What this means for other dock programs, like Stardock, is unclear. Though Apple can be quite aggressive with its patents, it's uncertain whether Apple would even bother going after generic dock programs. Either way, Apple is no doubt happy to have this one in their pocket after a long, long wait. [USPTO via Slashdot]

So Echostar has decided that it will in fact be handing TiVo a check for $104 million plus interest, though TiVo is looking for further damages apparently, due to "EchoStar’s continued infringement of our Time Warp patent." More importantly, their victory here opens the door for TiVo to start hunting down everyone else selling a DVR, so the real ugly might still be on the way. [Zatz Not Funny]

The patent sounds like it's basically bringing Aperture's monocle view for viewing full-res areas of photos instantly (which is also amazingly useful) to the OS as a whole—hovering over an icon could spring a bubble with four app choices to open that file, or provide other info on what you're looking at.

Apple also seems like they're trying to patent those horrific Snap previews you find on fine blogs everywhere—that blow out a preview version of the webpage being linked to when you hover. That one we can do without. [Apple Insider]

With the national dominance of a few wireless carriers, there's little threat of this technology taking off, but the concept is exciting to consider. For example, open network bidding would make price comparisons between carriers a constant concern, rather than a one-off choice, at least in the pay as you go space. Conversely, it might also negate the need for smaller network to lease coverage from larger ones when their users roam, leaving that task up to the individuals.

That said, this might be one big paygo pie in the sky. Google has basically said as much, telling New Scientist "We file patent applications on a variety of ideas that our employees come up with. Some of those ideas later mature into real products or services, some don't." [Patent via New Scientist]

Filed last year and published only in the last few days, the patent frames the problem as such:

In order to accommodate the sensor and provide appropriate data to the iPod nano, the shoe must be a Nike+ model with a special pocket in which to place the sensor. However, some people have taken it upon themselves to remove the sensor from the special pocket of the Nike+ shoe and place it at inappropriate locations (shoelaces, for example) or place it on non-Nike+ model shoes.

Yes, someone has taken it upon themselves to use the $29 Sport Kit's sensor in shoes other than those with a tiny pouch specifically engineered by Nike to be the only way to get accurate data from the sensor. So this obviously calls for action:

A method of electronically pairing a sensor and a garment, comprising:(a) establishing a communication link between the sensor and the garment; (b) determining if the garment is an authorized garment; and(c) electronically pairing the garment and the sensor.

Granted, the system also calls for some useful two-way communication between your shoes and the Nike+ software, including potential wear notifications when your toe is about to jump out of your kicks, if you didn't know already. But as is SOP for patent filings, all bases are covered, which means that when our smart auto-drying jackets have to phone home to a Auto-Drying Jacket Genuine Advantage server before firing up after we've taken a dip in the clock tower reflecting pool, we can all thank Apple, who just made two cents off of the transaction. [US Patent Filing via Ars Technica via BBG]

Apple called Kramer so he could serve as a consultant for the trial, and so his patents and drawings could be used to settle the suit out of court.

"I was up a ladder painting when I got the call from a lady with an American accent from Apple saying she was the head of legal affairs and that they wanted to acknowledge the work that I had done," Kramer told Daily Mail. "I must admit that at first I thought it was a wind-up by friends. But we spoke for some time, with me still up this ladder slightly bewildered by it all, and she said Apple would like me to come to California to talk to them. Then I had to make a deposition in front of a court stenographer and videographer at a lawyers’ office. The questioning by the Burst legal counsel there was tough, ten hours of it. But I was happy to do it."

And now he'd be even happier collecting some of that multi-billion dollar iPod business, but so far all he received was compensation for his time at the trial. The struggling furniture salesman, fresh from another failed business, is now negotiating additional compensation, but says he was happy to help whatever the outcome. Well, as long as it isn't more iPods...

"I can’t even bring myself to buy an iPod for myself," he said. "Apple did give me one but it broke down after eight months." Hmm. Apple products seem to be doing that a lot these days. [Daily Mail]

A method and system in a document viewer for scrolling a substantially exact increment in a document, such as one page, regardless of whether the zoom is such that some, all or one page is currently being viewed. In one implementation, pressing a Page Down or Page Up keyboard key/button allows a user to begin at any starting vertical location within a page, and navigate to that same location on the next or previous page. For example, if a user is viewing a page starting in a viewing area from the middle of that page and ending at the bottom, a Page Down command will cause the next page to be shown in the viewing area starting at the middle of the next page and ending at the bottom of the next page. Similar behavior occurs when there is more than one column of pages being displayed in a row.

