A few weeks ago, Apple lost a small jury trial related to a single patent related to downloadable playlists. The lawsuit was originally filed in June 2009 and accused Apple of infringement related to the "iPod classic, iPod mini, iPod shuffle, iPod nano and iPod Touch". The verdict awarded $8 million to patent holder Personal Audio LLC -- a very small chunk of Apple's $76 billion in cash.
Now though, Personal Audio LLC is suing Apple again, over the same patent. But this time, it's accusing Apple of infringing with different products: "the iPod Nano Generation 6, iPod Shuffle Generation 4, iPod Touch Generation 4, iPhone 4, and iPad 2" -- all products Apple has released since the first lawsuit was originally filed.
Florian Mueller at FOSS Patents explains:
Obviously the purpose of the second lawsuit is to expand upon the success of the first trial and squeeze even more money out of Apple...
This new lawsuit is more than just a nuisance for Apple to deal with. Damages in connection with the iPhone and iPad could could be substantially greater than in the previous trial that focused just on various iPod products. Also, Personal Audio LLC may now have an even better case for claiming willful infringement -- and one of Personal Audio LLC's prayers for relief is a request for an injunction.
Just one more lawsuit for Apple Legal to deal with.
Top Rated Comments
Going to be a huge payout.
You sir, are a fanboy of the highest degree.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could be this biased...
Part of the reason the patent system exists is exactly for that reason: you shouldn't have to make products to own intellectual property. Many people have great ideas, and patent them, but are unable to market those ideas. Should they be screwed because they aren't a multi-billion dollar corporation and can't produce?
Personal Audio LLC thought of an idea before Apple, patented it, and now you're screaming bloody murder that they are "patent trolls," an educated and formal term, to say the least. The patent system has prevailed in favor of he who innovated, which in this case, was not Apple, much to your obvious dismay.