The problem in what you said is "lottery" and "frivolous." I agree that's what patent trolls do.I have to disagree. Patents were created to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by granting temporary exclusivity to authors and inventors of their writings and discoveries. I don't see how allowing a 3rd party to purchase a patent and play it like a lottery by filing frivolous lawsuits helps "promote the progress of science".
I... don't really know what to say to that. Some people you know are wrong.Most people I know wouldn’t classify a university or a teaching hospital as a “business”.
The problem in what you said is "lottery" and "frivolous." I agree that's what patent trolls do.
But the purpose of patent law is not at odds with a company purchasing valuable patents and making legitimate well-founded enforcement actions backed-up by proper economic and technical analysis.
[automerge]1574352091[/automerge]
I... don't really know what to say to that. Some people you know are wrong.
So universities are patent trolls? Research hospitals are patent trolls?
How about investors left with the patents after the company they invested in goes into bankruptcy? Are they patent trolls for trying to recoup some of their investment by trying to assert those patents against the failed-companies' competitors?
I think if you try and sue, and loose, you should be required to pay back the defendant all the money they spent defending themselves, including time.
Most people I know wouldn’t classify a university or a teaching hospital as a “business”.
The difference is intent. Patent trolls have no intent to create anything of value, only extract it from those who do.
Universities and research hospitals create patents with the idea they will be sold and made use of, they are not created to extract revenue via the courts.
Failed companies can be a grey area. Apple and others have a history of buying patents from bankrupt companies. There is the option to recoup some of the investment. Going to court after that depends on the legitimacy of the attempts to follow other paths, and the legitimacy of the claims being pursued. More often the patents are sold to patent trolls.
So you’re saying the organisation, however you define it, has some other income - it provides a service and makes revenue without taking companies to court?So shelling out 200k per kid to these schools didn't feed their business? Plueeese. They are big buisness
Patent trolls, on the other hand, are low-life scum and villainy.
I think if you try and sue, and loose, you should be required to pay back the defendant all the money they spent defending themselves, including time.
I believe that’s the British system. And yes that’s a big problem with the American system. It’s why Patent trolls can thrive in the US and why SLAPP lawsuits happen (a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition).
Buying patents for the sole purpose of suing others is being a patent troll. Fortress is a patent troll.
So universities are patent trolls? Research hospitals are patent trolls?
Well said!The difference is intent. Patent trolls have no intent to create anything of value, only extract it from those who do.
Universities and research hospitals create patents with the idea they will be sold and made use of, they are not created to extract revenue via the courts.
Failed companies can be a grey area. Apple and others have a history of buying patents from bankrupt companies. There is the option to recoup some of the investment. Going to court after that depends on the legitimacy of the attempts to follow other paths, and the legitimacy of the claims being pursued. More often the patents are sold to patent trolls.
It’s the patent system that’s a joke.Lawsuits on Lawsuits.... The legal system in this country is a joke
You do understand the purpose of patents, correct? They are to give the patent holder a monopoly for the manufacture of goods using the patent to encourage innovation. The use of patents without manufacture is inconsistent with the goals of the issuance of the patent. While licensing of patents is a valid use particularly in the case of essential technology, if a patent holder is not manufacturing, then they are not using the patent for its intended purpose. Apple does use it patents for the manufacture of goods and to extend the features of its products, so this is apples and oranges.Apple, like every other large corporation, uses its patent portfolio to great advantage. They threaten, coerce, and force deals because smaller companies cannot afford to litigate. Now Apple complains the pool they are swimming in has dirty water. 🙄
Claims are fact specific. If the small manufacturer is actually using its patent for the manufacture of goods, even if those suppliers have breached their obligations, that company will still have a claim, it is not the same as what Apple is seeking to do, where the patent holder does nothing but collect license fees and never manufactured anything.The implications may be huge, and probably not for the better. The problem is that this judgement then may be used as a legal defense for future claims that may be legitimate.
What if a small company is trying to go after contractors that did not fufill their end of the bargain- and end up going after 10, 20 of them? They could say, "Hey, this company is sending out tons of lawsuits that we feel is excessive. This case judgement is the reasoning behind what we think."
GRANTED I'm no legal expert but just wondering...
Only in that they don't have the resources to properly review each idea presented for patent and cannot distinguish between obvious and new.It’s the patent system that’s a joke.
What proportion of Apple's entire patent portfolio do you actually know is used in this manner? As far as, I'm aware, when corporations become this large, they have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of patents. I doubt they're using over 50% of them directly in their products/services or indirectly through licensing.You do understand the purpose of patents, correct? They are to give the patent holder a monopoly for the manufacture of goods using the patent to encourage innovation. The use of patents without manufacture is inconsistent with the goals of the issuance of the patent. While licensing of patents is a valid use particularly in the case of essential technology, if a patent holder is not manufacturing, then they are not using the patent for its intended purpose. Apple does use it patents for the manufacture of goods and to extend the features of its products, so this is apples and oranges.
[automerge]1574356890[/automerge]
Claims are fact specific. If the small manufacturer is actually using its patent for the manufacture of goods, even if those suppliers have breached their obligations, that company will still have a claim, it is not the same as what Apple is seeking to do, where the patent holder does nothing but collect license fees and never manufactured anything.
And yet casinos continue to thrive.Why would an investor put their money into a risky business if there was a chance they can lose it all?
What is an “obscenely obscure patent? A patent when issued is valid, no matter your or anyone else’s opinion of it’s merits. USPTO has a process to re-examine patents if others believe they are flawed or granted in error.Except this isn't at all what is happening. These companies aren't creating anything, they're using obscenely obscure patents to try and sue others to win a big payday without doing any real work. Patent trolls need to go.
What would you suggest squirt guns? I hope Apple and Intel go for past fees.Fight Suing with Suing!
What proportion of Apple's entire patent portfolio do you actually know is used in this manner? As far as, I'm aware, when corporations become this large, they have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of patents. I doubt they're using over 50% of them directly in their products/services or indirectly through licensing.
Apple makes a product, and they pour treasure and time into the creation of that product. Are you REALLLLLLY unable to see the difference?Apple, like every other large corporation, uses its patent portfolio to great advantage. They threaten, coerce, and force deals because smaller companies cannot afford to litigate. Now Apple complains the pool they are swimming in has dirty water. 🙄