As promised, I have taken a look at the suit filed on April 15, 2010 by Apple against Eastman Kodak. While Apple is sued all the time, it is actually relatively unusual for Apple to be the aggressor. Even in this instance, Eastman Kodak had previously filed several suits against Apple for various technologies used in the iPhone so that this suit, while affirmatively filed by Apple, appears to be ultimately defensive in nature.
Apple v. Eastman Kodak, Case No. CV 10-01609 JCS
I may be taking this somewhat backwards, but I am following the order of my interest. When I originally heard that Eastman Kodak was suing Apple, I yawned and though “get in line.” Then I heard that Apple was suing Eastman Kodak and my interest was piqued for several reasons. First, the suit I initially heard of wasn’t a true countersuit in which a suit against the original Plaintiff is filed by the Defendant from within the initial case similar to what happened in the Psystar matter. Apple in fact filed a separate suit in a separate venue in addition to countersuits filed in the initial matters. I wondered if other commentators were right that this was a transparent retaliatory move and if Apple was pulling a forum-shopping move, such as the one I criticized on the part of Psystar. Also, although I have spent most of my time in reporting on Apple legal matters in the case against Psystar, it is actually rather unusual for Apple to be the legal aggressor. Apple sends out scads of “cease and desist” letters, but they rarely initiate suit. Thus, for all of these reasons, my interest was engaged. So, coming full circle, this article will first examine the last case, i.e. the one filed by Apple in the Northern District of California, and then move on to the earlier ones.
Complaint for Patent Infringement and Demand for Jury Trial
This complaint was filed on April 15, 2010 in the Federal Court system, specifically in the Northern District of California. The only named Defendant is Eastman Kodak Company. This Complaint is somewhat vague, which is actually typical in legal cases as all that is required for a Complaint to stand is for it state the base essentials supporting a legal claim for relief within its “four corners.” The items in dispute are two patents described as follows:
U.S. Patent No. 6,031,964 (“the ‘964 patent’”), entitled “System and Method for Using a Unified Memory Architecture to Implement a Digital Camera Device” issued on February 29, 2000 and,
U.S. Patent No. RE38,911 (“the RE ‘911 patent’”), entitled “Modular Digital Image Processing via an Image Processing Chain with Modifiable Parameter Controls” reissued on December 6, 2005
Apple alleges that the Kodak camera Z Series, M Series, C Series, and others are actively and contributorily infringing upon these patents as well as actively inducing others to do the same. Apple seeks an injunction and monetary damages. Portions of the patents are attached to the Complaint with some potentially helpful summaries. I confess, they confused the heck out of me (and seem almost designed to do so and be so vague that a whole host of technologies could be claim as infringing), but here are those summaries:
The 964 Patent
Background of the Invention
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to digital cameras and more particularly to a system and method for using a unified memory architecture to implement a digital camera device.
2. Descriptions of the Background Art
Modern digital cameras typically include an imaging device which is controlled by a built-in computer system. The built-in computer system accesses raw image data captured by the imaging device and then processes and compresses the data before storing the compressed data into an internal memory. efficient operation of the built-in computer is therefore an important consideration for camera designed and manufacturers. The memory architecture of a particular computer system determines data storage techniques and can thus significantly effect the operational efficiency of the entire digital camera system.
In conventional hardware-based digital cameras, the system memory architecture is typically implemented using multiple discrete blocks of memory. The conventional digital camera captures raw image data and then remains unusable until the data is completely processed and stored into internal flash memory. This conventional memory architecture does not readily support the rapid capture of a series of image data sets and is therefore somewhat inconvenient in certain photographic applications.
Furthermore, in modern computer systems, a multi-threading environment effectively allows multiple system processes to run concurrently. The multi-threading environment may thus permit a digital camera to more efficiently process, compress and store image data by performing these functions n the background, when the built-in computer is not busy with more important tasks such as capturing additional sets of image data. A memory architecture which supports the background spooling functions can therefore significantly increase the computer system efficiency. Therefore, an improved system and method is needed for using a unified memory architecture to implement a digital camera device.