[US Patents via GigaOM]

The Hillcrest patents referenced in the action against Nintendo are secondary patents relating to user interface details and compensation techniques, whereas Movea’s Gyration patents are central to the usage model, i.e. using sensors to detect human motion and control graphics on a screen. Gyration was the pioneer in developing fundamental motion sensing technologies and IP, and was a core enabler to Nintendo and Hillcrest, both of whom had entered license arrangements with Gyration to enable their products.

PRESS RELEASE: Hillcrest Labs Issues Statement About Legal Action Against Nintendo and the Wii

August 20, 2008 – Rockville, MD – Hillcrest Labs issued an official statement about legal action that the company has taken today against Nintendo(R) for patent infringement. The statement is as follows:

Hillcrest Labs has filed a complaint for patent infringement with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington, D.C., and a separate patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court in Maryland against Nintendo(R) related to the Wii(TM) video game system.

Hillcrest's patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,158,118, 7,262,760, and 7,414,611, which relate to a handheld three-dimensional pointing device, and U.S. Patent No. 7,139,983, which relates to a navigation interface display system that graphically organizes content for display on a television. Since 2001, Hillcrest Labs has pioneered technology that allows consumers to interact with digital media on television using motion-control and pointing techniques. The company holds 29 patents in this area worldwide, and has filled for more than 100 related patents.

Leading consumer electronics companies, not all of whom have been disclosed publicly, have already licensed Hillcrest's technology for use in their products. While Hillcrest Labs has a great deal of respect for Nintendo and the Wii, Hillcrest Labs believes that Nintendo is in clear violation of its patents and has taken this action to protect its intellectual property rights. Given the current status of the filings, the company will not disclose any additional details about the matter at this time.

Information about Hillcrest Labs and its products are available at www.hillcrestlabs.com

Not only does this imply the long-desired ability to wirelessly sync (and over great distances), wireless iPod-to-iPod connectivity and data sharing is part of the patent too—yes, just like Zune squirting. Welcome to the social, or something. Again, while Apple patent dreams don't always come true, this one has a definite sense of realness to it—it'd make for a nice announcement at next month's expected iPod/MacBook event, in any case. [AppleInsider]

There's sliders three keyboard pieces that form together to make one Voltron keyboard, one that has a dual-screen clamshell (which we've seen before in other people's patents), one with OLED hard-keys that change displays depending on where you are (think Optimus) and one with a display that stretches from normal size to King Kong/Naomi Watts/weird bestiality theme size. We're not sure how these will actually play out on phones, but it's good that Samsung's not standing still. [Unwired View]

To be honest, I don't think the world really needs a Bluetooth headset, heart rate monitor combo—but a modified S9 that would allow users to increase volume, change tracks or answer calls with touch sensitive panels seems promising. However, like any other patent application, there is no guarantee either of these products will ever see the light of day. [Cellpassion]

But the Justice Department has already all but conceded that Professor Duffy is right. Given the opportunity to dispute him in a December appeals court filing, government lawyers said only that they were at work on a legislative solution.

They did warn that the impact of Professor Duffy's discovery could be cataclysmic for the patent world, casting "a cloud over many thousands of board decisions" and "unsettling the expectations of patent holders and licensees across the nation." But they did not say Professor Duffy was wrong.

If it was a legislative mistake, it may turn out to be a big one. The patent court hears appeals from people and companies whose patent applications were turned down by patent examiners, and it decides disputes over who invented something first. There is often a lot of money involved.

The problem Professor Duffy identified at least arguably invalidates every decision of the patent court decided by a three-judge panel that included at least one judge appointed after March 2000.

Right and left mouse buttons are placed on the side in a thumb-accessible position, and the design is unobtrusive enough to allow for easy typing when it's on. We'd love to get a hand-on with the mouse if it ever comes out. It looks great and the ability to surf the internet without keeping our hand close to the computer is very conducive to our leisure time activities. [patent via istartedsomething]

All the image-generation electronics, the laser engine and other optics can be put into a compact, battery-powered box, that can be clipped onto the wearer's belt. Laser-generated video is then transmitted to the headset display via optical cable, before ultra-thin wedge optics display the image in the glasses.

