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

[scoobydoo99]

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.

It doesn't mean that at all. A "win" or "loss" has little to do with whether someone is ripping them off. It comes down to a variety of esoteric legal arguments and procedural issues. Many decisions are later reversed on appeal. According to your logic that "no one is ripping them off" there would never be a reason for anyone to appeal - all decisions would be correct the first time.

The use of resources is not frivolous at all, in fact, U.S. law requires corporations to execute their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits. This includes using legal action to slow down, interfere with, and cripple competitors. THAT's maximizing shareholder value and being corporately responsible. If Apple's actions delay the launch of a competitor's product (as it did with Samsung), that means more time for the iPad to increase its dominance, thus increasing profits. If Apple's litigation promises to drain competitor's cash reserves, they may make different decisions when copying Apple designs and use less Apple technology, thus being less competitive. Again, this helps Apple.

----------

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.

Yes, do you? It's not slander to accuse someone of IP theft that you can make a case for.

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

Of course I am. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "justice" - I assume you mean the court. But the point is, a court decision doesn't necessarily have to do with reality. Look at every high-profile case that is widely followed. The victor always proclaims that they are glad they have been vindicated, with the court finding that the other side was completely wrong. While the loser says they are "disappointed" with the court's "mistake", vowing to appeal. The courts are always only correct in the eyes of the winner. And the decision keeps changing depending on which court/judge looks at it.

I don't care whether Apple wins or loses, I'm just saying the decision doesn't really mean that the winner was "right" in the absolute sense.

 

[voonyx]

It doesn't mean that at all. A "win" or "loss" has little to do with whether someone is ripping them off. It comes down to a variety of esoteric legal arguments and procedural issues. Many decisions are later reversed on appeal. According to your logic that "no one is ripping them off" there would never be a reason for anyone to appeal - all decisions would be correct the first time.

The use of resources is not frivolous at all, in fact, U.S. law requires corporations to execute their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits. This includes using legal action to slow down, interfere with, and cripple competitors. THAT's maximizing shareholder value and being corporately responsible. If Apple's actions delay the launch of a competitor's product (as it did with Samsung), that means more time for the iPad to increase its dominance, thus increasing profits. If Apple's litigation promises to drain competitor's cash reserves, they may make different decisions when copying Apple designs and use less Apple technology, thus being less competitive. Again, this helps Apple.

----------



Yes, do you? It's not slander to accuse someone of IP theft that you can make a case for.



Of course I am. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "justice" - I assume you mean the court. But the point is, a court decision doesn't necessarily have to do with reality. Look at every high-profile case that is widely followed. The victor always proclaims that they are glad they have been vindicated, with the court finding that the other side was completely wrong. While the loser says they are "disappointed" with the court's "mistake", vowing to appeal. The courts are always only correct in the eyes of the winner. And the decision keeps changing depending on which court/judge looks at it.

I don't care whether Apple wins or loses, I'm just saying the decision doesn't really mean that the winner was "right" in the absolute sense.

+1. This reminds me of when people say that companies that settle with people who sue them means they lost or that they were wrong lol. It's quite a funny and skewed view of how "justice" works, don't ya think?

I think everyone here can become multi-millionaires just by suing a company and having them settle. Clearly this means that companies can break the law at will and just settle whenever they want to get the "justice" off their back.

 

[walterg74]

I wonder how much of all that money spent on legal costs could actually go to lowering the price of their products, instead os stupidly wasting it away on some idiot's whim? (yeah, he was a genius, but on this topic he was an idiot).

People already know the difference between apple products and wannabes, imitiations and knockoffs... Imagine how much more the would sell and lead if the products were actually closer in price to competitors (or even lower).

 

[voonyx]

I wonder how much of all that money spent on legal costs could actually go to lowering the price of their products, instead os stupidly wasting it away on some idiot's whim? (yeah, he was a genius, but on this topic he was an idiot).

People already know the difference between apple products and wannabes, imitiations and knockoffs... Imagine how much more the would sell and lead if the products were actually closer in price to competitors (or even lower).

What similarly spec'd phone is way cheaper then the iPhone? Just asking because I don't know.

 

[KnightWRX]

It doesn't mean that at all. A "win" or "loss" has little to do with whether someone is ripping them off.

Actually, yes it does. Objectively, if Apple fails to prove infringement, then there was no infringement. Same goes for other entities trying to prove Apple guilty of infringement. If they "win", Apple was "ripping them off". If they lose, Apple wasn't.

Let the courts sort it out.

The rest of your post is pure delusion on your parts. "Anti-competitive" practices are both against the law and not a good way to maximize shareholder value as they usually result in negative reputation and investor uncertainty.

 

[*LTD*]

Thieves, yeah right.

You don't have to infringe on patents to be one.

We all know Android's story and how Google operates.

 

[Oletros]

You don't have to infringe on patents to be one.

We all know Android's story and how Google operates.

