[MW Forums]

Honeywell on Wednesday announced that it has filed suit against Apple and 33 other companies for alleged patent infringement over a technology that "increases the brightness of images and that reduces the appearance of certain interference effects on a liquid crystal display (LCD)." more

[drdreric]

I am sure that Apple's LCD supply contracts lay any such issues totally at the feet of the LCD manufacturer and indemnify Apple against this kind of thing.
I would expect even the paperwork for the LCD factory Apple owns a chunk of includes indemnification for Apple against patent problems. Apple isn;t designing the things, just enabling their production and ensuring a supply stream.

[dingonv]

And yet, honeywell waited this long to do it. Doesn't that lend to 'failure to protect intellectual property'?
shouldn't they have filed suit many years ago in protection of that IP? Won't that look kind of bad for honeywell?

[jgraham]

Same old crap. They can't make money any other way.

[tuscmat]

That's right. You can't grow your business legitimately so you sue and grow it that way. What a copout. Hey, Honeywell, how about making a product people WANT to buy?

[tabasco_hot]

In reply to:

---

Honeywell says that prominent LCD makers LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co. are already licensees of its patent.

---

Apple invested 100 million in Samsung Electronics Co. a few years ago, right at the time that the first Cinema display was released. I thought Apples cinema displays were built under contract by Samsung.
found this
http://news.com.com/...tml?legacy=cnet

[moofer]

uh... Apple doesn't manufacture any flat-panel displays. They purchase them. Don't patents apply to those that manufacture the part, and the costs of any royalties are passed along to the customer (Apple) as a cost of building the part?
Can the patent holder for intermittent windsheild wipers on my truck sue me for not paying him/her royalties? Even though it's GM's responsiblity to do so...
What a load of crap.

[Philip Michaels]

Samrod,
I have moved your post regarding MacCentral/Macworld Redesign issues into the Website Feedback Forum. It didn't have anything to do with the Honeywell story and will get more attention in the correct Forum.
Thanks,

[Luke_Macwalker]

Not necessarily. I think Apple buy the LCD panel but designs the electronics to drive this LCD panel, like others do too. The patent infringement may well be in this part of the screen, and in this case it would be the responsibility of Apple to license the technology or to use another one.
I may be wrong though, as I don't know exactly who makes what in these screens... Do you?

[samrod]

Sorry about that.
Thanks for the notice though!

[doglesby]

I'm no expert on IP law, but I think you're confusing patents with trade secrets.
I don't know why Honeywell waited this long. The pessimist in me thinks it may be to get the technology embedded in every LCD so they can sue more people, rather than have companies work around the patent. It's also possible they didn't know/couldn't prove the use of their technologies until recently. They have also had a recent surge in such suits due to a drive to start enforcing patents. So it just took time to get to this point.

[doglesby]

That wasn't called for. Apple sues for patent infringement also. Your vitriolic post does not contribute constructively to any discussion.
Besides you don't know what you're talking about. Most Honeywell products are not sold directly to customers, they are used in systems such as airplanes (from seatbelts to flight management software). Honeywell holds market-leading positions in several industries.

[MacSnit]

Just like a car, when you've got Windows, you've got problems.
I don't get it. Does this mean that "Cars give you problems in the same consistent way that Windows gives you problems"? Or does it mean that "A car has problems with windows (rolling them up and down, etc.) just like we have problems with Windows (the operating system)"? Or does it mean that "People have problems with Windows to the same extent that they own cars" (granted, I'm grasping at straws with that one.)? Or maybe it means something else entirely?

[jmincey]

"Most Honeywell products are not sold directly to customers..."
Then to whom are they sold? Of course Honeywell's products are sold directly to customers; it's just that Honeywell's customers are other businesses -- often manufacturers. I guess this is what you had meant to say.
Meantime, this is another example of patent law run amok and abused.