Problem is apple vigorously go after other vendors for the slightest thing, they can expect no less in return. What goes around comes around...
Last edited:
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 Hit With $2.8 Billion Patent Lawsuit Over VoIP Technology
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So you know how long it took them for due diligence. If they had ever approached Apple in the past? And all the other details required to know if they, indeed, just sat around and waited until there was a ton of money to be made?
Again - the patent system is broken. If you want to fault this company for taking advantage in their favor - what are your thoughts on companies like Apple taking advantage of tax loopholes for profit?
Neither activity is illegal. Also pretty sure that any/every business is about making money.
If they are not patent trolls, then they should also be suing Microsoft Messenger, Skype, Lync, ICQ, Oovoo, etc.
They are just a team of losers swinging their bats hoping for a home run.
Losers, because it's inconceivable the fact they have had all these VoIP technology patents for who knows how long and have not made a dime out of it.
They are just a team of losers swinging their bats hoping for a home run.
Losers, because it's inconceivable the fact they have had all these VoIP technology patents for who knows how long and have not made a dime out of it.
How do you know Microsoft, Lnyc, ICQ aren't paying them or they developed other way to do so?
Or you just being blind, because of Apple is one being sued.
I am sure bunch of forum users will laughing Samsung as copycat, if Samsung is one being sued.
The fact that they don't list them as defendants in the lawsuit, and the fact that they readily admit they are not currently generating income tells you that they are most likely NOT getting royalties from those companies... reading comprehension is an awesome thing. Of course throwing in a Samsung/Apple jab probably indicates you are trolling anyways..
My thoughts exactly, or at least have proof that you are working on said product.
Or they went after the big fish in hopes of setting a precedent to win other cases. Or they simply haven't filed (but will) shortly against other organizations. Or perhaps they do have it out for Apple and just want to go after them. I don't think that's illegal.
What is the origin of their patents? A real-world product? Do they make Skype? How come nobody's ever heard of them?
Zzzz. If every patent troll could extract 1.25% from Apple it would go bankrupt tomorrow.
Either Apple invalidates the patent or settles for 8 figures. Not much to see here. All software patents should be invalidated.
Either Apple invalidates the patent or settles for 8 figures. Not much to see here. All software patents should be invalidated.
Nope.
Only Apple with the tens of thousands of patents it has registered or purchased is sincere and moral - everyone else is clearly and solely a troll.
Gee, maybe that's why people stopped buying into this corrupt system? Try to make anything and the one who owns the most patents immediately swings in, despite having done none of the work to make it, never mind the research required is intense, and using computerized systems probably do data mining of input so they can make their own patents before anyone else can, because they have more money and resources to swoop in.
Anybody else remember the 2011 patent "reform" as well? Hmmm, thought not.
Slide to unlock :
Page turning :
http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Text/Holman_CHI05.pdf
This document describes gestures like page turning on an input device. I can't find you a video, however some PDAs used the exact same principle but using a stylus instead of a finger. Still a touch interaction.
Pinch to zoom (and other multi-touch interactions) :
Yes, all these ideas existed before Apple released them, and were licensed after actual products were already released/demoed using these very same ideas.
Now checking if a device is registered to a server might seem easy, but the specific workflow they use for it might infringe their patent.
Last edited:
I think the deeper issue is whether the USPTO is too lenient in giving patents on processes that are either obvious or shouldn't be patentable because the process _inevitably_ would be developed by independent parties nearly simultaneously. It's ludicrous to allow a patent on a "process" to decide whether to route a text message via SIP (iMessage) or the PSTN (SMS/MMS). But here we are. That's not a patent. That's a well, duh.
I think the patent system was designed for another age. An age when it was clear how something was assembled. The very fact that patents need diagrams submitted kind of speaks to the idea that you can just show people how your idea works etc..
Software is just so different. The magic in software is the implementation of the idea, the actual code. That's what's hard to do and yet patent law doesn't seem to acknowledge that. If I say I want to create a scene with parallax scrolling (where objects further away from you move at a slower pace than things nearer you), that's is just an idea. But in computers that is useless without figuring out the code to do it. Many of these patents seem like wish list's with zero effort made to implement them at all.
At the very least, software / electronic patents should be able to display working solutions. Furthermore, it's pretty hard to reverse engineer code to see how it's made. Patent trolls should have to prove that the implementation was actually copied for a lawsuit to be valid.
I suspect things won't change because companies like Apple have also learnt how to take advantage of the how crap software patents are. They have been stockpiling on these 'drawings' for years now, just like all the other tech companies. They now have 'assets' like these that have monetary value which I'm sure they'd all like to keep. So I suppose nothing will change.
Software is just so different. The magic in software is the implementation of the idea, the actual code. That's what's hard to do and yet patent law doesn't seem to acknowledge that. If I say I want to create a scene with parallax scrolling (where objects further away from you move at a slower pace than things nearer you), that's is just an idea. But in computers that is useless without figuring out the code to do it. Many of these patents seem like wish list's with zero effort made to implement them at all.
