions" by simply pairing inventions together. Another program to "research" prior art and do the necessary filing. And another to let us search of data base of computer generated patents when we see a successful product. Let's see... ipod has flash memory, USB... hey we got a patent that has those as well. Let's sue.

I used to moan about patents over obvious things a colleague and I could come up with on an envelope in an hour. But it's worse... I could write a computer program to generate these "inventions". THAT is how broken this system is.

Apr 30, 08 - 03:06 am Comment from: SKY LARK

@ron - Steady on tiger, you almost made a positive remark about old Blighty.

Reader feedback page 1 of 1 pages:

Always -- Free ground shipping with orders over $50 at the Apple Store.

Add Your Feedback:

Register or Login

Name:

Email: (optional)

Emoticons | Allowed HTML Tags

Remember my personal information   Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the "MDN Magic Word" you see in the image below: