OpenTV Files Lawsuit Against Apple Over Allegations iTunes Violates Five Patents

Man we live in such a 'business heavy' country where corporations seemingly enjoy more benefits than the people so it's absurd that we cannot get some patent reform going. I mean seriously, how much money has a company like Apple waisted on patent trolls?

What else is news?
If it's not about the Apple Watch, Beats Music, the DoJ or the European Union, it had to be about a patent lawsuit.

This is just a Zombie attack from a company that's practically the corpse of a long ago promising company.

illegalprelude said:

Man we live in such a 'business heavy' country where corporations seemingly enjoy more benefits than the people so it's absurd that we cannot get some patent reform going. I mean seriously, how much money has a company like Apple waisted on patent trolls?

Click to expand...

The America Invents Act, AIA, in 2011, introduced a lot of reform which has caused a measurable decline in nuisance suits, has make it affordable to challenge bad patents, and made broad multi-defendant suits impossible. The Supreme Court has also reformed many things, including limiting software patents and making it easier for defendants to recoup their fees if they win. Both of these has increased the quality of patents, decreased the quantity of bad patents, brought down the cost of litigation, and reduced the number of nuisance suits.

What other reform do you want?

Everybody wants a piece o da pie

illegalprelude said:

Man we live in such a 'business heavy' country where corporations seemingly enjoy more benefits than the people so it's absurd that we cannot get some patent reform going. I mean seriously, how much money has a company like Apple waisted on patent trolls?

Click to expand...

Why do you think that OpenTV is a patent troll? Or is it simply the act of suing Apple that defines a patent troll?

oneMadRssn said:

The America Invents Act, AIA, in 2011, introduced a lot of reform which has caused a measurable decline in nuisance suits, has make it affordable to challenge bad patents, and made broad multi-defendant suits impossible. The Supreme Court has also reformed many things, including limiting software patents and making it easier for defendants to recoup their fees if they win. Both of these has increased the quality of patents, decreased the quantity of bad patents, brought down the cost of litigation, and reduced the number of nuisance suits.

What other reform do you want?

Click to expand...

All non-apple companies to forfeit! When do we want it? Now!

illegalprelude said:

Man we live in such a 'business heavy' country where corporations seemingly enjoy more benefits than the people

Click to expand...

How are you even comparing the benefits corporations receive to the benefits people receive?

illegalprelude said:

Man we live in such a 'business heavy' country where corporations seemingly enjoy more benefits than the people so it's absurd that we cannot get some patent reform going. I mean seriously, how much money has a company like Apple waisted on patent trolls?

Click to expand...

I would guess that Apple has wasted 100x more going after companies that infringed on the stupid patents that they managed to secure.

Come on MacRumors, do us some digging and give us a few links to the patents.

Looking for them now - I'm pretty sure, in order to receive a patent like this, you'd have to specify a specific method in which the delivery and processes happen. Apple typically likes to code around those kinds of patients, utilizing the idea in another context. Especially when it comes to something proprietary like iTunes. Let's see how far into the red zone Apple has crossed...

sracer said:

Why do you think that OpenTV is a patent troll? Or is it simply the act of suing Apple that defines a patent troll?

Click to expand...

Because they've waited this long to file. If the Apple TV really violated their patents, they'd have said something before now.

sracer said:

Why do you think that OpenTV is a patent troll? Or is it simply the act of suing Apple that defines a patent troll?

Click to expand...

Anyone that manages to patent a simple idea that should not have ever been allowed to be patented is a Troll. I mean really, some of the most simple concepts have managed to slip by the patent office.

Every idea, unless truly novel and ground breaking, is based on all knowledge and culture that came before it. To slice off a part of that and call it MINE is problematic. Thats what the court should be for in these cases, to decide it it really a new and novel idea. Im guessing far too many are really not, just minor iterations.

Amazing Iceman said:

What else is news?
If it's not about the Apple Watch, Beats Music, the DoJ or the European Union, it had to be about a patent lawsuit.

This is just a Zombie attack from a company that's practically the corpse of a long ago promising company.

Click to expand...

britboyj said:

Because they've waited this long to file. If the Apple TV really violated their patents, they'd have said something before now.

Click to expand...

macbeta said:

Anyone that manages to patent a simple idea that should not have ever been allowed to be patented is a Troll. I mean really, some of the most simple concepts have managed to slip by the patent office.

Every idea, unless truly novel and ground breaking, is based on all knowledge and culture that came before it. To slice off a part of that and call it MINE is problematic. Thats what the court should be for in these cases, to decide it it really a new and novel idea. Im guessing far too many are really not, just minor iterations.

Click to expand...

Some of the comments in this thread are silly.

There could be many reasons why they never filed until "now." For example, one might be that they didn't think they would win, but that now there's a precedent on a similar case, it's worthwhile spending the money as it's less likely to cost them in the long run.

Second - at the time of the patents, these types of delivery channels were being born. It's easy to look at something now and deem in not worthy of a patent. And on that note, I believe that the patent system is broken anyway. Certainly a lot of patents NOW being issued are just jokes.