With a thickness of just 2mm on the optical display element, Apple's patent design means that the display could be the same size as a pair of spectacles. When not being used, the optical display elements become transparent, meaning that you can transform the headset from common-or-garden reading glasses to a display in just the flick of a switch. [Unwired View]

RE: Your letter, received April Fools' Day Dear Monster Lawyers, Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster's, in form or in function, the better.

I am evaluating your claim that the connectors on certain Tartan brand products infringe Monster's design patents and trademarks. However, the information supplied with your letter is plainly inadequate to support a claim of infringement and so I am writing to you to ask for further information and clarification regarding your claims.

I will begin by addressing your trademark/trade dress claim. You have referred to two trademark registrations, and have attached some printouts from the USPTO system but the depiction of the marks on the drawings provided is small and indistinct, making it difficult to determine exactly what the alleged resemblance is, and I need further information from you.

First, I need legible, scale drawings of the marks, preferably with dimensions shown on the drawing. To the extent that drawings are inadequate to show the nature of materials, finishes, print legends, colors and the like, I will also need examples of each of Monster Cable's actual uses of these marks in commerce; actual physical examples would be best, but photographic reproductions might do. As you will understand, these considerations are essential to any claim arising out of trade dress, as you are alleging in essence that there is a resemblance sufficient to cause confusion over the identity or origin of the goods, and no mere line-drawing can suffice.

Second, I will need copies of the trademark applications and any correspondence between the applicant and the USPTO in support of the applications.

Third, you have not identified the Monster Cable products in question, in actual use and distribution in commerce, whose trade dress you allege has been appropriated. I have reviewed Monster Cable's online materials and have examined connectors on various Monster Cable assemblies in local retail outlets and am unable to determine which, if any, of these are thought by Monster to represent use of these particular marks. I am also unable to determine from this review whether Monster Cable actually offers any product for sale to which the Tartan connectors are alleged to be particularly similar. My own sense of it, in looking at the connectors, has been that there is no similarity between the Tartan connectors and any of the many Monster Cable connectors beyond the general functional and conventional characteristics which all or nearly all solder-cup, mechanical-assembly, barrel-style RCA-type connectors share. It may be that there is some line of products to which you have intended to refer but which I have not found in Monster Cable's marketing materials or displays; but if so, you will need to show me specifically what product it is, and you will need to call to my attention the specific aspects of the connector design which you contend constitute unique Monster Cable trade dress, what the associated secondary meaning of those aspects of the trade dress is, and in what manner and by what characteristics you allege that this trade dress has been appropriated.

Fourth, if the dimensional characteristics of the connector as used in commerce vary from the dimensions of the scale drawing of your mark, I will need a proper scale drawing, with dimensions, of each version of the actual connector as used in commerce, as well as photographs of the connectors showing actual in-use finishes. If there is more than one such connector design in actual use by Monster Cable as to which appropriation of trade dress is alleged, of course, I will require this information for each and every such design.

On the basis of what I have seen, both in the USPTO documents you have sent and the actual appearance
of Monster Cable connectors which I have observed in use in commerce, it does not appear to me that Monster Cable is in a position to advance a nonfrivolous claim for infringement of these marks. There simply is not sufficient resemblance between the Tartan connectors and any mark or any example of the marks' actual use that I can find to support such a claim. But if you have further information for me on that point, you are welcome to submit it.

You have also supplied me with partial documentation on five design patents which you claim these connectors infringe. I will begin by observing, first, that the five design patents are so very much unlike one another that it is very hard to imagine that any product could actually infringe more than one of them at a time; anything close enough to one of them to be deemed an infringement would, by that fact alone, be too dissimilar from the other four. The dissimilarity of the Tartan connector from each of them is readily evident.

I should add that, for the purpose of this letter, I am assuming that these patents are valid. This is in no way a concession of the point. In fact, this is a very significant and likely inaccurate assumption, and you should expect the patentability of these designs to be under attack if you commence an action for infringement.

The fact that you have presented me with five completely distinct design patents, I have to say, gives me pause. I would go over them and detail the differences between the Tartan connectors and those shown in the patents, but if you are taking the position that it appears you are taking, there might be very little point in discussing it with you. Take, for example, the patent you mark as Exhibit B. The connector shown there is substantially different from the Tartan connectors in every respect, unless one ignores design specifics and focuses on the core attributes of the connector which are dictated by function. If your view of Exhibit B is that it is to be construed broadly enough as to encompass the Tartan connector, it is very hard to imagine that there is such a thing as a solder-assembly style RCA plug which is not similarly, in your view, encompassed by this patent. And, needless to say, it is very hard to imagine that any court would ever adopt such a view of the patent's scope; if you file on this sort of basis, you are in Rule 11 frivolous-claim territory.

I will point out, though you are no doubt already well aware, that the gross morphology of the RCA plug is pretty well dictated by function. RCA plugs intended for soldering and assembly have certain attributes in common; their diameter is constrained by the need for the shell to fit over an internal set of solder points and cable clamp, and their length by the need to provide some room for cable end prep and attachment; they are generally radially symmetrical along the anterior/posterior axis owing to the need to accommodate both a round-profile cable and the round-profile RCA socket; the connector end is constrained by the standard dimensions of the RCA socket, and by the need, as the socket provides for no bayonet or screw attachment, to provide sufficient tension on insertion to maintain good mechanical and electrical contact; the barrel, grasped by the user for the purpose of insertion and removal, requires traction which is typically provided by raised or recessed rings, plastic inserts, knurling, or the like; and transition between the connector and the cable to which it is attached requires, in one form or another, a reduction in barrel size at the connector rear. It is my assumption, since you cite design patents only and no utility patents, that Monster Cable makes no claim here for any functional aspect of any of these designs; if I am wrong, please let me know what utility patents Monster Cable does hold, and what claims, if any, Monster asserts on the basis of those utility patents.

Further, on that point: one of the design patents you attached is closely related to a utility patent applicable to the same design, and you failed to point that fact out. I need to be able to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information you send to me and I find this sort of omission deeply disturbing because it is clear that the effect of this nondisclosure is to obscure the real significance of the patent features. Similarly, as I note further below, you omit reference to another patent Monster has held which appears, frankly, to be fatal to your position. If you expect to persuade me, you had better start making full, open and honest disclosures; I will find out the facts sooner or later in any event, but the impact upon your credibility will not be repaired. It looks like when you sent this letter, you were operating on the premise that I am not smart enough to see through your deceptions or sophisticated enough to intelligently evaluate your claims; shame on you. You are required, as a matter of legal ethics, to display good faith and professional candor in your dealings with adverse parties, and you have fallen miserably short of your ethical responsibilities.

My sense, in looking at these five patents, is that either you are attempting to present some argument that I simply do not understand or you are arguing for untenably broad coverage of these patents which would sweep every functional aspect of the typical solder-assembly RCA connector within the scope of a handful of mere design patents. You need to clarify this, and frankly, I think you need to indicate to me which, if any, of these patents you actually contend are relevant to the present discussion. It cannot possibly be that you believe that more than one of these patents is pertinent, and if you insist that they are, we cannot have an intelligent dialogue on this subject. Once you have identified the patent which you contend is relevant, I need to see the file history and the references to prior art; I need copies of the applicant's correspondence with the USPTO; and I need a clear and cogent explanation from you as to exactly what aspects of the Tartan connector design are alleged to constitute the infringement, and how.

Additionally, if you are able to identify any of these patents as applicable, please let me know whether Monster Cable presently sells, or has at any time sold, any products bearing connectors which are in conformity with the patent drawings or which are otherwise contended to be within the coverage of the patents, and identify those products for me. Please also provide photographs and/or physical examples of these connectors as manufactured and sold.

Also, please provide me all of the information referenced above as it relates to your expired patent D323643, a copy of which I am attaching. I will need to know what products Monster now offers or at any time has offered for sale which were believed to fall within the scope of D323643, and what claims, if any, of infringement of D323643 were made against others by Monster, whether those claims of infringement took the form of correspondence only, litigation, or otherwise. Please let me know which, if any, products Monster has ever sold or offered for sale which were marked with the patent number, or other reference, to D323643. Please also advise me whether, in your view, the Tartan connector does or does not fall within the scope of D323643, and if it is your view that it does not, please identify each and every difference between the Tartan connector and the connector represented by D323643 upon which your view is based. (On that note, let me point out to you that the "turbine cut" feature is irrelevant here as your client makes only functional, not design, claims for that feature in its marketing materials for the product.) I would assume that you would agree with me that if the Tartan connector is less dissimilar from the D323643 patent than from any of the five patents you cite in your letter, then the Tartan connector is within the coverage of the prior art and cannot, as a matter of law, infringe any of your client's current patents.

