One more day, one more process. While we are well acquainted with one of Apple's day-to-day maxims, we are sometimes surprised by some processes (or the willingness of certain companies to take money at all costs).
This time Ma became the target of a company action Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, which claimed that the Cupertino giant violated two Bluetooth technology related patents. These include almost all iPhone models already released, as well as Beats iPads (Pro), Macs, HomePod, and wireless headsets.
The patents in question are registered under the numbers 8,023,580 and 8,457,228, both related to "communication systems using at least two modulation methods" ie how communication between two devices can be accomplished from two communication techniques. modulation.
Now, the technical boring part: According to the process, Apple products have two different modulations when using the (faster) Bluetooth EDR standard, including two technical specifications that would violate the elements of patent 8,457,228. In addition, the company states that Ma has directly and indirectly encouraged its customers to use interoperable products from the above methods.
As we said, sometimes some companies try to take money from others at any cost. In addition to not being the inventor of the technologies in question, the patents claimed by Rembrandt expired at the beginning of last month, but the company claimed that it does not matter as it is ?entitled to compensation for infringements that occurred prior to expiration?.
Still, the patents describe wireless communication techniques that extend to virtually any Bluetooth enabled device and, knowing this, Rembrandt wasted no time. Before suing Ma, the company took Samsung and BlackBerry to court; In the case of the South Korean giant, the jri was in favor of Rembrandt and ordered Samsung to pay $ 11.1 million in royalties by the infringing devices.
In the lawsuit against Apple, Rembrandt requires a jury trial, a statement of intentional infringement, payment of attorney's fees and other damages. By 2014, the two companies had already faced each other in court in another patent infringement lawsuit, this time over the "safe startup and recovery of electronic devices."