Apple Sued Over Accelerometer and Bubble Level
A patent troll is going after Apple for patent infringement of an "electronic alignment system".
Calibrait, LLC, a company with no history and apparently has been founded with the sole purpose to acquire a patent and sue for patent infringement, claims that Apple directly and indirectly infringe its patent 7,447,265 by offering accelerometers in its mobile devices as well as software that turn iPods, iPads and iPhones into electronic alignment devices. Calibrait also alleges that Apple engages in indirect infringement by enabling others to violate Calibrait's patent.
The patent in question was filed in 2005 and granted in November 2008 to John Cerwin, founder of Cerwin Tools in Illinois. Calibrait, headquartered in Irvine, California, acquired the patent from Cerwin in May of 2011. According to USPTO records, Calibrait does not own any other patents.
Back in 2005, it appears that John Cerwin envisioned mobile devices to integrate "at least two accelerometers" that are mounted "mutually perpendicular to one another" and are employed to determine "the angle of rotation of the device about an axis." He mentioned that two accelerometers can determine one angle, while three would be necessary to calculate a second angle. There is also a note of distance sensors or a gyroscope to determine a third angle.
Calibrait's focus is on the hardware as well as Apple's "Bubble Level" software that is damaging the company's interests and cause "great" and "irreparable harm". Of course, common sense suggests that Calibrait should not have acquired the patent if the company intended to avoid "irreparable harm".
- Reminder: President Obama Speaks on Google+ Today
- Mozilla Pitches New Developer Language Rust
- 2012 Buick LaCrosse eAssist: The Guide To Future Hybrids?
- A Wireless Carrier's Challenges in Managing Data Demand
- Gmail Logo Was a Rush Job With Two Totally Different Fonts
- Motorola's Droid 4 Will Cost $199.99 Subsidized?
- Casio's Super-tough G-Shock Smartphone Looks Indestructible
- Report: Samsung Galaxy S III Unveiling Has Been Delayed
- Canadian Teenagers Send Lego Man into Near Space
- Microsoft Confirms No New Xbox in 2012
- These Suspenders Are Designed to Improve Posture
- GymPact Makes You Pay (Literally) For Not Working Out
- Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Others Join Forces to Fight Phishing
- Chrome Surpasses 30 Percent Market Share For The First Time
- Report: Facebook Filing $5B IPO on Wednesday
- Piracy Isn't Such a Bad Thing, Says Maker of Angry Birds
- British Nationals Refused Entry to U.S. Over Twitter Tweets
- Ford to Make Car Interior Using a Tropical Flower
- Samsung Galaxy S III to Hit March 13?
Oh karma.
But seriously, our patent system is so messed up right now. These patent trolls are getting ridiculous.
And *insert random joke about patenting random things here*
OK give the company $1
Well, whatever it takes to serve apple with a dose of its' own medicine...........
Considering Apple's conduct in the past, it is hard to be too sympathetic, but Apple's defense should be able to be summed up in two words: "Prior art".
@jsc
If 'prior art' doesn't work for the companies Apple has sued successfully defeating legitimate prior art claims(and subsequently taken competing products off shelves), Apple doesn't deserve to be able to have that defense.
Let's get past our dislike for the usual Apple tactics, and look at the real problem here...of patent trolling.
The system should be reformed so any patent would require a commercially viable product to be sold for some determined period of time, to allow the patent to be valid. This would eliminate this type of patent troll companies, at least.
Here is example of the ridiculousness of the patent system. There is nothing unique or non-obvious about either of these patents. Its just basic programming and engineering, nothing that deserves economic protection. (And yes the same is true of many of the Apple patents)
I don't like Apple but these companies are just trash.
Just pick something and sue... seriously... it will settle out of court. its that easy. tomorrow im going down to a store that serves coffee in Styrofoam cups that doesnt have "contents hot" written on them and since I can handle pain... im spilling that sucker all over me... bam... theres that 10,000 computer system ive been wanting.
This is how ridiculous this sue happy society has become.
I don't like Apple but these companies are just trash.
I agree completely. I think it's a complete abuse of the system to create a corp. and buy a patent just to sue someone. Having said that....who better could he possibly have chosen than Apple.
