Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Intel Sue SoftBank-Owned Firm Over 'Endless, Meritless' Patent Lawsuits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If a company has a patent either granted to acquired it should be mandated that it produce a product or service that utilizes it within 5 years. Most of these companies not only sue large companies like Apple and Inte but also smaller software developers who cannot afford frivolous litigation. In turn the smaller companies that hire locals, add to the economy and the development of products and services that benefits many get needlessly and prematurely shut down due to legal costs. Larger corporations can defend however it comes at a cost to the customer. I like the idea of FRAND, it should be applied to more inventions.
Companies such as these do more harm than good, as they are in it for a quick buck trying to abuse the system (even if it is broken) and it only benefits them. Most innovation comes from independent developers and companies, this is why many corporations such as Apple, Microsoft and Google wants and needs to support them, at times these smaller companies or developers have a great invention that they are bought out by corporations.
I agree and support Apple and Intel in this lawsuit, these companies should be able to show that they have a working or in-production service or product that utilizes they patent portfolio. It is a well known that many company will license patents in support of FRAND, nobody wants a monopoly with a single thought process. Diversity is good.
[automerge]1574366058[/automerge]
This user does not understand that private companies do make deals without litigation concerning patents, they have a choice either to take or reject the deal or possible hold out for better terms. This poster makes it sound so simple, take it or leave it mentality and if not be crushed.
I honestly think anyone in a business that relies on patents understands patents are overall good, even when they are on the wrong end of the stick. THe people who rail against patents are the ones that don't know anything more than what they heard in the This American Life and John Oliver specials on the subject. Both were full of outdated misconceptions and misunderstandings.
That second scenario is pretty much impossible. If someone gets a patent on an idea you are already practicing, then their patent is easily provable to be invalid. Your thing is the prior art. EPR or IPR it and be done. That's not a problem at all..Remember what a patent is: it's a state-granted monopoly on an "invention" with strict liability for infringement: unlike copyright you don't have to copy someone's idea, you can independently invent something and then find that its already covered by a patent. Or, worse, somebody claims that it is covered by their (obscurely worded) patent and you face huge legal fees if you want to prove otherwise. Patented inventions are supposed to be non-obvious, and not simple restatements of mathematical or scientific laws - but even if you could rigorously define such a vague criteria, a patent examiner would need to be some sort of incredible polymath to apply it (the last person who came close was too busy daydreaming about riding beams of light to get on with the job).
The first scenario is realistic, but it's not a problem. So you come up with an idea that someone else already staked a claim to. What's the problem? You can (1) try to obtain a license, (2) design around it, (3) try to invalidate it via IPR pre-emptively, or (4) get an FTO opinion from counsel and risk later suit. Options 1 is good because it gives value to IP. Option 2 is good because it encourages more innovation. Option 3 is good because it clears bad patents out of the system. Option 4 is the only option that isn't great because it's the option where the lawyers win (source: am a patent lawyer).
No. No no. That is not what patents are for. Patents are grease in an economic engine. They exist to let companies make valuable assets out of thin air. Practically speaking, they exist so that companies can make something valuable that can be used as collateral to attract investors and as a stick to keep competitors at bay temporarily.
It's not about rights, it's not about inventors, it's not about sharing. All of that is an anachronistic farse. It's all about greasing the wheels and getting money to flow from investors to new companies, knowing that the investors can always have a revenue stream of enforcing said patents against the big competitors should the new company fail; or selling them to someone who will. That's it.
A lot of that is already the case, and the other stuff would totally ruin the whole system.
- If they were non-transferable, void on death or bankruptcy, patents would be worthless. One MAJOR point of patents is they're a security (like, collateral) to investors. There would be no point in ever getting them as they would be worthless to an investor.
- There is already a fairly large recurring charge. They're called maintenance fees, and they add up quick. Companies with big portfolios regularly conduct reviews of their portfolio to determine what is worth paying the fee on and what they should just let abandon.
- After SCOTUS's Alice decision, software patents are already pretty much invalid.