Third - legacy technology - whether being actively used or not - does not a troll make. If a company spends money on R&D and comes up with a way of doing something - whether it's immediate or years later, it's still valid to protect their investment and IP.

AlecZ said:

How are you even comparing the benefits corporations receive to the benefits people receive?

Click to expand...

Well tax benefits are a good place to start.

oneMadRssn said:

What other reform do you want?

Click to expand...

Here's a possibility:

"No entity may pursue patent infringement litigation unless said entity owns the patent and is actively marketing and distributing a device/service wherein said patented technology is being utilized"

It's just an idea, and I could be wrong here, but it sounds like this would be beneficial. Well, beneficial to everyone except some of the patent trolls.

Because iTunes is brand new...

OtherJesus said:

Because iTunes is brand new...

Click to expand...

And this matters why?

ardchoille50 said:

Here's a possibility:

"No entity may pursue patent infringement litigation unless said entity owns the patent and is actively marketing and distributing a device/service wherein said patented technology is being utilized"

It's just an idea, and I could be wrong here, but it sounds like this would be beneficial. Well, beneficial to everyone except some of the patent trolls.

Click to expand...

It's a fairly old idea, and one that has been debated a bit but mostly dismissed. Two reasons it will actually result in terrible outcomes:

First, this would restrict one of the most innovative members of our society from securing patents, universities. Indeed, many public research institutions rely on patents. In an economy as specialized as ours, it doesn't make sense to require everyone to practice their own inventions. That is what licensing is for. Company A's job is to invent, company B's job is to manufacture, company C's job is to market, and the store's job is to sell. It makes no sense to require Company A to take on all those roles if it doesn't see value in doing so, and when it might be more economicaly efficient to license the patent to B, C, or store instead.

Second, this would restrict a very important part of our economy, and one that is critical to our small businesses and large ones alike: investment. Financial backers of innovators who invest in a company understand that, even if that company’s business fails, its patent portfolio will have value. That value serves as a significant hedge against the substantial risk of investing in new and unproven technology. Erasing it would reduce investment in innovation.

Also, most famously, Thomas Edison did not practice many of his patents. Surely he deserved the rights and protections they offered.

----------

samcraig said:

And this matters why?

Click to expand...

It might matter because if a patent owner knows about infringement, and does nothing about it for a long time, it might be estopped from asserting their rights if the infringer relied on your continued inaction. It's the doctrine of shackles.

oneMadRssn said:

It's a fairly old idea, and one that has been debated a bit but mostly dismissed. Two reasons it will actually result in terrible outcomes:

First, this would restrict one of the most innovative members of our society from securing patents, universities. Indeed, many public research institutions rely on patents. In an economy as specialized as ours, it doesn't make sense to require everyone to practice their own inventions. That is what licensing is for. Company A's job is to invent, company B's job is to manufacture, company C's job is to market, and the store's job is to sell. It makes no sense to require Company A to take on all those roles if it doesn't see value in doing so, and when it might be more economicaly efficient to license the patent to B, C, or store instead.

Second, this would restrict a very important part of our economy, and one that is critical to our small businesses and large ones alike: investment. Financial backers of innovators who invest in a company understand that, even if that company’s business fails, its patent portfolio will have value. That value serves as a significant hedge against the substantial risk of investing in new and unproven technology. Erasing it would reduce investment in innovation.

Also, most famously, Thomas Edison did not practice many of his patents. Surely he deserved the rights and protections they offered.

Click to expand...

Thank you taking the time to explain all of that, you make some good points.

ardchoille50 said:

Thank you taking the time to explain all of that, you make some good points.

Click to expand...

Sure thing; it was a genuine suggestion

oneMadRssn said:

It might matter because if a patent owner knows about infringement, and does nothing about it for a long time, it might be estopped from asserting their rights if the infringer relied on your continued inaction. It's the doctrine of shackles.

Click to expand...

Indeed. It might. Although I'm not sure one is required to assert their rights at a specific time. I'm not up on my patent law, but I would think that as long as you are the patent holder, you can decided when/if to litigate.

My comment, however, stems from the fact that that some here seem to think the company is merely trolling. I don't think one can make that deduction automatically.

Were their lawyers suddenly awoken after a great 14 year slumber or something?

ardchoille50 said:

Here's a possibility:

"No entity may pursue patent infringement litigation unless said entity owns the patent and is actively marketing and distributing a device/service wherein said patented technology is being utilized"

It's just an idea, and I could be wrong here, but it sounds like this would be beneficial. Well, beneficial to everyone except some of the patent trolls.

Click to expand...

I'm definitely not a fan of the current patent system but the problem with this approach is that it penalizes inventors and people who simply can't bring the actual product to market (for any number of reasons, most likely lack of capital).

oneMadRssn said:

What other reform do you want?

Click to expand...

1. Not awarding junk patents in the first place.
2. Disciplinary action against examiners who award junk patents.
3. Re-examination of all existing patents using tighter standards in order to cull out the junk patents.

Clearly, the 2011 reforms are not sufficient if patent trolls still possess patents and are still initiating lawsuits.