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 Loses Patent Lawsuit from Opti Inc on "Predictive Snooping"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And while the award is on appeal, I imagine Apple will be speaking to the one employee of Opti a bit more openly in the hopes of coming to some arrangement before the appeal is decided.
Either way, who wants to guess Opti had bigger reasons for filing the lawsuit against Apple than for patent infringement?
Either way, who wants to guess Opti had bigger reasons for filing the lawsuit against Apple than for patent infringement?
When Apple threatens to rigorously defend their patents Macrumors members cheer with glee - someone else wins patent suit against Apple the law suddenly needs an overhaul
No kidding. Opti's patents are apparently genuine: obtained during the course of actual product development before they essentially failed. If venture capitalists know that unique patents developed by a startup will have value even if the startup fails, they are more likely to invest.
If the patents were to have no value, startups will have a harder time getting funded.
When Apple threatens to rigorously defend their patents Macrumors members cheer with glee - someone else wins patent suit against Apple the law suddenly needs an overhaul
The hypocrisy is only surpassed by the ignorance of even basic patent laws.
Like it or not, this company was awarded a patent under current law (exactly like Apple is), and a US Court ruled Apple infringed on that patent and now Apple has to pay the damages. If you have a problem with this, you need to contact your Representative since they are the only ones that can change the law.
There are no words to describe how un-internet I think cybersquatting is. It goes against the original intent of the internet as an open system. I wish ICANN had the power—and manpower—to revoke domain registrations where no site has been set up for a year (or have a stupid landing page, especially the one with the college-age girl outside a building with the red backpack!!!).
Someone holds the dot com for my name. I'm not going to pay them for squatting on it. My name happens to be the same as a rockabilly that was born with another name, but shortened his name to mine. That pisses me off enough, but then I can't get my name as a domain because someone is hoping that this guy buys the domain before he croaks. At least it makes it harder to find info on me through Google!
When Apple threatens to rigorously defend their patents Macrumors members cheer with glee - someone else wins patent suit against Apple the law suddenly needs an overhaul
quoted for truth.
Please, just everyone stop. I understand that most people don't know patent law, but a lot of misinformation is being spread here that needs correcting. I am a patent attorney, so I'll try to clear some of this up.
1. There is no requirement that Apple knew about this before the law suit for them to be liable. Patent infringement has no intent requirement so comments like "apple was caught with their hand in the cookie jar" are not necessarily applicable.
2. Determinations of patent infringement are decided by juries, not courts. Courts are not siding with companies more and more these days. However, many patent suits ARE brought in the Eastern District of Texas, in which many juries find for the plaintiff.
3. A patent is kinda like a piece of land. If you own it, the law doesn't require you to do anything with it. You can take care of it, keep people off it, or let it sit neglected for years - whatever you want - it's YOUR land. This is the reason there is no "use" requirement. Would you want your neighbor saying you had to use your property to say - grow corn - or let them cross it when they wanted to ("restrictve covenant" issues excepted for you other lawyers out there)? The one requirement is that if you know someone is walking on your lawn, you can't let them keep doing it until they've really damaged it and then bring suit (this defense is called Laches).
The point is an appeals court doesn't care if you're a troll or not - if you are the rightful owner of a patent, you are entitled to enforce it. I can guarantee there has not been an appeals court that has overturned a verdict because the company with the patent does not make something. There's simply no legal basis for doing so.
4. Patent validity is not determined based on when they were awarded, but by the earliest point in time they can claim they invented it, usually the filing date of the patent application. However, patent laws allow you to file additional applications (continuations) after your application that 'claim priority' to the earlier one provided the material you are claiming was discussed in the original application. In this case, Opti's earliest filed application dates back to 1995. I'm not saying their patent is valid - I haven't even looked at it other than to determine the priority date - but that is the date the Patent Office and juries look at in determining patentability/validity. Predictive snooping may have been novel and nonobvious in 1995. I will also say that to a lay person, and the average juror, often the fact that the government granted a patent is enough to prove it's valid. That is not necessarily the case - patent examiners are people too and can't find all the prior art out there - but for many jurors, it's enough.
5. Last, yet most critical point: what a patent covers is determined by the claims. Not the title, not the abstract, not even - usually - the specification. All of these can limit what the claims mean, but if you really want to understand what one company is claiming another company is infringing, you have to look at the claims. So even though the title says "predictive snooping etc" it's possible there is a very specific implementation claimed and the general technology of predictive snooping, while relevant to the patentability, is not a a silver bullet as to whether or not a patent is valid or infringed.
Anyway, that's all for now. This is not legal advice. I am not your attorney nor has any attorney/client relationship been established by my posting here. If you have questions, retain and consult an attorney.
1. There is no requirement that Apple knew about this before the law suit for them to be liable. Patent infringement has no intent requirement so comments like "apple was caught with their hand in the cookie jar" are not necessarily applicable.
2. Determinations of patent infringement are decided by juries, not courts. Courts are not siding with companies more and more these days. However, many patent suits ARE brought in the Eastern District of Texas, in which many juries find for the plaintiff.
3. A patent is kinda like a piece of land. If you own it, the law doesn't require you to do anything with it. You can take care of it, keep people off it, or let it sit neglected for years - whatever you want - it's YOUR land. This is the reason there is no "use" requirement. Would you want your neighbor saying you had to use your property to say - grow corn - or let them cross it when they wanted to ("restrictve covenant" issues excepted for you other lawyers out there)? The one requirement is that if you know someone is walking on your lawn, you can't let them keep doing it until they've really damaged it and then bring suit (this defense is called Laches).
The point is an appeals court doesn't care if you're a troll or not - if you are the rightful owner of a patent, you are entitled to enforce it. I can guarantee there has not been an appeals court that has overturned a verdict because the company with the patent does not make something. There's simply no legal basis for doing so.
