Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Asks Supreme Court to Curb Patent Abuse Amid New $2 Billion Patent Lawsuit

A

alent1234

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2009
5,688
170
starbird said:
Great second post. Welcome. Look forward to more of your insight, nailing something on the head. That is EXACTLY what Apple did. I was riveted by their lawsuit against Dove Chocolate, for their use of rounded corners on those Promises chocolates, and then was so happy when they went after Sunbeam Bread for the rounded corners on their King White Sandwich bread. Next up, is the maker of DVD and Blu-ray cases, and I am really hoping they go after Microsoft for the rounded corners used on active apps in the Window 7 task bar...



Very good point. "Frivolous lawsuits" is lazy. More accurately, it is annoying lawsuits by Non Practicing Entities, who often don't even come up with the idea they buy. This should be better regulated. Here is a suggestion.

I develop a new way of doing something. I patent it, and am awarded such patent. I then have x number of years (2 to start, can be flexible depending on the complexity) to develop into a product. If I succeed? My patent is extended to 5-10 years. Then it is over. If, however, at some point in time I sell my patent to a NPE? That NPE gets exactly 2 years, then they are done unless they, in turn develop it into a product (not wait for someone else to do it, then buy/sue).

Also, all trials should be filed and forced to be tried where the offender is, not in a court that is preferential to NPEs. When I had to take a landlord to small claims court, I was told I should file in the county the landlord lived, not mine. So the case should be tried where the accused is, not some random spot.
Click to expand...

we are long past the time where a patent = a product
most products now have dozens or thousands of patents. baby diapers have at least a dozen patents

----------
bedifferent said:
LOL awesome

Seriously though, Myriad Genetics, a company that had been awarded patents on the so-called BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in the 1990s, tried to go further. Surprisingly the [rather conservative leaning] Supreme Court struck it down last year:



However, this blew my mind:



So let's recap:

- A company can have whole or partial claim to DNA and cDNA

- Monsanto, a company that has GMO patented corn and other products, can sue farmlands in which the "patented" product may grow due to pollination. Many farms are folding due to barren crops and climate change, allowing Monsanto to sue, buy and move into the land. As corn is used in a lot of goods, soon Monsanto (and Dow) may be controlling much of the worlds necessary commodities.

Yup, no problems there.
Click to expand...

the monsanto lawsuits were never about accidental pollination. the farmers were buying seeds from people who collected seeds that never grew into plants and then bought similar insecticide from third parties instead of monsanto

the farmers were knowingly buying round up seeds from third parties as well as glyphosonate or whatever its called
 
iSRS

iSRS

macrumors 6502
Mar 2, 2010
468
291
alent1234 said:
we are long past the time where a patent = a product

most products now have dozens or thousands of patents. baby diapers have at least a dozen patents
Click to expand...


I don't disagree, and my point wasn't specifically about this case.

And I don't have all the answers. But the real issue is NPEs that don't do anything but sue people actually making stuff. That needs more regulation. Limits. Something.
 
irnchriz

irnchriz

macrumors 65816
May 2, 2005
1,034
2
Scotland
ChrisCW11 said:
Apple: "Supreme Court please curb patent abuse"
Supreme Court: "Sure, you first Apple."

Apple can't seriously think they are in the right here when they went after another company for billions in damages because the company used rounded rectangle icons. Also a vast majority of Apple's patents are never turned into products because they are trying to cripple their competition from being able to deliver disruptive products.

How about Apple set an example that the industry can follow.

For now, Apple clearly weaponized the patent to use against the competition and they are getting a little taste of that bitter, bitter medicine and obviously don't like what they started, tough.
Click to expand...

Troll much, how about you go and read up on what was being sued for and the difference between a patent, design patent and trade dress.
 
Piggie

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
9,117
4,016
The Economist said:
Patents should be non-transferable.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, (well actually I do) but how do you feel about copywrite?

You say non transfer, but say I invented the wooden hover board in my garage tomorrow, and patented it, but I really didn't have the time or will to go into mass production, you don't think I should be able to sell you the rights to make it, and you could buy the invention and patent off me.
 
whooleytoo

whooleytoo

macrumors 604
Aug 2, 2002
6,607
716
Cork, Ireland.
Much as the patent system scares me (as a developer in a small software company) and as much as I hate the abuse of it, I'm not sure how it could be better policed. Regardless of where you 'draw the line', people will always be trying to get an advantage by stretching the word of the law.

I mean, Apple must have many patents awarded that have never made it into any released product or service. If Apple sues for infringement on those patents, does that mean Apple is a patent troll?
 
LagunaSol

LagunaSol

macrumors 601
Apr 3, 2003
4,798
0
kdarling said:
Talk about hypocrites!

Apple and its pals just took the $4.5B of patents they bought from Nortel, and gave them to a patent holding company that they created explicitly to troll other companies.

That company does not use the patents themselves, and consists only of a small group of engineers who do nothing but comb through other companies' tech to see if they can sue them with some of the transferred patents.
Click to expand...

I assume you place Google in the "hypocrites" camp as well, since they are also involved in this new effort despite having acquired Motorola, stripped out all the viable patents they could, and dumped the carcass to the Chinese?
 
kdarling

kdarling

macrumors P6
Jun 9, 2007
17,373
5,924
First university coding class = 47 years ago
LagunaSol said:
I assume you place Google in the "hypocrites" camp as well, since they are also involved in this new effort despite having acquired Motorola, stripped out all the viable patents they could, and dumped the carcass to the Chinese?
Click to expand...

That's not even close being the same situation. Not even a tiny bit.

To be equivalent to the Rockstar troll, Lenovo would have to stop making devices, and turn into a shell company that solely devotes itself to figuring out ways to sue others using the Motorola patents they bought.
 
LagunaSol

LagunaSol

macrumors 601
Apr 3, 2003
4,798
0
kdarling said:
To be equivalent to the Rockstar troll, Lenovo would have to stop making devices, and turn into a shell company that solely devotes itself to figuring out ways to sue others using the Motorola patents they bought.
Click to expand...

Not talking about Lenovo, but Google. I assume Motorola's most valuable patents did not accompany the...company when dumped to Lenovo.
 
kdarling

kdarling

macrumors P6
Jun 9, 2007
17,373
5,924
First university coding class = 47 years ago
The thing is, there actually is a need for Non Practicing Entities.

Consider a home inventor who comes up with a new mouse trap, but has no funds to create a company to build it. (Or perhaps she's too busy inventing other things, or too sick to go into business. All sorts of possibilities.)

That inventor's best bet might be to sell her patent to someone who CAN make use of it.

Now, offering it to a major mousetrap company might be a bad idea, because they might want to just bury it in favor of their own design. Or perhaps they'll challenge her patent in court, and she cannot afford to fight it.

This is where patent holding companies are useful. She could sell/license her patent to them, and they can find others to license the patent to. They can also afford fight the legal challenges.

--

I think the main problem we see, is not so much NPEs, but the fact that many lawsuits involve SOFTWARE PATENTS.

Software patents simply should not exist, and do not exist in many countries.

Anyone who programs knows that there's 1) no way to stop and check every method to see if someone else has done it, and 2) plenty of ways for people to come up with the same ideas.

Almost every software patent lawsuit has nothing to do with outright copying, but instead is simply because someone derived the same method independently, but did not file for it.

Software patents quite simply favor big companies who can afford to submit lots of them, and some over and over again until the USPTO gives up and grants them.
 
P

proline

macrumors 6502a
Nov 18, 2012
630
1
IJ Reilly said:
As used here, the term "frivolous lawsuits" means lawsuits that the defendants find annoying or irksome. The real meaning of the term is without value or merit. If a patent infringement suit is successful (and many are), this means (by definition) that it wasn't frivolous at all. These companies aren't worried about truly frivolous lawsuits. They are concerned about the ones that have merit under the laws.

Words matter.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the article? Apple is being sued over 228 patents at the moment. Apple only loses a handful of patent claims a year, if that, which means that Apple will win the overwhelming majority of the claims made against them. It is entirely possible that Apple is in fact concerned with the huge volume of frivolous lawsuits.
 
IJ Reilly

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Nunyabinez said:
Actually, the determination of a lawsuit being frivolous has nothing to do with the outcome. The determination of a frivolous lawsuit has to be made before it proceeds to trial, or at least when initial evidence is presented.

Of course a lawsuit that wins couldn't be frivolous, but just because you lose doesn't mean it was frivolous.

A judge determines if a lawsuit is frivolous. What these companies are asking for, is that once a judge makes that ruling they should be able to collect more from the plaintiff. This is to discourage people from filing lawsuits that have no chance of succeeding in hopes of extorting money from deep pockets.

I don't believe this has anything to do at all with legitimate claims with the possibility of merit.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but of course it has everything in the world to do with legitimate claims. The entire hidden-in-plain-sight purpose of making the award of costs easier is to discourage lawsuits. Suits brought without merit can already be punished this way. These companies are seeking to elevate the risks substantially, particularly for smaller companies or individuals bringing claims.