I think Samsung should finance all these suits against Apple as revenge for the whole German court blocking all Galaxy tab sales in Europe for however many weeks that was. Apple has a hell of a lot of bad karma to get through when it comes to litigation.
... patent trolls... and stop acta... patents slows down progress...
how about the gov't changes its push for SOPA, maybe -
stop obvious patent abuse ??
Considering Apple's conduct in the past, it is hard to be too sympathetic, but Apple's defense should be able to be summed up in two words: "Prior art".
How can Apple claim prior art if this patent was filled in 2005 and their first iPhone was launched in 2007? Of course this is still another abuse of the patent system.
Oh the irony
apple will sue them for infringement of their patent trolling patent
I hate patent trolling, but I must say... TAKE THAT, APPLE!
I don't like the way Douglas described the company though:
Looks tendencious.
I think the patent system should be revised AT LEAST so that a person can only sell a patent to a company with real commercial use with the patent in a product.
Let's get past our dislike for the usual Apple tactics, and look at the real problem here...of patent trolling.The system should be reformed so any patent would require a commercially viable product to be sold for some determined period of time, to allow the patent to be valid. This would eliminate this type of patent troll companies, at least.
there need to be 2 patent systems, bug business ones, where they need a viable product, and consumer level, where they need a detailed schematic.
protects the extremely smart hobbiests and inventors not in corperat pockets, while allowing corporations some ability to protect their innovations....
there would be some leway for companies who are underfunded and cant produce the product in a timely manor. got to also look out for the little guys.
Let's get past our dislike for the usual Apple tactics, and look at the real problem here..
The real problem being... Apple!
by the way, the damage would be compensated;
+1
Iphone 5 without accelerometer, there is no doubt that right Thinking.
Let's get past our dislike for the usual Apple tactics, and look at the real problem here...of patent trolling.The system should be reformed so any patent would require a commercially viable product to be sold for some determined period of time, to allow the patent to be valid. This would eliminate this type of patent troll companies, at least.
I somewhat agree with this in that the patent system should be reformed - even after it was last year.
However, I think this particular solution would favor companies like crApple unfairly over the garage inventor.
That's what happens when you produce more attorneys and less engineers.
What do you call 999 patent attorneys at the bottom of the ocean...?
A lame recycled joke with a lot of truth in it :-)
Make that 'A patent troll is going after the biggest of trolls..'
To all the Apple haters that seem so interested in every story about "Apple" but claim they could care less. If they successfully sue Apple then every other phone manufacture will be sued as well down the road. What does that mean? More cost to the average consumer, because the cell phone makers are just going to pass it along to us.
I am figuring that someone got tired of Apples patent lawsuits, and actually sought out a patent to acquire just to prove a point.
How about we just limit all copyright/patents to 5 years. That way people will have a chance to recoup their costs and make a profit but society doesn't get screwed by stifling competition. It still makes sense to allow trademarks to last virtually forever.
Calibrait's focus is on the hardware as well as Apple's "Bubble Level" software that is damaging the company's interests and cause "great" and "irreparable harm".
/facepalm
Ya, i'm not the biggest apple fan, but this is a load of bull. I have an idea lets make a law that says "Parties must have a tangible product at least in early beta, before they can pursue any legal action"
Let's get past our dislike for the usual Apple tactics, and look at the real problem here...of patent trolling.The system should be reformed so any patent would require a commercially viable product to be sold for some determined period of time, to allow the patent to be valid. This would eliminate this type of patent troll companies, at least.
What if an inventer invents something, demos the product to a large company (or someone working for a large company), but could never get the funding for the product?
Then this company (or person) markets a replica of the said product, files a patent, makes millions, and then defend itself in court as "commercially viable?"
As prone as I am to see this as Apple reaping what it has sown, I think patent law should at least prohibit companies who lack any manufacturing capabilities to own patents for manufacturing. That would go a long way toward preventing corporations whose sole income stream is patent litigation.
The CSIRO borehole camera (referenced in a 1983 paper found by a google search) used accelerometers to do similar things.