- CAFC and SCOTUS have been slashing damages for the past decade all over the place. Other than Apple, I don't think anyone has actually collected a >$100m verdict. All those verdicts you hear about in the hundreds of millions all get reduced 10-100 fold.
Google, and to a lesser extent Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. have spend the 2010s lobbying the government to weaken patents. Those companies are big enough where they don't need patents to get investors or to strongarm competitors. But they don't like being strong-armed by the little guys. This is basically just another step in the same direction. They want to liken PAEs to some kind of antitrust issue.
Are they really Necessary? Do people actually think that people will just stop innovating if there was no IP? I think the opposite, personally.
Are they really Good? If they beget low-life scum and villainy, doesn't that prove they aren't good? And if you try to specifically outlaw "patent trolls", you've just entered a subjective mess that only leads to more complex villainy.
End IP
The legitimacy and value of most, if not all, of Fortress' patents is debatable. They are simply exploiting an extremely weak system in which patent examiners have a history of awarding patents for the Windows Start button or Amazon 1 Click.
Worse, patent revenue is considered "unrestricted funds" to these organizations, unlike tuition and government grants. This means that patent money is spent on stuff that wouldn't otherwise be allowed for a school to spend.
That includes high levels of president/executive compensation, free housing for administrators, stadiums and sports teams, private apartments and dining facilities for athletes, campus hotels, swanky parties, settling sexual harassment lawsuits, paying $112 Million government fines for fraud, etc.
For public schools, they even spend in ways the government isn't allowed to spend. That's why patents and money are often laundered through a non-governmental university foundation, not the university itself, see e.g. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
Last edited:
Fortress owns hundreds of patents - you can't possibly make that statement knowing what you're talking about.
Also, the Amazon 1 Click patent was challenged in every way possible by companies that had every financial incentive to invalidate it. It survived every challenge in every court. It was a legitimate invention regardless of feelings.
Agreed. Patents holders commonly assign patents to a business or investor for a lump sum payment. Businesses not only buy patents for exclusive rights, but also for the licensing fees. Neither of these buyers or investors are patent trolls.
One of the tenets to owning a copyright, trademark, and patents is that the owner has to protect their copyright, trademark, and patent or it may lapse into public domain. Hence the aggressiveness of companies and corporations (and people!).
What right do you have in deciding what someone can do with their property. They bought the patent fair and square.
You have it so backwards. It is those other people that are mooching off of the patent holders patent without paying royalties.
That's fine for attacking patent trolls, but what about the legitimate patent process? Let's say you put 10 years of your life into developing a revolutionary medical process, but that process will require a machine which will cost hundreds of millions to develop and manufacture. Your return on those 10 years of your life is not going to be building that machine yourself, but licensing your process to companies who have the resources to build and market it. And you must also be able to sue if someone uses your process without paying you for it. You should also be able to sell or give all rights to your process to another organisation or person, maybe a family member, who would also not be in a position to actually implement it, only license it to others.
The problem is, aside from business motivation, there's no actual difference in end state between a patent troll and what you've got above. The term Patent Troll only really applies to intent, which is nigh on impossible to account for in business law.
The German system works rather well.
At the start of the court case, plaintiff says how much they want, and defendant says how much they are willing to pay. The difference is the value of the case. The cost that both sets of lawyers can charge is based on that value, and so is the cost for the court. At the end the court makes a decision, and the plaintiff will get some percentage of what they wanted. Winner / loser is split according to that percentage.
So if you sued Apple for a billion dollars, and the court awards a million, you pay 99.9% of the cost and Apple pays 0.1%. And the cost is HUGE because the case was about a billion dollars. If you sue for a million dollars, and the court awards a million, Apple pays 100% of the much lower cost. If you sued for two million, each pays half the cost.
How much you actually pay to your lawyers is up to you. If you pay more than the cost set by the court according to the case value, that always comes out of your pocket.