I must also point out that unless there is a good deal of background information you have not provided me which makes the case otherwise, Monster Cable cannot possibly square its patent infringement claim(s) with its own patent history. Two views of the matter might be taken; the first, which is my view, is that none of the design patents, including D323643, encompass the Tartan connector. If that is so, of course, the claim for infringement fails. But if one grants the sort of breadth to these patents that you appear to wish to do, a problem arises for Monster. D323643 is the least dissimilar to the Tartan connector of any of the patents, and stands as an obstacle to any claim of infringement of the others because it establishes prior art; if its scope, like the others, is granted the breadth you argue for, then the Tartan connector falls plainly under the prior art and cannot constitute an infringement of the later, and more dissimilar, patents. Read the patents narrowly, and Monster loses; read them broadly, and Monster loses. You are welcome to point out any error in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.

Please also let me know whether Monster Cable or any related entity has brought actions to enforce any of the patents and trademarks referenced in your letter or above, and provide me with the jurisdiction, court and docket information pertaining thereto, along with copies of any decisions or judgments resulting therefrom. If any such litigation proceeded through discovery, I will need all discovery responses, including document production, issued by Monster, as well as copies of any and all depositions taken and the exhibits thereto.

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

Once I have received the above materials and explanations from you, I will undertake to analyze this information and let you know whether we are willing to accede to any of the demands made in your letter. If my analysis shows that there is any reasonable likelihood that we have infringed in any way any of Monster Cable's intellectual property rights, we will of course take any and all action necessary to resolve the situation. If I do not hear from you within the next fourteen days, or if I do hear from you but do not receive all of the information requested above, I will assume that you have abandoned these claims and closed your file.

As for your requests for information, or for action, directed to me: I would remind you that it is you, not I, who are making claims; and it is you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have not done so.
I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters. I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table. I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds. As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims—or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims—from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited. If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee—say, ten cents per connector—as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures. On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before. Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.

I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.

Sincerely,
Kurt Denke

After battling through a gauntlet of appeals and patent re-certifications, earlier today, a US Appeals Court denied Echostar's appeal to overturn an earlier verdict that it infringed on Tivo's patent with its own DVR setup. The ruling gives Tivo ammo to go after pretty much everyone hawking their own DVR, so things could get kind of interesting, in a protracted legal slugfest kind of way. 'Course going around and suing and everyone would probably put a damper on their plans to expand by licensing (think Tivo on Comcast, but bigger). [Thomas Hawk via CNET]

When you fire it up for the first time, it interviews you to get a sense of your health, even asking about your financial and social status (if they suck, you're stressed, and that does impact health). Then it spits out a regiment, based on how unhealthy you are and how healthy you wanna get. Then you just follow the routine on your iPod at the gym, with the hardware sensors providing real-time feedback on how hard you're getting your ass kicked.

Apple definitely has an interest in fitness gear, and with Nike branching out, this might just happen. Oh, and first person to make a horrible iBod pun gets banned. [AppleInsider]

Really, it makes zero sense for any consumer products. Apple doesn't sell projectors, let alone projectors like this that require three objects placed precisely around a room. If they're really planning on some big crazy 3D computer display, they're looking very far ahead with this one. You aren't getting a Mac Pro 3D anytime soon. Sorry.

Perhaps it could be for some really fancy 3D display in stores? You know, letting you fiddle around with some crazy 3D interface? That would certainly help bring people in (like they needed help anyways).

Or, as I like to imagine, it's for the next generation of Stevenotes. Eventually, Jobs will kick the bucket like all other mere mortals. Rather than hire a successor before his death, instead keynotes will be performed by a holographic version of Jobs. Every Apple product for the next 50 years can be introduced on stage by a sprightly, turtlenecked image of Steve, expertly controlled backstage by his minions.

Or, you know, they're just patent squatting. You be the judge. [MacNN]

But, since you can use Starbucks Wi-Fi (soon to be better than before), the implicit argument is that you can actually redeem the card at the store without having to return home. If they manage to prevail against Apple and Starbucks, they'll be granted a permanent injunction against the cards unless the pair are willing to pay up. I'm not sure I'd miss the program though, since I've never used it, or even heard of anyone using it. [Apple Insider]