4. Patent validity is not determined based on when they were awarded, but by the earliest point in time they can claim they invented it, usually the filing date of the patent application. However, patent laws allow you to file additional applications (continuations) after your application that 'claim priority' to the earlier one provided the material you are claiming was discussed in the original application. In this case, Opti's earliest filed application dates back to 1995. I'm not saying their patent is valid - I haven't even looked at it other than to determine the priority date - but that is the date the Patent Office and juries look at in determining patentability/validity. Predictive snooping may have been novel and nonobvious in 1995. I will also say that to a lay person, and the average juror, often the fact that the government granted a patent is enough to prove it's valid. That is not necessarily the case - patent examiners are people too and can't find all the prior art out there - but for many jurors, it's enough.
5. Last, yet most critical point: what a patent covers is determined by the claims. Not the title, not the abstract, not even - usually - the specification. All of these can limit what the claims mean, but if you really want to understand what one company is claiming another company is infringing, you have to look at the claims. So even though the title says "predictive snooping etc" it's possible there is a very specific implementation claimed and the general technology of predictive snooping, while relevant to the patentability, is not a a silver bullet as to whether or not a patent is valid or infringed.
Anyway, that's all for now. This is not legal advice. I am not your attorney nor has any attorney/client relationship been established by my posting here. If you have questions, retain and consult an attorney.
Lol... if some company borrows an idea (esp, one from Apple), they're scummy bastards and thieves. Apple borrows an idea and they're "great artists."
This place reeks of hypocrisy.
Patent Squatter
Nope, "company" like Opti, Inc., anascape, Eolas are Patent Squatter. They just didn't do anything about their patent, didn't make/create anything. None!
Then wait for company like Apple, M$, or (recently) Nintendo to CREATE something that "infringe" their patent and trap them to cash some big money..
Thank God Sir Tim Berners-Lee who invented World Wide Web, not (low level human) like Brad Armstrong.
Nope, "company" like Opti, Inc., anascape, Eolas are Patent Squatter. They just didn't do anything about their patent, didn't make/create anything. None!
Then wait for company like Apple, M$, or (recently) Nintendo to CREATE something that "infringe" their patent and trap them to cash some big money..
Thank God Sir Tim Berners-Lee who invented World Wide Web, not (low level human) like Brad Armstrong.
It was not just any US Court, it was the Eastern District court in Marshall, Texas. Have a look here:
http://overlawyered.com/2005/01/marshall-texas-patent-central/
It seems that they have a judge who doesn't think his job is to decide cases on their merits, but to give money to patent holders. This guy has said in public that he wants to become known as the most expert judge for patent cases; in reality he isn't an expert at all, he just does everything he can to help the patent holders. They don't flock to him for his expertise, but because they get money in Texas.
That is silly - if you have the idea, but no backing, why should they be penalized? They should not.
D
I'm fully aware of what the law is, I just get tired of seeing companies file a patent and do nothing with it, only so they can turn around and sue someone later. The RIM case a few years ago comes to mind.
Thank you! Finally someone who understands. I would add for general information (because I think it is interesting!) that this is one of the differences between patents and copyright.
A granted patent means you have a monopoly (in the jurisdiction(s) in which the patent is granted) until it expires regardless of whether anyone coincidently re-invents the same product. But this is not true in copyright, if I write a book that is very similar to another, so long as I can provide evidence that the work is my own (produce notes etc), then I have not infringed the copyright.
So it is irrelevant whether Apple knew about the patent or not (they may well have done and simply thought that they were not infringing all the clause integers).
Good post psxndc.
I was about to correct some statements on here too, but your post was right on.
Personally, I feel like the patent system does need some reform, but right now it protects inventors' intellectual property, that which they've reduced to an actual invention. Just like psxndc made the great analogy regarding real property, patents are very similar in a lot of respects.
Patents specifically give the holder the exclusive right to make, use, sell or offer to sell the claimed invention. That's the way it is right now until some major changes take place.
There is a libertarian view out there that wants to abolish the idea of intellectual property, but I think this is dangerous for many reasons in which I will not get into.
Whether or not Apple knew about the infringement or not is a moot point. They infringed and will pay damages and it will be in their past. Damages are calculated by many factors - one would need to read the actual court opinion.
Yeah, that's fine, but if the stated goal of your company is profiting from patent lawsuits that's a little unfair. Why not just sell your patent, or the rights to the idea to someone else? Wouldn't that make more sense? I realize the return wouldn't be as high, but then you wouldn't be an *******.
Big ups to psxndc by the way for a great post! That's the first post I've ever heard from someone who claimed to be a lawyer that completely sounded like it came from a lawyer versed in the actual subject at hand. I didn't really learn anything I didn't already know, but it was very well put, and would explain everything very simply to someone who didn't know it.
The most basic change that should be made to the law would be to force the plaintiff to bring the case up in jurisdiction where alleged infraction took place. This would be just like what usually would happen in a criminal case. You should not be allow to shop around for a court known to be more favourable. How can anyone say that the jury is a jury of your peers in society if you are forced to defend yourself in another state?
I was thinking the same exact thing. That seems to be a little ridiculous. In addition it burdens the court in another state with a case they normally wouldn't hear.
When Apple threatens to rigorously defend their patents Macrumors members cheer with glee - someone else wins patent suit against Apple the law suddenly needs an overhaul
the only thing i dislike about this board at times... it seems that it wasn't a big deal when i first joined, but now the biases is just outright crazy
glad im not the only one that thought so...
When Apple threatens to rigorously defend their patents Macrumors members cheer with glee - someone else wins patent suit against Apple the law suddenly needs an overhaul
You got that right, the fan boys here come off as pathetic at times.