Apple's Legal Fees Rumored to Top $100M on HTC Patent Dispute Alone

[gnasher729]

I think it's pretty disturbing how regularly Apple's ideas get ripped off. It doesn't do anyone any good, because it makes the whole idea of patenting utterly trivial. It's pretty sad that so many of Apple's ideas have been shamelessly ripped of by companies like Microsoft and others. The more this happens the worse it gets for people who actually come up with creative ideas and want to start companies.

Ripping off ideas is absolutely legal. Ideas are ten a penny. Design is not an idea. "We'll make a tablet that has a really nice design" is an idea. Anybody is allowed to rip off that idea. Ripping off the actual design is what is not allowed. Patents are also not ideas.

 

[igazza]

100 million keeps

400 people on a $50,000/year salary for 5 years in the USA...



Being unemployed (again) - this is how I'm thinking of this...

Or 200 Apple lawyers

more like 100.

 

[KnightWRX]

So what did Apple buy with all these legal fees ? They barely have anything to show for their actions and have yet to really go "after Android", since none of their lawsuits have been targetted at Google. Also, almost none of their "blatant copies!" actions (except the injunction in Germany which is not even a verdict, just a preliminary action) have born fruit, their only wins being on small time patents that the competition can easily circumvent (the HTC ITC case and the Samsung Dutch ruling).

 

[reefoid]

So what did Apple buy with all these legal fees ? They barely have anything to show for their actions and have yet to really go "after Android", since none of their lawsuits have been targetted at Google. Also, almost none of their "blatant copies!" actions (except the injunction in Germany which is not even a verdict, just a preliminary action) have born fruit, their only wins being on small time patents that the competition can easily circumvent (the HTC ITC case and the Samsung Dutch ruling).

Exactly. While I understand Apple has to protect IP and has an obligation to do so, they don't seem to be picking their battles very well. I certainly haven't seen any meaningful impact on Android as a result of any of these actions. In fact, their number 1 competitor Samsung is going from strength to strength and Google have yet to be targeted at all.

 

[Ryan John]

I may be being a little simplistic here but surely it's time to knock all the lawsuits on the head and carry on producing the goods. Yes market share will be lost to Android and other competing platforms, but instead of putting the money into lawyers pockets, why not invest it in education in the third world or poverty in America.

Something akin to the one laptop per child initiative. Imagine the goodwill that would create around the world and the sales that would generate long-term. The current scheme of things just alienates people, myself included, and I used to love Apple before all of this stupidity began.

Come on Apple, Samsung, HTC, Motorola et al. do something amazing with this huge amount of money, win yourselves whole new fan-bases and save a whole bunch of lives in the process.

 

[tbrinkma]

Note that there is the risk that Apple's patents could be (and some have been) invalidated by the courts, leaving Apple with nothing (except perhaps paying damages).

Ok, so because there's the risk that a particular patent might be invalidated, thereby allowing their competitors to use the technology the developed for free, Apple should do nothing to protect their patents, thereby allowing their competitors to use the technology they developed for free?

Or am I missing something?

----------

So what did Apple buy with all these legal fees ? They barely have anything to show for their actions and have yet to really go "after Android", since none of their lawsuits have been targetted at Google. Also, almost none of their "blatant copies!" actions (except the injunction in Germany which is not even a verdict, just a preliminary action) have born fruit, their only wins being on small time patents that the competition can easily circumvent (the HTC ITC case and the Samsung Dutch ruling).

Yep. Patent suits are notoriously slow, even in comparison to the snail-like pace of the rest of the court systems involved in the suits. The suits aren't over. Heck, in most cases, they're still just dealing with the initial volley of motions (from either side). It'll be a couple years yet before any of them actually go to trial. (Assuming they don't all settle.)

 

[voonyx]

Ok, so because there's the risk that a particular patent might be invalidated, thereby allowing their competitors to use the technology the developed for free, Apple should do nothing to protect their patents, thereby allowing their competitors to use the technology they developed for free?

Or am I missing something?

Nope that sounds about right. Not that it makes sense, because rarely do the people who say "Apple shouldn't sue" make sense, but you get the gist.

 

[Oletros]

Ok, so because there's the risk that a particular patent might be invalidated, thereby allowing their competitors to use the technology the developed for free

If the patent is invalid, what free use are doing others?

And the point the OP was trying to make is that if you try to license the patents like MS does is less risky than suing.

 

[KnightWRX]

Exactly. While I understand Apple has to protect IP and has an obligation to do so

They have no obligations outside of trademarks (which most claims aren't) to defend their IP.

Yep. Patent suits are notoriously slow, even in comparison to the snail-like pace of the rest of the court systems involved in the suits. The suits aren't over. Heck, in most cases, they're still just dealing with the initial volley of motions (from either side). It'll be a couple years yet before any of them actually go to trial. (Assuming they don't all settle.)

Actually, some trials are already set for Q2 2012 in countries outside the United States (this is the case in the Australian, Dutch and German cases I believe).

However, you're quite right that the cases are in pre-trial motions right now. Apple already has lost patents due to summary judgments though, but the victories they do have are temporary (not judgments, just preliminary orders to limit damages).

It's all looking very bad for Apple.

 

[*LTD*]

Except Apple is the one infringing on Motorola patents. But I know you think that's ok since it's Apple doing it.

Would Motorola please transfer their patents to Apple? Because Apple would like to, you know, actually do stuff with them. Like make awesome devices that aren't feeble attempts to rehash a near-dead brand name. Maybe RIM could do the same (and probably *should*, since they haven't done anything in years.)

 

[SuperMatt]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple doesn't need to win everything for this to be worth their while. They are causing those who rip them off to spend huge amounts of money in legal fees. Apple can easily absorb these costs. The rip-off artists cannot. They are telling competitors: If you rip us off, you're going to be involved in a huge, expensive legal fight.

 

[Oletros]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple doesn't need to win everything for this to be worth their while. They are causing those who rip them off to spend huge amounts of money in legal fees. Apple can easily absorb these costs. The rip-off artists cannot. They are telling competitors: If you rip us off, you're going to be involved in a huge, expensive legal fight.

If they don't win doesn't mean that the defendants are not ripping off Apple?

 

[AppleScruff1]

Would Motorola please transfer their patents to Apple? Because Apple would like to, you know, actually do stuff with them. Like make awesome devices that aren't feeble attempts to rehash a near-dead brand name. Maybe RIM could do the same (and probably *should*, since they haven't done anything in years.)

Why should they do anything to help Apple? Because Apple is so kind and caring and helps other companies? Or should they bow down and worship the almighty Apple? And tell me about your experiences with Motorola phones. In fact, come on out here and I'll take you to several spots where your iPhone will have no signal and most Motorolas will make a call. Even the cheap ones.

 

[KnightWRX]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple doesn't need to win everything for this to be worth their while. They are causing those who rip them off to spend huge amounts of money in legal fees. Apple can easily absorb these costs. The rip-off artists cannot. They are telling competitors: If you rip us off, you're going to be involved in a huge, expensive legal fight.

In the end, if Apple is not winning the lawsuits, then it means no one is ripping them off.

Are you saying Apple is bullying the industry and being anti-competitive then ?

It doesn't make sense. And frankly, Samsung, HTC, Motorola and others have no problems also absorbing the legal costs of all of this, so this makes your "tactic" quite moot and a frivolous use of corporate ressources which could better be spent on maximizing shareholder value.

 

[thenerdal]

This has nothing to do with ripping off. Apple just wants to get rid of Android.

 

[danahn17]

Would Motorola please transfer their patents to Apple? Because Apple would like to, you know, actually do stuff with them. Like make awesome devices that aren't feeble attempts to rehash a near-dead brand name. Maybe RIM could do the same (and probably *should*, since they haven't done anything in years.)

I'm sure people thought the same with Apple in the mid-late 1990s.

 

[KnightWRX]

This has nothing to do with ripping off. Apple just wants to get rid of Android.

They could do so by out-competing them ? I thought that's what you did in a capitalist society.

 

[Roessnakhan]

Would Motorola please transfer their patents to Apple? Because Apple would like to, you know, actually do stuff with them. Like make awesome devices that aren't feeble attempts to rehash a near-dead brand name. Maybe RIM could do the same (and probably *should*, since they haven't done anything in years.)

Like Apple doesn't sit on a mountain-load of patents they have done nothing with?

 

[thenerdal]

They could do so by out-competing them ? I thought that's what you did in a capitalist society.

They could, but instead they try and sue.

 

[*LTD*]

They could do so by out-competing them ? I thought that's what you did in a capitalist society.

You don't compete against thieves. You seek legal remedy against them. The bigger and more pervasive they are, however, the more you have to keep pushing to get results.

 

[Oletros]

You don't compete against thieves. You seek legal remedy against them. The bigger and more pervasive they are, however, the more you have to keep pushing to get results.

If they don't win the cases, then there are no thieves

 

[reefoid]

You don't compete against thieves. You seek legal remedy against them. The more you realise your cases aren't going to stand up in court, however, the more you have to keep pushing to get results.

Thieves, yeah right. Have yet to see any of these cases end up with Apple's competitors being branded as thieves.

Also fixed that last sentence for you.

 

[scoobydoo99]

I hear ya. Apple really, really needs to stop being a patent troll. I can't help but to feel less-than-happy when using their gear simply because of how childish they act. They can do so much better if they'd just be a little more mature.

"mature"? Are you in middle school, or what? You really don't understand law, patents, or business, do you?

----------

If they don't win the cases, then there are no thieves

Says who? How many innocent people have been found on death row? How many O.J.s are set free? How many court decisions are reversed due to error? Just because a judge or jury finds for or against any party doesn't mean the decision is correct.

 

[reefoid]

Says who? How many innocent people have been found on death row? How many O.J.s are set free? How many court decisions are reversed due to error? Just because a judge or jury finds for or against any party doesn't mean the decision is correct.

Do you understand the meaning of libel and/or slander?, I'd like to see you go up to a man acquitted of theft (or someone who has never even been charged), but you are sure he's guilty, and call him a "thief" to his face.

 

[Oletros]

Says who? How many innocent people have been found on death row? How many O.J.s are set free? How many court decisions are reversed due to error? Just because a judge or jury finds for or against any party doesn't mean the decision is correct.

So, you're saying that Apple can be guilty of patent infringing even if justice says no?