Summary of the Invention
In accordance with the present invention, a system and method are disclosed for using a unified memory architecture to implement a digital camera device. In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, the digital camera includes an imaging device for capturing raw image data and a computer for processing, compressing and storing the image data. The computer includes a dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), a central processing unit (CPU), a memory manager routine stored in read-only memory data received from the imaging device, a working memory area, and a RAM disk with a standardized file system. In the preferred embodiment, the CPU executes a memory manager routine which selectively allocates storage locations within the DRAM, depending on the requirements of the system and the current image data. The power management system includes a power manager which controls a power supply that is powered by main batteries and which is also connected to backup batteries, in case of a power failure in the main batteries. If the main batteries fail to provide sufficient power for operating the entire digital camera, the power manager maintains operating power to itself, the CPU and the DRAM using the backup batteries.
The DRAM uses a standardized file system which enables an external host computer system to readily access image data stored in the DRAM via the digital camera's I/O interface. The nonvolatile removable memory serves as a storage area for additional image data. A camera user who possesses several removable memories may thus replace a full removable memory with an empty removable memory to effectively expand the picture-taking capacity of the digital camera. The present invention therefore improves the performance and efficiency of a digital camera device through the use of an improved unified memory architecture.
The 911 Patent
Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to digital image data processing, and more particularly to modular digital image data processing with modifiable parameter control.
Background of the Invention
Modern digital cameras typically include an imaging device which is controlled by a computer system. The computer system accesses raw image data captured by the imaging device and then processes and compresses the data before storing the compressed data into an internal memory. The conventional digital camera captures image data and then remains unusable until the data is completely processed and stored into internal flash memory.
In processing image data, typical digital cameras operate with exclusive and specific image processing. Thus, all the potential manipulation on image data, such as linearization, sharpening, and compression, occur as a result of isolated preset programming and/or specifically designed hardware.
While some level of manipulation of image data is achieved with the programming or hardware, attempts to alter and improve the processing are hampered by the rigid structure of using a single file/specific components. Furthermore, camera functionality remains tied to technology available at the time of the design and is not readily replaced and updated as technology improves. Accordingly, a need exists for a more flexible, modular approach for processing digital image data that provides enhanced digital image output through an adaptable image processing system.
Summary of the Invention
Accordingly, the present invention meets these needs and provides a method and system for allowing variably controlled alteration of image processing of digital image data in a digital image capture device. In a method aspect, the method includes forming an image processing chain with two or more image processors to process digital image data, and providing one ore parametric controls within each of the two or more image processors. The method further includes accessing chosen controls of the one or more parametric controls to modify the two or more image processors for alteration of the image processing. [missing line] processors, the two or more image processors have one or more parametric controls, and a central processing unit. The central processing is included with the digital image capture device and capable of linking the two or more image processors to form an image processing chain. The central processing until further facilitates access of chosen control of the one or more parametric controls for modification of the two or more image processors and alteration of the image processing.
With the present invention, processing of digital image data occurs with a linked series of image processors. Each of the image processors performs some level of manipulation of the digital image data. The separation of digital image processing into a series of image processors allows a more modular approach to processing digital image data. Further, the present invention uniquely allows modification of the series through deletion of an image processor, insertion of a different image processor, or replacement of an existing image processor. In addition, aspects of an image processor, including parameter control values are alterable in accordance with a preferred embodiment to allow greater adaptability to user-specific design preferences. Enhancements and changes to the chain are therein easily archived, allowing greater flexibility and more convenient upgrading of digital image processing. These and other advantages of the aspects of the present invention will be more fully understood in conjunction with the following detailed accompanying drawings.
Pertinent Upcoming Dates
July 23, 2010: Initial Case Management Conference
Misc. Comments
Strangely, Apple agreed to proceeding before a Magistrate Judge while Eastman Kodak declined. Perhaps I am being somewhat provincial to my own experience, but many parties prefer not to have their case handled by a Magistrate in full though often passing matters, such as discovery are handled routinely by Magistrates. The case was thus assigned to Judge Susan Illston.
