The Dolcera Blog

The Tech world is buzzing in 2011. Apple, Android, and Patents seems to the most recurring themes conversations converge too. Apple is a great success story, and literally becoming the apple of everyone’s eye by becoming one of the most valuable companies in the world, consistently innovating and generating higher and higher revenues. They recently posted one of their best quarters ever.

Many see Apple’s rise as a challenger to the Open Innovation theories, and positing that in technology a closed system offers you much more strength and sustainable innovation coming up with products which have completely re-shaped markets.

Of course Apple had a visionary in the form of Steve Jobs, but technologies don’t just develop “magically” and systems don’t just fall into “amazing” perfect tandem on their own. So, we at Dolcera decided to look into what exactly are the sources of Apple’s innovation.

Apple being a very secretive company, it was hard to find a lot of inside information. But one of the best sources of “innovation” data is the legal document which one gets for innovating - a patents. We decided to look at the patents of Apple and get an idea of the true sources of Apple’s innovation.

In our opinion, the key sources of Apple’s innovation are :
1. Expenditure on research,
2. Acquisitions, and
3. Patent Deals
Apple definitely has a strong in-house research. But every time Steve Jobs wished to make one of his “visions” a reality, it often required Apple to go out and spot “sources” which can be acquired, or taken the technology from. Some prime examples are acquisition of Fingerworks which developed the Multi-Touch for iPhone, and technology licensing from LiquidMetal which gave Apple products their great aesthetics among many others.

We have tried to provide a basic story flow in the visual below.

We are also conducting web seminars to detail on the findings of our research, and how you too can do the same. For details contact us at - info@dolcera.com

 Author: Pramath Malik

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Samsung had been a long term supplier for Apple Inc for the products -LCD screens, flash memory & processors for mobile devices. In January 2011, Apple Inc placed an order on Samsung for mobile processors, forcing Samsung to quadruple their capacity from 5,000 sheets of chips a month to20, 000 sheets of chips a month. In Feb 2011, Apple Inc and Samsung signed a deal worth $7.8B for supplying various components. In Apr 2011, Apple Inc filed a law suit against Samsung, alleging that Samsung copied the design of its mobile devices and developed Galaxy series of mobiles. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) may hamper the chances of Intel introducing world’s first 3D chips into the market, bringing the chip to the market towards the end of 2011 before Intel. Industry sources suggest that Apple Inc is going to place orders on TSMC for A6 processors towards mid 2012 shunning Samsung which is the present supplier of A4 & A5 processors for mobile devices.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

The objective and target of any organization is growth at 45 degree on x & Y axis through best products, best services etc… with latest innovations. Ever since recession has hit the western market the economy and jobs are melting like never before, chapter 11 filing cases are increasing. After all to run an organization revenue has to be generated. As newspapers across North America and the globe continue to flood with stories of economic downturn and businesses fighting to survive, organizations this month are placing a renewed focus on innovation and revenue generation.

Revenue generation through patent lawsuits is the new trend. 35 patent lawsuits have been filed just in 5 plus month time during 2009, wonder how many more are there. Surely first half of 2009 is not good for Google in terms of lawsuits, total 14 lawsuit are been battled.

Lawsuit filing cases of 2009:

1. Aloft Media, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. et al
2. Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al
3. Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.
4. Actus, LLC v. Bank of America Corp. et al
5. Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al
6. ESN LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
7. Heartland Recreational Vehicles LLC v. Forest River Inc
8. Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
9. Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,
10. Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
11. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al
12. Aloft Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.
13. GraphOn Corporation v. Google Inc.
14. Google, Inc. v. EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al
15. Picsel (Research) Ltd. et al v. Apple Inc.
16. Web Tracking Solutions, Inc. et al v. Google, Inc.
17. Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al
18. Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al
19. Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al
20. Certicom Corporation et al v. Sony Corporation et al
21. Klausner Technologies Inc v. Verizon Wireless et al
22. Clark v. The Walt Disney Company et al
23. HYPERPHRASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
24. BabyAge..com, Inc. v. Leachco, Inc.
25. IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.
26. Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.
27. Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC et al
28. Soilworks LLC v Midwest Industrial Supply Inc
29. Priest et al v Google Inc.
30. 21 srl v. Apple Inc. et al
31. PACid Group, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al
32. Accolade Systems LLC v. Micron Technology Inc et al
33. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
34. Clear With Computers, LLC v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. et al
35. Motorola Inc v. Research In Motion Limited et al

Posted in Power of Patent. Tags: Apple, bankruptcy, chapter 11, economy downturn, facebook, Google, innovation, intellectual property, IP innovation, Jobs, Lawfirm, microsoft, North America, patent, patent attorney, patent infringement, Patent invalidation, Patent lawsuits, recession, revenue generation, USPTO.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Apple Inc. is being sued by Klausner Technologies that has claimed that Apple iPhone has infringed on the Klausner patent for visual voice mail. Klausner is seeking $360 million in compensation and damages for its patent numbers US5572576 and US5283818 which basically describe a system that allows for the visual retrieval and sorting of voice mail by way of a display.

