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

[Nunyabinez]

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.

I agree with you about software patents, but I also think that patents should only be available to entities that demonstrate that substantial financial investment was expended to create the item.

For example, drug companies, as much as I hate paying for a non-generic medicine, have a legitimate claim on preventing someone from coming in and copying them.

In your proceeding example, I'm not sure that I agree that we should provide someone who comes up with an idea, but does not have the ability to make it a reality protection. Does the idea for a new mousetrap really deserve the same protection as the formula for a drug that had to go through years of FDA approval?

I know people want to protect the little guy against powerful corporations, but I'm struggling with protecting ideas that come from people who lack the ability to bring them to fruition. I'm sure people will disagree with me, but this is the part of the system that has allowed patent trolls to get rich.

 

[iSunrise]

Google, joined by 13 other companies, told the justices that patent-assertion entities have an unfair advantage because they don’t make products of their own, leaving them effectively immune from countersuits.

After I read the bolded part, I immediately stopped reading further.

Apple, would you please grow the .... up?

So it´s only fair of you can countersuit? Are you nuts? Why should that invalidate a valid patent?

This world, if a company suddenly has enough money, they think they can make the rules.

And even though I dislike companies like IPCom (just take a look at their homepage, hilarious!), the way Apple wants to escape their responsibilities is just laughable entirely. It´s things like this that make me really dislike a system that seems not to be worried about the protection of the filed invention itself at all anymore, but only for the money.

Apple should have people in place that do actually investigate if something is patented or not, before they implement it into their products. And if it is, ask first and don´t steal it. Every 5 year old knows this, Apple doesn´t.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The problem with patents is patents. They do more harm than good and should go away.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

That's Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, if you're not familiar.

 

[Nunyabinez]

After I read the bolded part, I immediately stopped reading further.

Apple, would you please grow the .... up?

So it´s only fair of you can countersuit? Are you nuts? Why should that invalidate a valid patent?

This world, if a company suddenly has enough money, they think they can make the rules.

And even though I dislike companies like IPCom (just take a look at their homepage, hilarious!), the way Apple wants to escape their responsibilities is just laughable entirely. It´s things like this that make me really dislike a system that seems not to be worried about the protection of the filed invention itself at all anymore, but only for the money.

Apple should have people in place that do actually investigate if something is patented or not, before they implement them into their products. And if it is, ask first and don´t steal it. Every 5 year old knows this, Apple doesn´t.

I believe that Apple's point is that in the world of technology manufacturing, it is impossible to make something without infringing on someone's patent. So, Samsung has to think about whether they want to sue Apple, because they know that Apple can sue them right back, effectively reducing the number of lawsuits.

On the other hand, a non-participating entity (Troll) can just sue away and there is no disincentive to suing as they can be sure that the defendant can't counter sue. Seems like good logic to me.

 

[iSunrise]

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.

So it should be totally free to steal from people that actually worked their whole life to invent something revolutionary? Great idea. No thanks!

Patents are there for a reason, the problem is not the patents, though, the problem is the humans who only think about how they can make theirselves rich by stockpiling patents and big companies who flat out deny payments, even though they clearly didn´t care about them in the first place.

Some of them even know that there are patents, but they risk it anyway, because they know that even if they would get sued, they earn far more money that what they would have to pay in a lawsuit.

 

[Rossatron]

In related news: Apple patents mitosis. All organisms to pay licensing fees.

Image

Congratulations my good sir; you have won the internet.

 

[iSunrise]

On the other hand, a non-participating entity (Troll) can just sue away and there is no disincentive to suing as they can be sure that the defendant can't counter sue. Seems like good logic to me.

Well, it´s certainly good logic, but did they even ask IPCom for a licence instead of letting it go and force a potential law-suit upon them? The problem is - and I speak from experience - that some companies just flat-out ignore the fact that they infringe on some patent.

And what´s wrong about a licence if you only need to pay some royalties to the owner. Apple has almost 50% margins on their products that clearly are full of stuff that they didn´t invent. So why make such a big case out of it?

 

[Nunyabinez]

Well, it´s certainly good logic, but did they even ask IPCom for a licence instead of letting it go and force a potential law-suit upon them? The problem is - and I speak from experience - that some companies just flat-out ignore the fact that they infringe on some patent.

And what´s wrong about a licence if you only need to pay some royalties to the owner. Apple has almost 50% margins on their products that clearly are full of stuff that they didn´t invent. So why make such a big case out of it?

I think you underestimate the ease of finding out if something you thought up all on your own is actually part of an obscure patent that some troll bought up at a technology yard sale.

And no one has validated that iPCom has a legitimate infringement here. Do you think Apple should pay everyone who says they thought that up first? It is often necessary for complicated court proceedings to actually determine that infringement took place.

