Apple sued over iPhone screen tech
By Gareth Powell
When American executives have little else to do they sue each other. But this time it is different. A Scottish company is suing Apple, although no doubt with American lawyers.
The lawsuit is over screen rendering technology used in the iPhone and iPod Touch
According to Dow Jones Picsel Technologies and Picsel Research, based in Glasgow, Scotland, filed a patent-infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, reported. The suit alleges that Apple is violating a Picsel technology that accelerates the process of updating a device’s display.
It is alleged the suit is focused on Picsel technology that people use to zoom and pan documents, sites, and images. Picsel says Apple’s devices wouldn’t function as fluidly without the technology so can we please have a few bawbies to stick up our kilt in compensation. Although it was not quite said like that. Our illustration points a possible way around the problem. Wear a special condom.
In fact Picsel does not consist of blue painted clansmen just down from the hills and wanting breeks. Not at all.
Its customers include Motorola, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Palm, Samsung, Sony Ericsson and Sharp. None of them, as far as is known, a Scottish company.
In the suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Picsel Technologies claims that the rendering process Apple uses on the iPhone violates Piscel’s patents.
In the lawsuit filed by Nixon Peabody LLP on behalf of Picsel, lawyers said 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.
Worth knowing that this comes as no great surprise to Apple.
In a November regulatory filing, Apple said it was involved in more than 20 legal cases.
Meanwhile, and try and follow carefully here, Apple is setting the scene for a positive avalanche of law suits. It says the iPhone Jailbreak hack violates the law. Personally, I have always felt the same way about the Welsh National Anthem sung in English.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation this is the first public statement from Apple about its legal position on ‘jailbreaking,’ the splendidly emotive term used to describe hacking an iPhone to install third-party applications not sold via Apple’s own App Store.
In comments submitted to the Copyright Office, Apple said jailbreaking was a violation of copyright laws. ‘Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use utilizes’ unauthorized modification to the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in infringement of the copyright in those programs.
Could not have said it better myself.
See, you buy an Advent laptop and without so much as by your leave you instal extra memory and partly use Linux as an operating system. Plainly a heinous offence which should be stringently punished.
According to Computer World Apple states jailbreaking an iPhone breaks the law because the process relies on pirated copies of the bootloader and operating system.
But wait, there is worse to come.
Apple argues iPhone hacking leads to even more piracy. ‘In addition, the jailbroken OS enabled pirated copies of Apple copyrighted content and other third-party content such as games and applications to play on the iPhone, resulting in further infringing uses of copyrighted works and diminished incentive to create those works in the first place.’
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end.
Does any of this mean Apple will actually sue? It is possible.
Fred von Lohmann, an EFF senior staff attorney, said, ‘Apple justifies its position by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software. If this sounds like FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt], that’s because it is.’
Pretty daft.
Fred von Lohmann said, ‘General Motors might tell us that, for our own safety, all servicing should be done by an authorized GM dealer using only genuine GM parts. But we’d never accept this corporate paternalism as a justification for welding every car hood shut and imposing legal liability on car buffs tinkering in their garages.’ Me, I would not drive a General Motors car but that is a personal affectation.
Apple will not have a bar of the EFF arguments. It said, ‘Its arguments really amount to an attack on Apple’s business choices.’
Should be fireworks ahead.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Sunday, February 15th, 2009 at 2:04 am
under 
Print This Post
Read more entries by Gareth Powell.
Stumble It!
