CrunchGear

Well, that is not entirely accurate. The lawsuit that Quantum Research is has against “Apple” is actually directed at a contractor that Apple hired for a short time to help build a part of the click wheel. During construction the contractor used a single part that was patented by Quantum without Apple’s knowledge. If there was validity to Quantum’s law suit beyond that then Apple wouldn’t have settled with Creative which sued them for what seems to be the exact same thing! You can’t have two different people claiming that they hold the patent on an interface that never existed before it came out from an third company.
Quantum’s beef with Apple on the “charge transfer technology” is guess work on their part. They don’t know what technology Apple used. (I believe the technology used for the physical touch screen for the iPhone is from a German or Belgian company, where the software and processes is from a company that Apple purchased several years ago which holds a number of patents relating to touch sensitive interface technology and design.)
To this point Quantum is basically saying, “That looks like something I did. You stole it!” But I don’t believe that Quantum holds the patent on all touch screen technology.
If Quantum does have a case it is with Apple’s supplier for the iPhone touch screens. And then the issue becomes how Apple didn’t do it’s research to ensure that this supplier did steal their technology.

Another thing to remember is that companies will often patent vague concepts that have been common in the industry for decades. Then, they will use a lawsuit to try to extort money from the companies who later produce successful products. Sometimes, the only asset a company has is these patents. These lawsuits are often dismissed when they finally come to court because the ideas are not unique enough. That is, a five year old could think of them. The question is if QR has proven technology that Apple violated. We really won’t know until it goes to court. You shouldn’t presume guilt on Apple’s part.

Tobias,

Could you please explain the Creative lawsuit actions and resolution more in depth? I thought the patent being violated was just the Zen patent (using more than two screens to navigate a portable music player).

Peter,
The Fingerworks acquisition which long before the release of the iPhone and their patents cover gestures of two or more objects on the touchscreen at once, as well as “chording” (detection of which of a set of fingers is being pushed down and taking different software actions based on it), which I don’t think the iPhone uses.

Quantum Research is talking about the proximity sensor, which is an entirely different aspect of the iPhone. They’re also suing based on the click wheel which seems a bit strange to me. I always thought Synaptics owns all the good IP there.

@Louis,

It is my understanding that patents are written with various claims starting with the most general. Many times those general ones are the infringing ones but sometimes too general (existing practice, obvious, or prior art) which, while approved, would be invalidated when tested in court. Also, I think there is some “obviousness” aspect to the law so the burden of proof might shift at that time. Finally, I think there is a lesser punishment when a company doesn’t knowingly infringe on a patent. So if you are trolling and actually have a valid claim, it’s best to send a letter warning them ASAP before you resort to suing.