And what's that story? Enlighten us



Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

 

[voonyx]

What similarly spec'd phone is way cheaper then the iPhone? Just asking because I don't know.

 

[SuperMatt]

Unfortunately, patent law is a complete mess. Therefore, the best way to defend your patents is to make it as painful as possible for those you believe are using your patented ideas illegally. The reason patent law is a mess is because of companies that file a bunch of patents for stuff they don't make, and never intend to make. They make the patents as broad as possible so they can then sue as many people as possible. The side effect of this is that people with legitimate patents, who actually make money off of producing the patented products, are lumped in with patent trolls.

Until they fix the patent system, I don't know if there is any other way for Apple to proceed other than:

1) Keep making new things faster than the competitors can keep up.
2) Use a portion of the profits to financially punish those stealing your patented inventions, using the courts.

#2 makes even more sense if you hold out hope that the patent system will be reformed. Then, you'll already have cases pending, and might actually get somewhere in shutting down copycats!

 

[KnightWRX]

2) Use a portion of the profits to financially punish those stealing your patented inventions, using the courts.

There is no "stealing" in patents. There is infringement, which can either be willful or accidental. Patents are obscure and a dime a dozen. Frankly, there is no real way to know if you are infringing until someone brings a claim against you and even then, the patent usually needs court review to even know if you are in infringement.

And Apple has 3). What is 3) ?

3) License out their patented technology and collect royalties from competitors found to be in infringement, thus profiting for their patent portofolio even further.

Apple doesn't do 3) but expects its competitors to license out their stuff to them.

 

[AppleFan1984]

What's Apple's ROI for this debacle?:

Dutch appeals court says Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe Apple's design right
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/01/dutch-appeals-court-says-galaxy-tab-101.html

 

[SuperMatt]

And Apple has 3). What is 3) ?

3) License out their patented technology and collect royalties from competitors found to be in infringement, thus profiting for their patent portofolio even further.

Apple doesn't do 3) but expects its competitors to license out their stuff to them.

If you read the American patent case ongoing between Apple and Samsung, Apple asserted that they did try to license some patents to Samsung, and Samsung refused. There are other patents they want to keep because they would cause severe brand dilution if they licensed them out to everybody.

Remember what happened when Apple licensed out Mac OS to clone makers? It hurt their bottom line - a lot.

 

[KnightWRX]

If you read the American patent case ongoing between Apple and Samsung, Apple asserted that they did try to license some patents to Samsung, and Samsung refused. There are other patents they want to keep because they would cause severe brand dilution if they licensed them out to everybody.

Apple's claim was that Samsung wasn't offering F/RAND terms for the licensing of the patents, not that Samsung was refusing to license them. They got told that the patents were non-essential to a standard and thus did not have to use F/RAND if I recall correctly.

Remember what happened when Apple licensed out Mac OS to clone makers? It hurt their bottom line - a lot.

There's a difference between licensing patents, and licensing core software.

 

[HarrierHat]

Another case lost:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16704461

As others have noted, lawyers are the only real winners here.

 

[alephnull12]

There is no "stealing" in patents. There is infringement, which can either be willful or accidental. Patents are obscure and a dime a dozen. Frankly, there is no real way to know if you are infringing until someone brings a claim against you and even then, the patent usually needs court review to even know if you are in infringement.

And Apple has 3). What is 3) ?

3) License out their patented technology and collect royalties from competitors found to be in infringement, thus profiting for their patent portofolio even further.

Apple doesn't do 3) but expects its competitors to license out their stuff to them.

Apple only expects its competitors to license out their FRAND ("fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory") classified patents on reasonable terms. Apple generally speaking doesn't have patents that are subject to FRAND restrictions, so this doesn't apply to them. Companies are not required to license non-FRAND technologies under FRAND terms.

When companies like Nokia submit / propose standards based on their own technologies to government agencies / standards agencies for acceptance as part of a communications standard, they do so knowing that they will have to subsequently license those patents under FRAND terms. Companies like Nokia (and its direct competitors in this sphere which do not include Apple) vie very ardently to have their technologies included in regulatory communications standards, even knowing that a FRND obligation will arise. The wireless standards agencies / government bandwidth licensing agencies have many technologies to choose from in establishing their standards (e.g. from Nokia, Motorola, Qualcomm, NTT, Samsung etc...). In many cases the different technologies are functionally similar enough that it doesn't matter so much which one the standard agencies choose, just so long as one standard is chosen so all the phone and base stations etc.. are interoperable. So why should the standards agency / government regulator choose a protocol that is not based on FRAND? They don't.

 

[AidenShaw]

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?

Yes, you are missing the overall picture - you see the trees, but not the forest.

This article in the Newsweek magazine that arrived today is in line with my perspective on the issues....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/22/apple-vs-android-war-without-end.html

Apple vs. Android: War Without End?
Jan 23, 2012 12:00 AM EST
by Dan Lyons

Apple’s attacks on Android have backfired. Should the company call a truce?