Eastman Kodak v. Apple, Case No. 6:10-CV-06021-MAT
Complaint and Jury Claim
This complaint was filed on January 14, 2010 in the Western District of New York. The only named Defendant is Apple, Inc. The items in dispute are two patents described as follows:
U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (“the ‘218 patent’”), entitled “Electronic Camera for Initiating Capture of Still Images while Previewing Motion Images” issued on September 18, 2001, and,
U.S. Patent No. 5,493,334 (“the ‘335 patent’”), entitled “Single Sensor Color Camera with User Selectable Image Record Size” issued on February 20, 1996
Kodak alleges that the iPhone 3GS is actively and contributorily infringing upon these patents as well as actively inducing others to do the same. Kodak seeks an injunction and monetary damages. Once again, here are portions of the patent summaries:
The 218 Patent
Summary of the Invention
This problem is solved according to the invention by a number of features. In one aspect, the electronic camera is operable in a still image mode according to a relatively more complex digital image processing technique to produce high quality still images, and in a motion preview mode according to a relatively more simple digital image processing technique to produce a preview image of acceptable quality prior to initiation of the still image mode. Such an architecture is particularly adapted to mapping an array of color image pixels from a senor into an array of color display pixels on an LCD display comprising discrete LCD display pixels few in number than image sensor pixels. In that case, a relatively simple digital processing technique combines same colored image pixel signals into a fewer number of intermediate pixels that correspond to the arrangement of the color display pixels.
The advantage of the invention is that the two modes can be tailored for a relatively low quality “motion” mode and a much higher quality “still” mode. The motion mode images from the CCD sensors are processed by a hardwired digital signal processing circuit that generates low resolution, spatially subsampled digital image data which can directly drive the relatively low resolution LCD display. This reduces the complexity and clock frequency of the required circuitry, compared to generating an NTSC format signal, as is normally done in the prior art. The still mode image from the CCD sensor is processed by a general purpose processor (CPU) which executes an image processing software program in order to produce a high quality digital still image.
The 335 Patent
Summary of the Invention
In accordance with the invention, the aforementioned problems are solved with an electronic camera for processing image of different resolution, as set forth in the description of the preferred embodiments. As claimed, the camera includes an image sensor for generating a baseband image signal representative of color image pixels arranged in vertical and horizontal directions as obtained from a two-dimensional array of photosites covered by a pattern of luminance and chrominance color filters. A buffer memory includes sufficient capacity for storing the color image pixels as baseband signals corresponding to at least one image. An output memory , connected subsequent to the buffer memory, includes capacity for storing processed image signals obtained from the buffer memory. A resolution mode switch order in which the color image pixels are selected for storage in both vertical and horizontal directions, the order including a full resolution mode in which all color image pixels are selected and at least one reduced resolution mode in which a few number of color image pixels are selected. A timing controller responsive to the pixel resolution selected by a resolution mode switch accordingly changes the number of horizontal and vertical pixels that represent the image by effecting a subsampling of the color image pixels for the reduced resolution mode. Finally, the selected color image pixels are stored in the output memory, such that the output memory is able to store more images in the reduced resolution mode than in the full resolution mode.
Several advantages technical effects flow from the invention. One advantage is that each reduced resolution image directly corresponds to the image pixel data on the senor, thus being a truer representation with less contamination by processing noise. Another advantage is that the processing channel before subsampling can be much simpler than in the prior art, with the usual attendant advantages in cost and speed. A further advantage is that the system can be designed to maximize incoming throughput into fast buffer memory, thus enhancing the speed of continuous photography. Other advantages and effects will become apparent in the ensuing description of the invention.
Apple’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims
Apple filed its responsive pleading on March 3, 2010. Apple’s Affirmative Defenses include:
- Nonfringement
- Invalidity (for failure to comply with the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including but not limited to Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112)
- Prosecution History Estoppel (by reasons of statements mad and/or actions taken to the Patent Office during the prosecution of the application that led to the issuance of the ‘218 and ‘335 patents)
- Estoppel
- License
- Implied License
- Patent Exhaustion
- Failure to Comply with 35 U.S.C. Section 287
Apple also set forth declaratory Counterclaims regarding issues of noninfringement and invalidity of the subject patents.
On the same date, Apple also filed its Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay moving for entry of an order staying this action until such time that the determination of the United States International Trade Commission become final in In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras and Components Thereof, 337-TA-704. Kodak responded to Apple’s Answer and Counterclaims on March 24, 2010, and both parties stipulated to a stay of the matter on March 25, 2010, until such time as there is a final, unappealable decision in the above-mentioned ITC action.