But there is no incentive for trolls not to take a shot, because the worst that happens is they lose some time and court cost, but if they do win, then they make millions.

 

[iSunrise]

I think you underestimate the ease of finding out if something you thought up all on your own is actually part of an obscure patent that some troll bought up at a technology yard sale.

Not at all, I actually think that it´s not easy at all, because of the endless amounts of patents, where they normally hire external patent lawyers (I worked for one, once, but as an IT guy) to find out beforehand (several generations in advance) if they can actually use (and if it makes sense for them to risk a law-suit) patented technology or ideas in general.

And even if they miss out on it - which probably happens, too - they should not be allowed to do it anyway, because then everyone would claim that they just didn´t know about it. But not knowing doesn´t protect you from being sued, at least that´s how it normally works. And that´s where the problem begins, they want to circumvent something that they know pretty well, is useful for them ($$$).

You are right though, someone has to validate if there´s actually an infringement. But that´s not what´s in it for Apple, they simply want to refuse to pay altogether.

 

[lesferdinand]

That's Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, if you're not familiar.

No, not really, being European. We were smart enough not to include such things in a constitution. We did have a bit longer to practice of course...

 

[Solomani]

Google, joined by 13 other companies, told the justices that patent-assertion entities have an unfair advantage because they don’t make products of their own, leaving them effectively immune from countersuits.

This is key right here.

 

[lesferdinand]

So it should be totally free to steal from people that actually worked their whole life to invent something revolutionary? Great idea. No thanks!

Wow, you're piling on the drama. But yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I don't think there should be such a thing as owning an idea. Any inventor builds on countless generations that went before her/him. No one develops something completely in a vacuum.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, not really, being European. We were smart enough not to include such things in a constitution. We did have a bit longer to practice of course...

And consequently, you don't have laws protecting patents and copyrights in Europe, so doing away with them is a cinch. Go ahead, pull the other one.

 

[lesferdinand]

And consequently, you don't have laws protecting patents and copyrights in Europe, so doing away with them is a cinch. Go ahead, pull the other one.

No, of course not.

I am not really sure what point you were trying to make, by bringing up the US constitution in the first place.

Is it easy to repeal existing legislation in general? No (and even harder to change constitutional law). But does that mean we should just accept it, if it isn't working? Laws are made to serve the people, they have no inherent value of their own. Civilizations and their priorities change and legislation inevitably lags this development.

 

[Tiger8]

No Apple

No. I love Apple but this is stupid.

What about guys and gals who are BRILLIANT inventors but don't have the means to implement their inventions? Should they be forced to either work for Apple or Google (and loose their IP), bury their ideas, or just have everyone steal them for no return?

What's next? Should all singers sue songwriters who don't sing?

 

[iSunrise]

Wow, you're piling on the drama. But yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I don't think there should be such a thing as owning an idea. Any inventor builds on countless generations that went before her/him. No one develops something completely in a vacuum.

Ok, let me get this straight.

You build up a company, say, you want to help people who develop certain illnesses. Now, you work together with other people, whose job it is to research and possibly cure those illnesses. Now you suddenly found a cure to something and file for a patent.

So what you are saying now is that others should be totally free to use your invention, because you actually didn´t ever own the idea.

That would leave a lot of doors open for misuse all over the world. And it would certainly facilitate all kinds of copy cats that have never ever worked for something bigger than just for the ($$$). This is just as bad as the patents you claim are not needed.

Do you mind if I ask you, if you are of Chinese origin? Because it sounds exactly like that for some reason.

Same thing in school or people that go for doctor titles. Copy cats all over the place. And if they get caught, you actually support the idea of stealing? If you ask nicely and someone gives it so you, that´s a different story altogether, but flat-out using it without permission?

Now, I don´t say that your idea is actually bad, but what you´re saying is just leaving way too many questions unanswered.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, of course not.

I am not really sure what point you were trying to make, by bringing up the US constitution in the first place.

Is it easy to repeal existing legislation in general? No (and even harder to change constitutional law). But does that mean we should just accept it, if it isn't working? Laws are made to serve the people, they have no inherent value of their own. Civilizations and their priorities change and legislation inevitably lags this development.

The only point being, the importance of protecting intellectual property ownership has been understood for a long, long time. You're not going to get an argument from me that the intellectual property laws are working well today, but you will get an argument from me with a suggestion that they ought to be eliminated entirely.

 

[macs4nw]

Patents should be non-transferable.

That sounds plausible, but only for companies whose sole purpose and existence is to collect royalties.

Iow companies who buy up smaller IP holding manufacturing entities for their patent portfolio, and are themselves manufacturers of products that may at some future date use some of those patents, should be excluded from such non IP-transfer legislation. In plain language, get rid of the patent trolls.