Steve Jobs’s hatreds are nearly as famous as his innovations: buttons, styluses, complicated remote controls. He loathed nothing more, however, than Google’s Android—a total rip-off, in his opinion, of Apple’s work. “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” he vowed, according to Walter Isaacson’s recent, hefty biography.

Armed with his company’s arsenal of patents, Jobs threatened “thermonuclear war.” He sued the three leading Android handset makers—HTC, Motorola, and Samsung—in countries all around the world, seeking to have their products banned.

But nearly two years after the first salvos were fired, Apple’s war on Android has accomplished almost nothing. And it’s starting to look as if Apple’s patent portfolio isn’t nearly as lethal as Jobs seemed to think.

Three of Apple’s claims against Motorola recently got tossed out by the International Trade Commission. Many of Apple’s claims against HTC and Samsung failed as well, and the two claims that were upheld were both easy to work around. Samsung simply widened the frame on its Galaxy Tab, and HTC removed a tiny software feature that lets you tap a phone number in an email and pull up a menu of options.

Meanwhile, Android keeps growing and has become the top smartphone platform. Samsung has leap-frogged Apple to become the biggest smart-phone maker in the world.

“They’re losing momentum. They’re at the point where the walls start to crumble a little bit,” says Kevin Rivette, a patent attorney and managing partner at 3LP Advisors, a consulting firm that specializes in intellectual property. Apple, he says, should be “looking long and hard at how to cut deals.”

Apple’s strong market position means it could still demand favorable terms from Android players—especially after a robust fourth quarter in which iPhone sales blossomed while Android sales wilted. The company could license its patents and collect royalties on every Android handset sold, as Microsoft has done with top Android phone makers. “The problem is, what happens when you start losing in court? It gets a lot harder to do licensing deals,” Rivette says.

Jobs, clearly, operated from a more emotional standpoint. He didn’t want to collect licensing fees from his rivals—he wanted to stamp them out altogether.

Now Apple’s new CEO, Tim Cook, faces a difficult choice: should he pursue the visceral path of total war set out by his passionate (but now deceased) predecessor, or should he take a more pragmatic route and sue for peace? Cook’s decision could determine Apple’s fate in the mobile market. It will also demonstrate what kind of company Apple intends to become in the post-Jobs era.

(quoted in entirety - additional paragraph breaks inserted to improve readability onscreen -as)

 

[the8thark]

Says the guy who's almost been here a whole year. Gees, pining for the good old' days of April 2011, are you?

I read the articles here long before I ever signed up to post on these forums. I just felt one day I wanted to contribute here too.

 

[thekev]

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?

Many of them are invalidated because they don't actually represent a massive breakthrough in technology. Rather they're repackaged or put up with fuzzy wording to mark off a larger barrier around the product to enable litigation against anything of a similar product class.

 

[scoobydoo99]

Actually, yes it does. Objectively, if Apple fails to prove infringement, then there was no infringement.

Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word "objectively". Regardless, your conclusion does not stand scrutiny using formal logic. "Fails to prove" in what sense? to whom? The U.S. Board of Patent Appeals? the U.S. District Court? the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? the Supreme Court?

You see, the higher courts exist specifically because your statement is incorrect. Just because one "fails to prove infringement" in a specific venue, doesn't mean "there was no infringement."

The rest of your post is pure delusion on your parts. "Anti-competitive" practices are both against the law and not a good way to maximize shareholder value as they usually result in negative reputation and investor uncertainty.

My mental status notwithstanding, I never advocated "anti-competitive practices". Pursuing legal action to protect and enforce patents is part of doing business today. How you find that anti-competitive is not clear.

 

[Oletros]

Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word "objectively". Regardless, your conclusion does not stand scrutiny using formal logic. "Fails to prove" in what sense? to whom?

Until exhausting the judicial system?

 

[KnightWRX]

Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word "objectively". Regardless, your conclusion does not stand scrutiny using formal logic. "Fails to prove" in what sense? to whom? The U.S. Board of Patent Appeals? the U.S. District Court? the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? the Supreme Court?

What happens when all appeals are over and the competition still isn't found to infringe like was the case in Dutch court today ? Then will you recognize that there was no "ripping off", or is it that in your mind, it's a done deal ?

Sounds pretty "subjective" on your part. I know what objective means, it means based in facts. Courts and judgements are facts, opinions are not. So frankly, until a court says Samsung, HTC or Motorola is "ripping off Apple" and a court says Apple isn't "ripping off" HTC, Samsung or Motorola, then I won't claim either position as true nor will I recognize it as the truth.

Currently, Apple has won very little and lost a lot. It's not looking good for "ripping off".

 

[roasted]

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

Your assumptions are cute, but not accurate. Once I remembered what forum I was on, the above comment didn't surprise me. I suppose you know all about business and fully support Apple in all of their recent law excursions. Eh? Everything they're doing is correct and fully justifiable in your opinion, yes? Where's my cigar.