The two plaintiffs allege that when manufacturers use the so-called Display Power Management Signaling standard, they effectively incorporate technology into their products that falls within the realm of the patents. As a result, the plaintiffs allege, the PC makers should pay royalties. However, it is not that simple. VESA bylaws state that members must disclose intellectual property information, and it is unknown whether Elonex was forthright with information about their patent holdings when VESA was establishing a set of standards for its members to follow. The defendants, however, may try to use VESA's bylaws as a defense.
Many standards organizations require members to disclose intellectual property interests.
If Elonex was a member of VESA and did not disclose its patents during the standards-setting process, the defendants can claim that they are not required to pay royalties. Apple has found itself in the middle of a number of legal disputes, from both a plaintiff and defendant point of view, over the last 18 months. Apple has been challenged in the marketplace by Cobalt with their Cube knockoff , but used the name iTools despite Tenon's own brand of Internet tools that first used the name iTools. Apple has also been defending the industrial design of the iMac through aggressive litigation since the bright-colored computer's release. The company may even find itself needing to make a decision concerning the Aqua-like nature of the forthcoming Windows XP operating system, though we doubt they would have the grounds, the means, or the will to pursue that path.