 

[lesferdinand]

The only point being, the importance of protecting intellectual property ownership has been understood for a long, long time. You're not going to get an argument from me that the intellectual property laws are working well today, but you will get an argument from me with a suggestion that they ought to be eliminated entirely.

I'm not against IP rights in general. Copyright protection for example I support. But patents do way more harm than good. The thinking behind it may have been sound one day but in practice they do more harm than good.

The fact that something 'has been understood for a long, long time' often says little about the validity of the position. Just look at the evolution of women's rights.

These days patents primarily benefit large corporations and patent trolls. The example another poster brought up of a single person working hard her/his whole life to come up with a revolutionary idea only to see it being copied by someone else, nicely pulls at the heartstrings but doesn't really resemble reality.

 

[bsolar]

So it should be totally free to steal from people that actually worked their whole life to invent something revolutionary? Great idea. No thanks!

What about protecting something not revolutionary at all which is simply an incremental improvement of already existing inventions, or protecting something which was already invented before? That is what a lot of patents are about.

A company today can easily have a portfolio of hundreds if not thousands patents and I bet these patents don't translate to thousands of revolutionary inventions. It would be a net win for everyone truly innovating to curb the whole lot of worthless patents and raise the bar so that only revolutionary patents get granted. Things would be much clearer and there would be less room for abuses.

 

[lesferdinand]

Ok, let me get this straight.

You build up a company, say, you want to help people who develop certain illnesses. Now, you work together with other people, whose job it is to research and possibly cure those illnesses. Now you suddenly found a cure to something and file for a patent.

So what you are saying now is that others should be totally free to use your invention, because you actually didn´t ever own the idea.

That would leave a lot of doors open for misuse all over the world. And it would certainly facilitate all kinds of copy cats that have never ever worked for something bigger than just for the ($$$). This is just as bad as the patents you claim are not needed.

Do you mind if I ask you, if you are of Chinese origin? Because it sounds exactly like that for some reason.

I am aware of the fact that China has less of a tradition of intellectual property rights, but no, I'm from Europe. But anyway, yes, I think there would be a net benefit to the world population especially in the particular case you are raising. Cheap and broad access to illness curing drugs is great. Does this mean that commercial enterprises will leave this field? Potentially. But with all the ethical complications involved in developing and testing medicine, that may not be a bad idea. And anyway, most of the research capacity of the big pharmaceuticals seems to be focused on pills for erectile dysfunction and female orgasms...

I'm also not advocating that if you discover something, you need to tell others how you did it. That's taking it to the other extreme. But if someone else discovers it too or discovers a slightly different way to do the same thing, that person should not be blocked from realizing their idea because of a silly patent.

In the end ideas realize their value to society through implementation. That's where companies should be focusing in their chase for profits, not coming up with an idea and then fighting others in court.

Same thing in school or people that go for doctor titles. Copy cats all over the place. And if they get caught, you actually support the idea of stealing? If you ask nicely and someone gives it so you, that´s a different story altogether, but flat-out using it without permission?

Now, I don´t say that your idea is actually bad, but what you´re saying is just leaving way too many questions unanswered.

I don't really see how cheating in school relates to not having patents.

 

[spjonez]

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.

As a CTO and programmer I can't say I agree with abolishing software patents. In a world where we invent with our minds our creations should be protected as they are with hardware. Any engineer can name the components used in building a processor but it's the way they are put together that gives them power. Is that so different from an algorithm?

 

[Renzatic]

As a CTO and programmer I can't say I agree with abolishing software patents. In a world where we invent with our minds our creations should be protected as they are with hardware. Any engineer can name the components used in building a processor but it's the way they are put together that gives them power. Is that so different from an algorithm?

Your specific algorithm is protected under copyright. That means no one could look at your source code, lift it, then sell it for their own profit. But if someone comes with with an entirely different algorithm to produce the same end results as yours, then they have every right to profit from it without even taking your copyright into consideration.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not against IP rights in general. Copyright protection for example I support. But patents do way more harm than good. The thinking behind it may have been sound one day but in practice they do more harm than good.

The fact that something 'has been understood for a long, long time' often says little about the validity of the position. Just look at the evolution of women's rights.

These days patents primarily benefit large corporations and patent trolls. The example another poster brought up of a single person working hard her/his whole life to come up with a revolutionary idea only to see it being copied by someone else, nicely pulls at the heartstrings but doesn't really resemble reality.

A distinction without a difference, at best, if only because some things can be both patented and copyrighted, and both are founded on identical intellectual property principles. I believe the abuses in the IP system can be addressed without throwing it out entirely.

 

[2IS]

Pot Kettle Black