Apple Faces Another Patent Lawsuit as it Beefs Up Litigation Team

[JAT]

I wonder how many employees a company needs to maintain a patent troll existence.

 

[StruckANerve]

I wonder how many Companies Apple really has ripped off?

 

[Will do good]

parasite.

 

[Shasterball]

That's why I said prototype, not production. I am well aware that patents have different goals than trademarks. Patents exist to foster innovation. Patent trolls have no interest in innovating. Rather, they just exist to extort money out of those who do intend on innovating. I was merely proposing a means to shut down those who abuse the system by looking at the intent of the patent holder.

Or are you actually defending patent trolls?

But even prototypes can be expensive... I guess if you have to make a prototype then it's a little barrier to just filing applications.

And I, in a sense, do defend patent trolls. The US sets the standard for an invention. If trolls can meet that standard, they have obviously invented something. If they have invented something they are getting some time to exclude others from practicing it, in exchange for putting this knowledge (which is new and inventive) in the public domain. Thus, they are promoting science and fostering innovation -- because but, for their disclosure, the public would not know of this invention.

I know they are just in it for the money, but isn't everyone? Isn't the whole point of a patent to make money?

 

[pimentoLoaf]

Oh, my… "near collapse" … "desperate situation" …

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=2633353

 

[Phil A.]

Whilst it's easy to dismiss these guys as patent trolls, the current patent system really is a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword": If Apple (or anyone else) wants to use patents to protect the stuff they've invented then they have to expect to pay other people when they use things that are covered by someone else's patents.

 

[Dimka]

Patent law needs to be reformed to be similar to trademark law. With trademarks, if you don't use it you loose it. In order to sue someone for trademark infringement, you have to demonstrate that you are actively using said trademark. Likewise, in order to sue someone for patent infringement, you ought to have to demonstrate that you actually intend to build whatever it is you claim to have invented. If you hold the intellectual rights to an invention, but can't prove that you are actively working on producing a prototype, your patent should be unenforceable.

Exactly, this is an decade old obvious propositions and no one seems to care.
But it should be good for both computer companies and for biotech ones too.

Otherwise there seems to be no stopping for those vicious villain trolls

 

[Dimka]

The US sets the standard for an invention. If trolls can meet that standard, they have obviously invented something. If they have invented something they are getting some time to exclude others from practicing it, in exchange for putting this knowledge (which is new and inventive) in the public domain. Thus, they are promoting science and fostering innovation -- because but, for their disclosure, the public would not know of this invention.

It the ideal worlds maybe yes, but in reality no one can feasibly set those standards properly and that leads to lots of bogus, obvious and way too broad patents and that is the problem. Basically most of the time it is not the case that someone have read that disclosed advanced knowledge in the pattern and went ahead and used it without permission. Maybe it is happening once in thousand, but most of the time people just arrive to the same idea themselves and thus trolls do not do any good to anyone.
In the case when people come up with an idea, use it and others are using it with out permission - that would be covered by the case similar to trademark.
I am for letting people create patents, but use them to sue people only if they use their invention.

 

[Shasterball]

It the ideal worlds maybe yes, but in reality no one can feasibly set those standards properly and that leads to lots of bogus, obvious and way too broad patents and that is the problem. Basically most of the time it is not the case that someone have read that disclosed advanced knowledge in the pattern and went ahead and used it without permission. Maybe it is happening once in thousand, but most of the time people just arrive to the same idea themselves and thus trolls do not do any good to anyone.
In the case when people come up with an idea, use it and others are using it with out permission - that would be covered by the case similar to trademark.
I am for letting people create patents, but use them to sue people only if they use their invention.

I don't disagree. But, the system is the system; can't blame people for using it. It's up to Congress to fix it...

 

[ScoobyMcDoo]

ya know, I read the patent and it's one of those that I read and realize that I could probably write a patent for every silly piece of software I write. All it really says is that if two communicating nodes are having communication issues, change the channels in a pseudo random manner until you find one that is clear. wow - that's really innovative huh?

 

[psxndc]

Patents exist to foster innovation. Patent trolls have no interest in innovating.

Patents are supposed to foster innovation by forcing you to design around my patent. If I came up with X way of doing it, you have to think of Y. THAT'S innovation.