At the very least, software / electronic patents should be able to display working solutions. Furthermore, it's pretty hard to reverse engineer code to see how it's made. Patent trolls should have to prove that the implementation was actually copied for a lawsuit to be valid.
I suspect things won't change because companies like Apple have also learnt how to take advantage of the how crap software patents are. They have been stockpiling on these 'drawings' for years now, just like all the other tech companies. They now have 'assets' like these that have monetary value which I'm sure they'd all like to keep. So I suppose nothing will change.
If what you patented can be easily or accidentally reproduced by someone who has no knowledge of you or your idea, you shouldn't be able to sue. It's not so much that these companies are patent trolls, it's that the patents are stupid, and the patent office allows people to patent stupidly obvious things.
And even the idea wasn't stupidly obvious back when the inventor had it, the time to protect and profit off it was then. It's totally trollish to wait years or decades then try to make a huge score off a billion dollar company that had no bad intent and accidentally used your idea because it was inevitable that others eventually have that same idea.
If the 20 engineers who patented this idea were in any way relevant and tried to protect their patent when others first also came up with it and started using it, they'd have surely licensed or sold it for far less money than the ridiculous number this patent troll currently seeks.
Even if you pretend this is a completely legitimate infringement, AND that Apple is owed 1.5% of the benefits derived from that patent, how can you claim that 100% of an iPhone's value is its ability to tell if a given user is a member of iMessage or not, or by implication, that Apple could not have sold a single device without this feature?
[doublepost=1462910522][/doublepost]
There have been two claims for the purpose of patents. One is the idea of the single or small inventor who could never possibly manufacture his device, but could make a living selling his ideas to big companies who can. This hasn't worked since the 1930s - the big companies just ignore the inventor and don't pay. The second main idea about patents is that if someone has a genuinely cool idea, now everyone can know about it, and in 20 years after the patent expires, they can all use it. But in reality, all it means is that companies CAN'T use that cool idea, and in 20 years, most ideas aren't very relevant anymore anyway.
But the most critical reason I think the patent system is not useful is that the fraction of patented ideas that are truly "non obvious" and important is infinitesimally small, and really, those are the only ones that matter. As pointed out already, you never hear a single instance of a big number settlement over a patent idea that wasn't completely obvious - in fact, most patent infringement is unintentional - they just came up with the idea naturally because it was obvious - so in reality, the fact that they used the idea showed it should be invalidated. And ironically, the really big ideas are too big to be allowed to be patented, anyway, for example, no one was able to patent the idea of the computer, even back when that was a hugely novel invention.
If we wanted to throw out the patent system but preserve those very, very few cases of truly landmark ideas, we could instead set up special case laws in which a very clear example of a novel idea could allow courts to demand licensing fees be paid - but it would have to somehow define a patent in a way to get around obvious solutions. One way would be to keep the patent secret unless explicitly licensed, so that if another company started using it, it would prove that company figured it out on their own and therefore was just as entitled...
[doublepost=1462911028][/doublepost]
I don't see any economic issues at all by eliminating patents or IP as a source of income. Small companies that wanted to be in the R&D field could still sell their products to other companies - if their ideas were truly inventive, in most cases, that would give them some lead time to make money before others could catch up. After Apple demonstrated how successful the iPhone was, everyone on earth copied it, most in a non-suable way, but it still took them 3 years to do it, which gave Apple a nice marketing lead, some income, and an installed base.
In fact, many companies sell products to other companies all the time without there having to be patents surrounding it. All patents do is reduce the quality of items available to buy.
[doublepost=1462910522][/doublepost]
There have been two claims for the purpose of patents. One is the idea of the single or small inventor who could never possibly manufacture his device, but could make a living selling his ideas to big companies who can. This hasn't worked since the 1930s - the big companies just ignore the inventor and don't pay. The second main idea about patents is that if someone has a genuinely cool idea, now everyone can know about it, and in 20 years after the patent expires, they can all use it. But in reality, all it means is that companies CAN'T use that cool idea, and in 20 years, most ideas aren't very relevant anymore anyway.
But the most critical reason I think the patent system is not useful is that the fraction of patented ideas that are truly "non obvious" and important is infinitesimally small, and really, those are the only ones that matter. As pointed out already, you never hear a single instance of a big number settlement over a patent idea that wasn't completely obvious - in fact, most patent infringement is unintentional - they just came up with the idea naturally because it was obvious - so in reality, the fact that they used the idea showed it should be invalidated. And ironically, the really big ideas are too big to be allowed to be patented, anyway, for example, no one was able to patent the idea of the computer, even back when that was a hugely novel invention.
If we wanted to throw out the patent system but preserve those very, very few cases of truly landmark ideas, we could instead set up special case laws in which a very clear example of a novel idea could allow courts to demand licensing fees be paid - but it would have to somehow define a patent in a way to get around obvious solutions. One way would be to keep the patent secret unless explicitly licensed, so that if another company started using it, it would prove that company figured it out on their own and therefore was just as entitled...
[doublepost=1462911028][/doublepost]
I don't see any economic issues at all by eliminating patents or IP as a source of income. Small companies that wanted to be in the R&D field could still sell their products to other companies - if their ideas were truly inventive, in most cases, that would give them some lead time to make money before others could catch up. After Apple demonstrated how successful the iPhone was, everyone on earth copied it, most in a non-suable way, but it still took them 3 years to do it, which gave Apple a nice marketing lead, some income, and an installed base.
In fact, many companies sell products to other companies all the time without there having to be patents surrounding it. All patents do is reduce the quality of items available to buy.
Last edited:
If they actual build a car using the patents, then great - they aren't patent trolls.
I don't know the specifics of this patent nor what Apple really uses, but it sure looks a lot like something Apple already used around 1993 in PowerTalk… it was rather cool: we could send the same message to different people and gateways on the network would select automatically how to send the message to each person, X.400 message, voice message thru TTS, fax, PowerMail, QuickMail, AppleLink… It could also try different ways in case the first one failed. Looks similar but even more generic and powerful than what is used here, doesn't it?
I think common sense pretty much prevails in most of these cases as they do take into account the benefit to the public and many other things not just the patent and it's validity.
It's not about patents really, it's all about extorting any money or settlement from apple (or company x) They've waited this long to make the compensation figure as high as possible.
This is totally a patent troll action IMHO, to say they are not makes them more of a troll.
If they really had any leg to stand on with their patent they would have brought the case forward in 2012.
The internet of things is such a broad thing to try and apply any patents to, i suspect if apple decide to fight they will win but it'll be cheaper to settle most probably. Lawyer are blood sucker bastards who are only taking money out of everyones pockets.
It's not about patents really, it's all about extorting any money or settlement from apple (or company x) They've waited this long to make the compensation figure as high as possible.
This is totally a patent troll action IMHO, to say they are not makes them more of a troll.
If they really had any leg to stand on with their patent they would have brought the case forward in 2012.
The internet of things is such a broad thing to try and apply any patents to, i suspect if apple decide to fight they will win but it'll be cheaper to settle most probably. Lawyer are blood sucker bastards who are only taking money out of everyones pockets.
Out there, in here everyone seems to want to give money to Apple.
Just a bad joke
How can it:
And yet still not be a turd?
You know, even if you could convince me that it isn't an effin nugget, people will still treat it like the turd it functionally is.
PS: Patent Trolls wear turd-costumes.
A. Look like a turd
B. Smell like a turd
C. Taste like a turd
B. Smell like a turd
C. Taste like a turd
And yet still not be a turd?
You know, even if you could convince me that it isn't an effin nugget, people will still treat it like the turd it functionally is.
PS: Patent Trolls wear turd-costumes.
The courts have been invalidating patents based on obviousness and non-patent-eligible subject matter left and right - they are very good at this. In fact, really the only way to test a patent for validity is to sue someone on it. That is how the process is supposed to work.
If you say you're not a patent troll, then you are most likely a patent troll. If you say you're "absolutely not" a patent troll, then you are "absolutely" a patent troll.
It's not about source of income, it's about being able to create valuable assets. An idea without the government backing it with some protection is not worth anything. Your example of Apple is particularly bad, because Apple spent a lot of time and money in court making sure to enforce its IP rights. That not only had the effect of forcing Samsung to make products that were less Apple-like (notice that even though Samsung hasn't yet paid the judgment, none of the newer products practice those patents Apple asserted), but also scared others enough to not even try.
A new startup is created and they have no assets, they need funding. Why would an investor give them funding? They need funding to pay salaries of engineers and other employees. The investor gives them funding because they know either the startup has a great idea and will develop it. If the idea succeeds, the investor gets valuable shares. If the idea does not succeed, the startup will still have some IP assets that can be liquidated to minimize investors losses. Without this backup plan, investors would be a lot more stingy with their money, demand much higher equity, or charge much higher interest rates. Those intangible assets that can be created out of thin air through just grit are the grease that allows the wheels to move. Without it, it sort of all falls apart.
Take another example - universities. By licensing IP rights, and enforcing in the courts if needed, they get the money to fund future research (ie grad students, professors, lab equiptment, etc) to get more IP rights to license, rinse repeat.
I think you underestimate severely how easy it is to rip off a totally unprotected idea. Were it not for IP rights, and the US's decently strong efforts to bar importing of rip-off products, which make selling rip-offs not a profitable endevour, China could have had an identical clone of the original iphone within weeks, if not less.
I hope Apple loses this case. It would be great for Tim Cook's management to look even worse than it already is. Apple is screwing up underneath his reign. The cheap punk has already been skimping on things in order for greater financial gains.