----------
proline said:
Did you even read the article? Apple is being sued over 228 patents at the moment. Apple only loses a handful of patent claims a year, if that, which means that Apple will win the overwhelming majority of the claims made against them. It is entirely possible that Apple is in fact concerned with the huge volume of frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think you are the one who did not.
 
L

lilo777

macrumors 603
Nov 25, 2009
5,144
0
LagunaSol said:
Not talking about Lenovo, but Google. I assume Motorola's most valuable patents did not accompany the...company when dumped to Lenovo.
Click to expand...

It would be similar if Google actually used those patents to sue other companies pro-actively. There is no evidence of this yet. Motorola did sue Apple but this started even before Google acquired them.
 
MagnusVonMagnum

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,193
1,442
I'd ask the Supreme Court to rule that all software patents are bogus. Software should be copyright, not patentable, IMO. There's many ways to skin a cat code-wise and being able to patent basic control layouts and buttons and swipes, etc. for devices is beyond stupid, IMO.
 
teknikal90

teknikal90

macrumors 68040
Jan 28, 2008
3,346
1,901
Vancouver, BC
But...but.... what's going to pay those two lawyers?? bills dont pay themselves!

BootsWalking said:
Any company that sues over a 'rounded corner' patent doesn't deserve the right to call any other company a patent troll.
Click to expand...

so apparently quoting sensationalist headlines is in.... Levi's trademarked the 2 curve embroidery on their back jean pocket. They then sued other companies who copied it. They won. would you say they're guilty of suing over 'rounded embroidery'?
Look and feel have a value attached to them. Why shouldnt companies protect it.
 
R

rmatthewware

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2009
493
125
BootsWalking said:
Any company that sues over a 'rounded corner' patent doesn't deserve the right to call any other company a patent troll.
Click to expand...

Yeah they do. A patent troll is someone who doesn't actually make their own product. They aren't contributing to consumers. And I know people like to criticize Apple about the 'rounded corners', but that's an oversimpilization. Taken on their own, a lot of design patents probably look silly. It's how they come together to form the whole product that makes the difference.
 
sulpfiction

sulpfiction

macrumors 68040
Aug 16, 2011
3,075
603
Philadelphia Area
phillipduran said:
I dunno, if you're violating a patent that's that. What argument do you have that it's not fair that you don't have the opportunity to dig up some wrong doing on the other guys side to lessen the blow against you? Kinda silly argument if I understand this whole process correctly.
Click to expand...

If you have a patent on something, and you never make any products that use this patent, and you hold this patent in your back pocket just for the sake of hopefully suing someone for rediculous amounts of money when it's infringed upon, is just wrong. I totally agree that something has to be done about it. And as someone stated earlier, maybe an expiration date for legal action on a patent that isn't used by the holder.
 
gnasher729

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
kdarling said:
I think the main problem we see, is not so much NPEs, but the fact that many lawsuits involve SOFTWARE PATENTS.
Click to expand...

Not really. I think the problem is that there are so many patents for things that any decent engineer will just develop himself or herself when the need arises.

The whole point of patent law is that you invent something, and instead of keeping it secret so that nobody steals your invention, you patent it and get protection, benefiting society (not you, but society) by making the patent public so that others can build on it and improve it. If people get a patent on something that hundred other people will also develop just as part of their daily job, then publishing that invention has no benefit to society. And _that_ is the problem.

It may be that this is more common with software patents, but perhaps you just realise it more often with software patents. For example, there might be lots of patents for totally obvious things in the area of creating lenses for cameras, but if you showed me one of these obvious patents, I wouldn't realise it because I have no idea how these things work.
 
L

lesferdinand

macrumors regular
Dec 17, 2013
143
0
The problem with patents is patents. They do more harm than good and should go away.

Without patents, companies like Apple and Google will still do R&D to come up with new products to fuel revenue and profit growth. Less innovative companies will copy them and drive down the price, ensuring that consumers get a fair deal.

In the end, every invention builds on others and it seems rather silly to me to put so much import on whomever came up with a great idea first.
 
MagnusVonMagnum

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,193
1,442
gnasher729 said:
Anyone who doesn't know what a design patent is shouldn't post here about patents.
Click to expand...

Design patents are bogus BS. Control layouts should not be patentable. A rectangle is not inventive and that is precisely what Apple sued Samsung one (well one of the things).
 
R

rmatthewware

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2009
493
125
I get Apple's point, but if you make the loser pay legal fees you risk larger companies abusing smaller ones because the smaller one can't afford to defend their patent.

I think one part of the solution is patent reform. One option is to outlaw patent holding companies. Or, you could say that if a company goes out of business, bankrupt, or stops making products, their patents become public domain. I think that's a lot more fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom