There's also that Kool-Aid thing of accusing everyone else of drinking the Kool-Aid. That usually shows up on these threads, too. I call it the "Kool-Aid Accusation Cult."
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
There's also that Kool-Aid thing of accusing everyone else of drinking the Kool-Aid. That usually shows up on these threads, too. I call it the "Kool-Aid Accusation Cult."
Does it really matter? Would you feel better if Apple infringed upon the patents that belong to a patent troll as opposed to patents from a "real company" (whatever that means)?
His name is Wilfred Carbuncle.
[doublepost=1462915202][/doublepost]
Apple was probably working on these well before 2006.
I was wondering when you'd stick your head up in this thread, you never disappoint do you?
Could you show us where any of those inventions were patented prior to Apple making them commercially available? Can anyone show us when this company was or has been granted the patents on this very abstract action they're claiming? Even you have to agree the technology they're claiming is very very abstract, and the fact they never implemented them or sought royalties before today is spurious indeed.
The key here is the timing. They wait for someone else to do all the work of manufacturing, marketing, and selling the product, and then effectively claim they deserve a high percentage because "after all, we would have done the same!"
The company was purchased by this guy in 2013 for the explicit purpose of using the patents in 2016 to claim his "right" to profits from the work done by tens of thousands of Apple employees over may years - something neither he nor the company he acquired would have ever done.
If he were sincere he would have approached Apple immediately and attempted to work out a reasonable licensing agreement, rather than wait until Apple had already done all the hard work and then attempt to extort gross sums of money from them through the court system.
This guy is doing nothing for others - he is only here to steal for himself.
The company was purchased by this guy in 2013 for the explicit purpose of using the patents in 2016 to claim his "right" to profits from the work done by tens of thousands of Apple employees over may years - something neither he nor the company he acquired would have ever done.
If he were sincere he would have approached Apple immediately and attempted to work out a reasonable licensing agreement, rather than wait until Apple had already done all the hard work and then attempt to extort gross sums of money from them through the court system.
This guy is doing nothing for others - he is only here to steal for himself.
Last edited:
Or my personal favorite, the rubber banding effect Apple managed to get a patent for.
It has nothing to do with whether or not "they would've done the same". If you invented somethng, but didn't want to actually make devices, there's nothing wrong with you licensing the rights to others for whatever you can get. Ditto for a buyer if you decided to sell your patent, so you could go on vacation right now, instead of waiting years and spending your time with legal hassles.
It's also pretty common to wait until the stakes are higher. For example, Apple waited to sue Samsung until Samsung was making a lot of money from smartphone sales.
Perhaps they did. We don't know yet if offers were made ahead of time, that might have been turned down or ignored.
What is known, is that Apple has a history of ignoring outside license requests until a lawsuit is filed. Apparently it's their standard operating procedure. It's one reason why we read about so many lawsuits filed against Apple.
As for whether or not the patents involved here are weak or strong, I have not looked at them myself. Has anyone here done so yet? I mean, actually read the claims, not just some vague description about using a server. Thanks!
Last edited:
Voip who ? Pink sheet company:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/vplm
Guess the pump & dump move didn't work.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/vplm
Guess the pump & dump move didn't work.
Do you believe that when Apple sued Samsung for rubber bounce scrolling or slide to unlock? Samsung didn't copy or look at any computer source code for those features.
I don't think any company should get a patent for software ideas. All they are are ideas, no source code included in the patent filing. Source code is already protected by copyright, it doesn't need patent protection.
Well my clause will cause people to think before filing in a patent, as once it's filled, other people will be able to copy the idea and race to make it workable which will result like what you've said, so if the person don't even have a working prototype, better not to reveal it yet through a patent.
Lets face it, for one of my idea, there's probably 5 people or more with similar idea. The only difference between all of us is whether do I have the money to pay up for the patent, how fast we apply the patent and/or develop the idea into a working one.
The problem is right now, most people just patent their idea without any intention of developing it and as we all know, an idea is just an idea and they'll be many problems that has to be solved first before that idea is fully workable.
And yeah, my clause doesn't cover those patent trolls who bought over valid companies patent and is now suing everyone, but it'll reduce the amount of patent applications where the person has no interest in developing it.
Imagine if you invented, say, a teleport device. Big corporations are going to waste no time trying to duplicate your feat, and are quite prepared to spend millions challenging your patent. Your chances of getting rich on your own are possibly small. You might very well be quite happy to sell it for X million dollars guaranteed up front, and thus avoid years of expensive and possibly fruitless hassle on your own.
Some people are very good at coming up with inventions, but don't have the time or money or desire to produce a product. That's why so many sell their inventions to entities that DO have the ability to go through years of struggle to make a product, or yes, even to simply license the patent they bought.
Now, my question to you is this: many companies, such as Apple, have thousands of patents due to their expenditure on R&D. Probably 80% or more are never going to be used in a product. Should all those patents be invalidated, according to your and others' concept of use it or lose it? Maybe so, especially if someone else DID want to use it, but was refused a license.
On the other hand, I would say that licensing a patent IS using it for the public good, because at least it's in products.
In other words, a troll wanting money to cross a bridge he owns, is much more preferable than a bridge owner who won't let anyone cross his bridge at all.
Last edited:
No, no, no it isn't. We shouldn't be encouraging people to fling spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. That is why we need to narrow criteria for patentability and not let dimwits in the patent office ok obvious "inventions" leaving us to defend lawsuits from patents trolls who hold "patents" for obvious "inventions". That shouldn't be a private party cost to litigate when the patent is b.s. in the first place. Not to mention that typically the little guy just pays up because it isn't worth it to fight that battle. This is precisely what is broken about the system. The game theory is:
1) Patent some obvious nonsense
2) Send out demand letters to everyone and their dog
3) Profit because 4) won't happen:
4) Litigate lawsuits on 2) isn't going to happen as long as you figure out the highest "reasonable" amount to demand that people will pay up to make you go away. Until class actions against patent trolls really takes off the little guy has no incentive to litigate because they probably don't have the same resources as the evil hedge fund or whoever owns the patent troll. Even though the claim is ridiculous. Like- every small business that has a multifunction copier should pay the patent troll who holds the patent on the idea of a multifunction scanner/fax/copier/printer. Like that should be the end-user's problem to begin with even if you stipulate that the device is infringing.
The best thing might be to go back to where things were before the 1990s and stop allowing software patents.
Patent examiners are not dimwits, but they are overworked and are now often forced to give quantity over quality, due to time constraints.
Some companies, such as Apple, are famous for taking advantage of this by resubmitting a slightly changed patent over and over, until the examiner's allotted time runs out. Sometimes the examiner will then let it through, figuring it can always be challenged later if need be.
Are you aware of a single time Apple has sued someone for violating a patent on something they had not implemented? Patents are on how things are implemented. It is mind boggling that something a company has never even made a prototype of should be offered any protection at all.
[doublepost=1462938601][/doublepost]
Apple never patented pinch to zoom. Samsungs implementation of pinch to zoom did violate a multi-touch patent that describes a specific method of implementing multi-touch. See: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth for a pretty good explanation. People in the media and on Internet forums often try to over simplify patents and boil them down to one easily understood thing. There are absolutely 0 easy to understand patents on file anywhere for anything.
[doublepost=1462938793][/doublepost]
I don't think they should be invalidated, but if you want to assert rights for the patent then you should be doing something with it. Patents were designed to allow people expending resources on research to have a protected period to reap the profits of that research. Are there any non-practicing entities doing that?
All that costs money, it's not nearly as simple as you write. Getting a single patent can cost $10k or easily more and take upwards of a year, maintenance fees cost close to $15k during the life of the patent, multiply that out for each patent in a portfolio, which can be dozens to hundreds. Filing a litigation can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and can easily go over five million dollars if litigating against a sophisticated defendant like Apple all the way through appeals. This is not something just anyone can throw against the wall when it comes to companies like Apple.
I agree that nuisance suits, what you described above (going after the little guy seeking not what the technology is worth, but rather the max the little guy can pay to settle to avoid fighting), are a problem. They are not nearly as big a problem as the press makes it seem, but a problem nonetheless. However, this story about Apple is not that... at all. This is a well-funded big boy litigation - I have no doubt the patents have been well vetted prior to anyone putting down the money I mentioned above, to say the least.
So the question is, how do you prevent nuisance suits without also totally destroying the value of IP and thus ruining the economy? There have already been some measures taken - (1) the patent office has a process called IPRs which provide defendants a quick and cheap way to challenge patent claims, with a very high success rate; (2) plaintiffs are required to plead patent cases with more specificity, meaning they have to do more legwork before filing; (3) the courts have made fee shifting easier, increasing the risk on plaintiffs for having to pay defendants legal fees. In sum, those measures have done a lot to hamper nuisance suits in the past few years, since the photocopier example you gave. We can do more - (1) require that attorneys send demand letters that are backed up with the same evidence necessary to file a suit, else sanction or automatic fees should defendants fight and prevail; or (2) require plaintiffs to provide a reasonable damages calculated at the outset to show they are not merely seeking cost-of-litigation settlement. Basically, the solution has to be narrowly tailored.
If you just go berzerk on all "patent trolls," whatever those are, you will inevitably wreck havoc on the IP rights of universities, bankruptcy entities trying to get credits paid back, garage inventors, and small businesses.
I'm usually not an Apple apologist but **** the patent system in its current form and **** patent trolls.
I'm really annoyed with that restriction on political discussions. I've been on this forum for years but, because I don't sound off about everything, I don't get to comment on political subjects.
[doublepost=1462950031][/doublepost]
That's all very well if the defendant is Apple, but smaller companies must find it virtually impossible to afford the costs of an action at all.
The US patent system is a complete joke. Maybe I should get a patent:
If user tries to login, but email doesn't match an account, ask them to register instead
Then sue for $500 million in "damages" in a few years when someone implements my uber basic idea that already exists in a ton of services. Which also cost me $0, given I have never implemented my idea, nor was it unique, nor was I ever going to do anything with it.
Because you know, I think 1% of an entire product revenue is suitable. Obviously 1 in 100 people buy the product only because of my revolutionary feature which was ripped off.
If user tries to login, but email doesn't match an account, ask them to register instead
Then sue for $500 million in "damages" in a few years when someone implements my uber basic idea that already exists in a ton of services. Which also cost me $0, given I have never implemented my idea, nor was it unique, nor was I ever going to do anything with it.
Because you know, I think 1% of an entire product revenue is suitable. Obviously 1 in 100 people buy the product only because of my revolutionary feature which was ripped off.
Your question to me is irrelevant based on the current system. Further, as I've said, if a company has spent any time, resources and/or money on research, then yes, they are currently entitled to reap rewards.. Even if no product exists. It's up to the challenger to prove otherwise. One can't blame this company for asserting their rights. If you're supporting Apple, the appropriate reaction isn't too speak of trolling but rather that one hopes Apple is able to invalidate the claim.