Eastman Kodak v. Apple, Case No. 6:10-CV-06022
Complaint and Jury Claim
This complaint was filed on January 14, 2010 in the Western District of New York. The only named Defendant is Apple, Inc. The items in dispute are three patents described as follows:
U.S. Patent No. 5,226,161 (“the ‘161 patent’”), entitled “Integration of Data Between Typed Objects by Mutual, Direct Invocation Between Data Managers Corresponding to Data Types” issued on July 6, 1993;
U.S. Patent No. 5,421,012 (“the ‘012 patent’”), entitled “Multitasking Computer System for Integrating the Operation of Different Application Programs which Manipulate Data Objects of Different Types” issued on May 30, 1995; and
U.S. Patent No. 5,303,379 (“the ‘379 patent’”), entitled “Link Mechanism for Linking Data Between Objects and for Performing Operations on the Linked Data in an Object Based System” issued on April 12, 1994
Kodak alleges that the Mac mini, iMac (listed twice in the lists, presumably in error), Mac Pro, Xserve Nehalem, MacBook, iPhone 3GS, and iPod Touch are actively and contributorily infringing upon these patents as well as actively inducing others to do the same. Kodak seeks an injunction and monetary damages, including treble punitive damages. Once again, here are portions of the patent summaries:
The 161, 012, and 379 Patents
Summary of the Inventions
Note: The summaries of these are too lengthy to reproduce in its entirety here. I have a copy of the patent and will forward it to any reader upon request. The introduction to the summaries states:
The present invention provides for a highly integrate, yet extensible system by means of typed objects, object managers, and a generalized invocation mechanism that involves an appropriate object manager to perform an operation on an object.
Apple’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims
Apple had filed its first responsive pleading to which Kodak responded, but then on April 15, 2010, filed an amended pleading. The parties stipulated that Kodak has up until June 7, 2010, to file its answer.
Apple filed its responsive pleading on March 3, 2010. Apple’s Affirmative Defenses include:
- Nonfringement
- Invalidity (for failure to comply with the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including but not limited to Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112)
- Prosecution History Estoppel (by reasons of statements mad and/or actions taken to the Patent Office during the prosecution of the application that led to the issuance of the ‘218 and ‘335 patents)
- Equitable Estoppel
- Laches and 35 U.S.C. Section 286
- Failure to Comply with 35 U.S.C. Section 287
Apple also set forth declaratory Counterclaims regarding issues of noninfringement and invalidity of the subject patents. Howeve, unlike the other case, presently stayed, Apple asserted in its counterclaims that Kodak was infringing FIVE patents of Apple, which patents do not duplicate the two for which suit was later filed in California. Whew. These five patents are identified as follows:
U.S. Patent No. 5,341,293 (“the ‘293 patent’”), entitled “User Interface System Having Programmable User Interface Elements” issued on August 23, 1994;
U.S. Patent No. 5,898,434 (“the ‘434 patent’”), entitled “User Interface System Having Programmable User Interface Elements”” issued on April 27, 1999;
U.S. Patent No. 5,634,074 (“the ‘379 patent’”), entitled “Serial I/O Device Identifies Itself To A Computer Through A Serial Interface During Power On Reset Then It Is Being Configured By The Computer” issued on May 27, 1997;
U.S. Patent No. 5,072,925 (“the ‘925 patent’”), entitled “Apparatus And Method For Automatic Registration Of Manually Inserted Print Media” issued on December 17, 1991; and,
U.S. Patent No. 5,920,726 (“the ‘726 patent’”), entitled “System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device” issued on July 6, 1999
I did not print out the information on these patents as it was voluminous. If it becomes necessary I will do so. The prior summaries give a good flavour as to the type of patents that are in controversy.
Apple also seeks treble damages. Ouch.
Conclusion
World of Apple will continue to monitor this family of cases and will dig out information on the proceeding identified as United States International Trade Commission: In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras and Components Thereof, 337-TA-704 mentioned in the stayed New York case.
In addition to her position as Assistant Editor at World of Apple, dizzle runs idrankthekoolaid, an Apple fangrl satire blog, and is an Administrator and Hostess at MyAppleSpace and their vidcast MASTv.