AfterDawn: News

Apple sued again over iPhone

Apple has been sued again over their hugely popular iPhone, this time over the screen rendering technology used in both the iPhone and the iPod Touch.

The suit, brought forward by Picsel Technologies, alleges that the rendering process is in clear violation of Piscel's patents. Picsel added the "technology accelerates the process of updating the display on a device."



Lawyers for the company said iPhone users "would experience long screen update delays if it weren’t for the use of the patented technology. Zooming and panning documents, Web sites, and images would not work on the iPhone as fluidly."

Picsel adds that its technology is featured in hundreds of different gadgets and counts KDDI, Motorola, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Palm, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, and Sharp as past and current customers.

The company is asking for monetary compensation for each unit already sold.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 15 Feb 2009 20:37

• Previous article

• Update: Android phones are not delayed, says Samsung

• Next article

• Internet piracy trial against The Pirate Bay begins

• 5 comments

• slickwill

  Now I'm not quite familiar with the patenting system, but does a patent require an idea/invention to have some type of concrete development? Or can a patent have any type of idea that requires no proof of actual existence? So if someone patents an idea called "technology accelerates the process of updating the display on a device," without any plan or physical product, then someone else just happens to develop that actual working product with no help or knowledge from the original patent, then that is considered patent violation?

  16.2.2009 00:57 #1

• plazma247

  yep, thats how it works, theres a little more to it. But essentially your on the money.

  16.2.2009 02:14 #2

• ripxrush

  just too funny! just the other day there was an article on how they are sewing Palm over summin on the PRE! LMFAO! The viscous circle goes round & round!

  16.2.2009 04:38 #3

• lecsiy

  I was under the impression that, although you didn't need to prove it worked you had to be specific. For example,
  
  Quote:So if someone patents an idea called "technology accelerates the process of updating the display on a device,Would not work as it would be classified as too generic. Whereas,
  
  Quote:So if someone patents an idea called "technology accelerates the process of updating the display on a device by using infrared ,Would work.
  
  That was my impression of the laws, and is by no means guaranteed to be accurate :)

  16.2.2009 20:59 #4

• shaken

  Originally posted by slickwill: Now I'm not quite familiar with the patenting system, but does a patent require an idea/invention to have some type of concrete development? Or can a patent have any type of idea that requires no proof of actual existence? So if someone patents an idea called "technology accelerates the process of updating the display on a device," without any plan or physical product, then someone else just happens to develop that actual working product with no help or knowledge from the original patent, then that is considered patent violation?I think you have to be much more specific than that.

  17.2.2009 20:37 #5