Patent #: US5572576
Title: Telephone answering device linking displayed data with recorded audio message
Assignee: Klausner Patent Technologies
Filind Date: March 15, 1994
Abstract: A telephone answering device (TAD) which includes a means of intelligently organizing voice messages, associated entered codes such as personal IDs and home telephone numbers, and information stored in the memory of the TAD. These codes or numbers are decoded by means of the caller entering DTMF signals into the telephone which are recognized, recorded and processed by the TAD. When processed with codes and personal information previously entered into the device’s memory, the TAD displays the identity of the callers for each message, thus providing a menu of choices, i.e., a list of callers. This enables the user to access messages in a selective manner based on the identity of the caller. The need to listen to the actual voice messages to determine the caller’s identity and the need to listen to the messages sequentially or chronologically is obviated, saving both time and effort. Additionally, because the voice message is also linked to pre-stored additional data in the data base, when hearing a message, one also can view relevant associated information, such as a fax number, etc., that might not have been left in the audio message but might be important. A remote access device is also provided that allows the user to retrieve and display the callers’ identities and select a message to be played back from a remote location.

Patent #: US5283818
Title: Telephone answering device linking displayed data with recorded audio message
Assignee: Klausner Patent Technologies
Filind Date: March 31, 1992
Abstract: A telephone answering device (TAD) which includes a means of intelligently organizing voice messages, associated entered codes such as personal IDs and home telephone numbers, and information stored in the memory of the TAD. These codes or numbers are decoded by means of the caller entering DTMF signals into the telephone which are recognized, recorded and processed by the TAD. When processed with codes and personal information previously entered into the device’s memory, the TAD displays the identity of the callers for each message, thus providing a menu of choices, i.e., a list of callers. This enables the user to access messages in a selective manner based on the identity of the caller. The need to listen to the actual voice messages to determine the caller’s identity and the need to listen to the messages sequentially or chronologically is obviated, saving both time and effort. Additionally, because the voice message is also linked to pre-stored additional data in the data base, when hearing a message, one also can view relevant associated information, such as a fax number, etc., that might not have been left in the audio message but might be important.

There are several other companies that have paid Klausner to license these technologies mentioned in these patents including AOL which is featuring the technology in its AOL Voicemail service. Vonage also pays for the use of this technology for its Voicemail Plus service. Thus far, Apple and AT&T have not made any comment on this issue.

Klausner is also filing against Comcast for their Digital Voice Mail, Cablevision for its Systems’ Optimum Voicemail, and Ebay’s Skype. The second suit filed in a different court on the same day seeks $300 in damages for patent infringement. Klausner Technologies is an avid patent seeker and was founded by Judah Klausner who invented and patented the PDA and electronic organizer. Klausner has been well known for its aggressive patent mongering.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Apple agreed to settle a patent dispute with Burst.com, ending two years of litigation. Burst agreed not to sue Apple over current or pending DVR patents.

Under the agreement, Apple will pay Burst.com $10 million and get access to Burst.com’s patent portfolio, with some exceptions. Apple won’t have access to four of Burst.com’s current and pending patents, including three pending patents relating to digital video recorder (DVR) technology. Court costs, expenses and attorney’s fees will reduce the proceeds to Burst.com to $4.6 million.

Burst alleges that Apple infringed four patents for transmission of compressed audio and video files in iTunes, iLife, QuickTime and the iPod.

Apple was asked by Burst in 2004 to license some of its patents, saying they were at the pioneering heart of the iPod. In January 2006, Apple sued Burst.com in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a judgment that the Burst.com patents were invalid and not infringed upon. Burst.com countersued in April 2006, alleging that Apple infringed four of its patents.

Bust also won a $60 million financial settlement from Microsoft in 2005 after a patent dispute over the transmission of music and video with its Windows Media Player.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

A recent patent filing titled “Portable Electronic Device for Instant Messaging ” indicates that Apple is getting closer to adding its own instant messaging client to the iPhone.

The filing (US Patent 20080055269) covers methods for sending, receiving, and viewing ongoing conversations. The proposed GUI is similar to Apple’s current interface for SMS.

The application reads: “The GUI has a set of messages exchanged between a user of the device and another person. The set of messages (is) displayed in a chronological order. In response to detecting a scrolling gesture comprising a substantially vertical movement of a user contact with the touch-screen display, the display of messages (is) scrolled in accordance with a direction of the scrolling gesture.”

The application does mention SMS, but there are serveral references to “IM” and “Instant Messaging”. The patent application provides background on Instant Messaging.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook