▲ 162 ▼ Apple Ordered to Pay $5.7 Billion for Infringing Haptics Patent in iPhone, Apple Watch (www.cnet.com) submitted 5 days ago by TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (9 children) Its always nice to find good news in my feed permalink fedilink source hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (7 children) How is this good news? Haptic feedback has existed since the 1970s. This patent should be invalid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] timochka@lemmy.zip 18 points 5 days ago (2 children) The patent is not on haptic feedback. The patent is on a very specific means of implementing haptic feedback using ferrofluids and electromagnetic actuators that it is claimed (and Apple deemed it good enough to copy, so presumably truly) allows for both a smaller implementation than typical mechanical haptic feedback (i.e. the off-balance-flywheel approach of phones of old), while also allowing for low- or zero- noise compared to "speaker or piezo" based haptic feedback. There are a lot of shit patents in the world, but on a surface reading at least this seems sufficiently novel that I don't see why it should be invalid. One also presumes that if Apple had any grounds to invalidate it on prior-art they would have done so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reddig33@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 child) So I looked into this and you are right and I am wrong. Deleting my previous posts since there’s more to this case than just haptics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] timochka@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago Well, all credit to you! Sometimes Lemmy can be surprising in a good way :^). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (3 children) Even if it's like catching Al capone on tax fraud, it's still good to get the baddie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children) Rewarding a patent troll is never a good thing. It just means no one will be able to use haptic feedback without paying a toll. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 child) Are they really a patent troll though? It's apparently a headphone company. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Spur4383@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago They have one headphone license for one model from crossair, that is worth less money that what they spent on lawyers for this trial. They are a patent troll. permalink fedilink source parent [+] latetolemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (7 children) How is this good news? Haptic feedback has existed since the 1970s. This patent should be invalid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] timochka@lemmy.zip 18 points 5 days ago (2 children) The patent is not on haptic feedback. The patent is on a very specific means of implementing haptic feedback using ferrofluids and electromagnetic actuators that it is claimed (and Apple deemed it good enough to copy, so presumably truly) allows for both a smaller implementation than typical mechanical haptic feedback (i.e. the off-balance-flywheel approach of phones of old), while also allowing for low- or zero- noise compared to "speaker or piezo" based haptic feedback. There are a lot of shit patents in the world, but on a surface reading at least this seems sufficiently novel that I don't see why it should be invalid. One also presumes that if Apple had any grounds to invalidate it on prior-art they would have done so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reddig33@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 child) So I looked into this and you are right and I am wrong. Deleting my previous posts since there’s more to this case than just haptics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] timochka@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago Well, all credit to you! Sometimes Lemmy can be surprising in a good way :^). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (3 children) Even if it's like catching Al capone on tax fraud, it's still good to get the baddie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children) Rewarding a patent troll is never a good thing. It just means no one will be able to use haptic feedback without paying a toll. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 child) Are they really a patent troll though? It's apparently a headphone company. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Spur4383@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago They have one headphone license for one model from crossair, that is worth less money that what they spent on lawyers for this trial. They are a patent troll. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] timochka@lemmy.zip 18 points 5 days ago (2 children) The patent is not on haptic feedback. The patent is on a very specific means of implementing haptic feedback using ferrofluids and electromagnetic actuators that it is claimed (and Apple deemed it good enough to copy, so presumably truly) allows for both a smaller implementation than typical mechanical haptic feedback (i.e. the off-balance-flywheel approach of phones of old), while also allowing for low- or zero- noise compared to "speaker or piezo" based haptic feedback. There are a lot of shit patents in the world, but on a surface reading at least this seems sufficiently novel that I don't see why it should be invalid. One also presumes that if Apple had any grounds to invalidate it on prior-art they would have done so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reddig33@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 child) So I looked into this and you are right and I am wrong. Deleting my previous posts since there’s more to this case than just haptics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] timochka@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago Well, all credit to you! Sometimes Lemmy can be surprising in a good way :^). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 child) So I looked into this and you are right and I am wrong. Deleting my previous posts since there’s more to this case than just haptics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] timochka@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago Well, all credit to you! Sometimes Lemmy can be surprising in a good way :^). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] timochka@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago Well, all credit to you! Sometimes Lemmy can be surprising in a good way :^). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (3 children) Even if it's like catching Al capone on tax fraud, it's still good to get the baddie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children) Rewarding a patent troll is never a good thing. It just means no one will be able to use haptic feedback without paying a toll. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 child) Are they really a patent troll though? It's apparently a headphone company. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Spur4383@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago They have one headphone license for one model from crossair, that is worth less money that what they spent on lawyers for this trial. They are a patent troll. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children) Rewarding a patent troll is never a good thing. It just means no one will be able to use haptic feedback without paying a toll. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 child) Are they really a patent troll though? It's apparently a headphone company. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Spur4383@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago They have one headphone license for one model from crossair, that is worth less money that what they spent on lawyers for this trial. They are a patent troll. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 child) Are they really a patent troll though? It's apparently a headphone company. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Spur4383@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago They have one headphone license for one model from crossair, that is worth less money that what they spent on lawyers for this trial. They are a patent troll. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Spur4383@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago They have one headphone license for one model from crossair, that is worth less money that what they spent on lawyers for this trial. They are a patent troll. permalink fedilink source parent