Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple wins appeal reversing $625 million Cover Flow patent dispute

Apple has successfully appealed a court ruling over patent infringements related to Cover Flow that would have cost the company $625.5 million.

Bloomberg reports that a federal judge ruled on Monday that Apple had not infringed on patents owned by plaintiff Mirror Worlds LLC. While the judge upheld the validity of the three patents Apple was accused of violating, he did say that the $625.5 million damage award was too high.

"Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealing picture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solid foundation sufficient to support important elements it was required to establish under the law,” U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis wrote, adding that “the evidentiary record is insufficient to support the jury’s damage awards.”

Mirror Worlds sued Apple in 2008 over several patents related to creating "streams" of documents sorted by time.

Images accompanying the patents in question bore some resemblance to Apple's Spotlight, Time Machine and Cover Flow features built into Mac OS X. As early as 1999, Yale professor David Gelernter patented the process, which he dubbed "lifestreaming," through the now-defunct Mirror Worlds Technologies Inc., though he has since sold the patents in question.

Court documents reveal that the patents had been sold first for $210,000 and then $5 million. In its appeal of the initial ruling, Apple had used those figures to assert that the $625.5 million award was exorbitant.

Though the Cover Flow interface was developed by Steel Skies, Apple assumed legal responsibility when it purchased the technology from the software developer in 2006.

During an interview last year, Gelernter expressed frustration over the apparent similarities between Apple's work and his own.

"That makes me angry personally, not because of the money, but because of the deliberate failure to acknowledge work that we would have made freely available as academics and that companies will not acknowledge because there is so much money involved," he said.

In October of last year, a federal jury ruled in favor of Mirror Worlds, awarding $208.5 million in damages for each of three patents on which Apple had allegedly infringed. Apple quickly appealed, claiming the judgment amounted to "triple dipping" from Mirror Worlds.

29 Comments

stourque 17 Years · 365 comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider During an interview last year, Gelernter expressed frustration over the apparent similarities between Apple's work and his own.

"That makes me angry personally, not because of the money, but because of the deliberate failure to acknowledge work that we would have made freely available as academics and that companies will not acknowledge because there is so much money involved," he said.

So he would have given it away, but instead, sold the patents. Wonder how much they were worth? Certainly not $200 million.

realistic 15 Years · 1154 comments

So now Apple 'only' has 59 billion 374.5 million in cash reserves. I hope Apple survives this financial hit.

quinney 19 Years · 2527 comments

An East Texas jury award overturned as excessive. What a shock.

addicted44 18 Years · 830 comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stourque

So he would have given it away, but instead, sold the patents. Wonder how much they were worth? Certainly not $200 million.

I don't understand this either. Was the inventor in question part of the company that sued Apple? Or was Mirror Worlds the company he sold it to? How was he going to make it freely available if he sold it to a company?

Ironic about the Cover Flow bit, since Apple actually did not even develop themselves, but bought it from a 3rd party developer (who had a mac app named Cover Flow).

Edit: It seems the professor owns or partially owns the company, according to the Bloomberg article.

Also, the patents do bear a striking resemblance to Time Machine, although its a pretty intuitive way to present Time Machine data. Its unlikely Apple knew of its existence, which is one of the claims, which might have hurt the case. I am surprised to see the judge did not find that at least Time Machine was infringing, especially since he did uphold the validity of the patents. Maybe the patents were worded too narrowly, something that might have gone unnoticed by a jury who would have been convinced by images, but picked up by the judge's legally sounder mind...

sprockkets 16 Years · 796 comments

Morons. Willing to bet they could have settled out of court for a few million. Seriously doubt that patent cost more than a few 100k to "invent."