Could you not tell what I meant by context? All the other people reading understood what I meant and ignored my misspelling. But thanks for contributing to the subject matter of my post, it was really helpful.
I actually really like the German system. Leave it to the Germans to come up with an complex system that works well.
I have a few things I dislike about it though. I like that they generally trifurcate patent litigation into 3 separate hearings: validity, infringement, and damages. While they used to do it in that order, thinking that because validity is dispositive it could save everyone time and money to do it first, there is now a trend to do damages first. The thinking is that both sides knowing where they stand financially incentivises settlement. My beef with this approach though is it takes a long time and becomes costly to litigants. That's 3 rounds of pre-hearing briefing, 3 hearings, and 3 rounds of post-hearing briefing (sometimes) that clients have to pay for. While the US system is by no means quick either, this trifurcation seems to make things drag sometimes.
Also, it is still very strange to me but the German patent laws allow claims to be amended during the invalidity phase of litigation. Obviously in broad strokes the typical rules apply: no new matter, everything has to be enabled, yada yada. But it's still really odd that even after a patent is allowed and issued, it can still be a bit fluid in scope. Again, this uncertainty seems to just drive up costs as there is an advantage to getting experienced and resourced counsel.
Other than those two things, the Germans seem to have a good way to do things.
The first approach for any possible infringement is licensing negotiations, for the off chance that someone did spend 10 years or more inventing a new medical system as per your example and is granted a patent, the next step is to produce it into a product or service. If funds are not available then seek investors that is why there are many platforms that do exists for these types of situations.
What I hear from companies trolling patents is that they produce nothing and never have in over 10 years, they acquire them and want more if the possibility of licensing exists. If they do not get what they want then it's a lawsuit. The question one must ask is that if a corporation has infringed on your patent, maybe that corporation did not do through job to make sure their product has crossed all the T's and dotted the I's. In this case the patent holder should approach the corporation and seek clarification and the possibility of licensing agreements. If seems that either some patent holder just go straight to the lawsuit method or when approaching a corporation they get the middle-finger.
It is challenging to say who is the culprit in most situations, however it seems that many excellent small software companies have been held hostage by closing shop due to patent trolls. I am not siding with any one party, I am stating that the system needs to be revamped and allow for licensing talks before a lawsuit is filed and only when that fails will the lawsuit proceed and make it easier to see which party was willing to negotiate to begin with and true intent.
Please show me examples of this?
All I hear is the sound of crickets!
[automerge]1574454530[/automerge]
Actually a patent troll can be just like Fotress who in m opinion are just wanting a free pay day for doing no work and adding no value to the economy other than lawyer fees.
They are like that guy who keeps launching fake claim after fake claim with their car insurance firm in the hope that one day they get that huge payout!
No way can you defend or justify this type of low life behaviour.
Why can't they get a real job and do some actual hard work like the rest of us have to instead of trying to leech of other people.
I don't know, but I assume the two following things:
- Compensation for past legal costs.
- Protection from future merit-less lawsuits. If they are sued by Fortress again, they have a strong case for simply getting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit outright.
Personally, I'd like patent cases to have a provable "we are actively using this, or are actively developing a product that uses it".
You shouldn't be able to own a patent for something you don't use. Use it or lose it. The world would be a better place.
And often those patents are 'anticipatory' in the creation.
Good on Apple.. I'm fed up with Softbank.. they're scumbags - case in point: Sprint.
Innovation exists and thrives on it's own ... it's the human spirit. Patents does not drive it ... it helps innovation for it's namesake continue vs hitting a roadblock or maybe by being a roadblock. Many people can think of the same idea and same way of implementing it, yet when faced with an existing patent great innovators create a new way of implementing an idea that can be patented.
A patent should not be enforceable if it is not utilized 12 months after being approved. Once a patent is issued, it should have some type of $ spent on it to further R&D, produce prototypes or actual goods, or licensed for use.
If none of these are true, then you should not be able to sue.
Then nobody would ever take a license because they just need to wait 12 months until the patent expires?