[Edit: I didn't read carefully and didn't realize you were commenting on China, which does indeed steal IP and mostly get away with it. (That's different from a patent troll, though.)]They are the patent troll, they just steal IP and get away with it.
I'd throw in that the inventor MUST be a live human, and that patents cannot be sold. And software patents should be banned.It has been suggested before that it be required of a company to be producing/selling something that uses the owned patent in order to have grounds to litigate it. I might suggest adding a limitation that the ORIGINATOR of the Patent (i.e. the inventor) is exempt, so they can freely license and enforce their patent without needing the resources to become a manufacturer.
The problem is that many inventors won't have the resources to license or enforce their patents. They'll just be taken advantage of or infringed on.It has been suggested before that it be required of a company to be producing/selling something that uses the owned patent in order to have grounds to litigate it. I might suggest adding a limitation that the ORIGINATOR of the Patent (i.e. the inventor) is exempt, so they can freely license and enforce their patent without needing the resources to become a manufacturer.
(emphasis supplied) Prohibiting the sale of patents sounds like an absolute brilliant way to disincentivize inventors.I'd throw in that the inventor MUST be a live human, and that patents cannot be sold. And software patents should be banned.
I agree that there is technically a risk to the inventors, but I think it would largely resolve itself. Patent lawyers would continue to be available and do their thing at the fees they currently do, and manufacturers would continue to license patents, just from originators, vs patent trolls.The problem is that many inventors won't have the resources to license or enforce their patents. They'll just be taken advantage of or infringed on.
I get the sentiment against companies that do nothing but manage the intellectual property (including licensing deals, monitoring for infringement, suing to enforce, etc.), but requiring inventors to handle that function and restricting their ability to sell their patents (by limiting who can buy them) is going to hurt inventors first and most of all.
You have absolutely no idea what Tim Cook thinks, that statement is absurd. Apple has a team of lawyers that specialize in patent law, it’s their work & research that directs Apple’s endeavors when it comes to legal matters worldwide.Tim Cook seems to think Apple are above the law. They are not and should follow the rules like everyone else.
Apple’s lawyers are obviously not very good if they keep losing all their legal battles.You have absolutely no idea what Tim Cook thinks, that statement is absurd. Apple has a team of lawyers that specialize in patent law, it’s their work & research that directs Apple’s endeavors when it comes to legal matters worldwide.
There’s no perfect solution, but something needs to change. That’s a reasonable option. I’m simply not fond of these companies that basically scoop up many patents and make money from strong-arming companies who actually make products.It has been suggested before that it be required of a company to be producing/selling something that uses the owned patent in order to have grounds to litigate it. I might suggest adding a limitation that the ORIGINATOR of the Patent (i.e. the inventor) is exempt, so they can freely license and enforce their patent without needing the resources to become a manufacturer.
For sure. Way easier to just blatantly copy existing products and then give everyone the finger.This is one way in China has an advantage. They don’t have to deal with patent trolls
Speaking of utter rubbish - that's exactly what the UK was asking for - an encryption backdoor. Currently, Apple has no means not available to anyone else to determine the data in a user's storage. In short - crack it the hard way.Complete and utter gibberish. Deserves a rebuttal.
....
Encryption "backdoor" is not true. Another sensationalised social media example. It is not something that a government could usa a tool to open up anyone's phone.
It was to Allow access to iCloud data for persons under arrest for specific terrorism and Child exploitation. The data was ONLY released under court order per specific person / case. This already exist in the UK and for many other counties. However Advanced Data protection does not work like that and Apple could not ope that data even if they wanted to... it's completely locked. So Apple have now removed that option in the UK. Please note this really is for really bad guys and ONLY UNDER COURT ORDER... there is no way the government could just spy on anyone... that is not how it works. About 0.0001% of any apple accounts use ADP.
US Patent law is in fact federal and infringement actions are brought in federal court.Or, if I were more educated on the matter, I would suggest that whatever law all the other states seems to have that Texas doesn't which leads to all of these cases originating in Texas needs to be federalized to suppress the issue.
Given that it’s a rapidly shrinking market with a bleak future, and the government there is increasingly hostile toward American enterprises and is growing more totalitarian in their demands (such as demanding encryption backdoors)…it might be time to consider it.
It sounds like you’re describing something like a payday loan place. Places that take advantage of people to profit. “We realize you’re either too stupid or poor to patient your invention so we’ll buy it for you for $1500 and then win $50 million in a lawsuit against some company that tries to use it.”I think we generally agree about what the world should look like: we both want a system that allows those that come up with ideas to reap the benefits. I tend to think that so-called patent trolls (in the industry, the term of art is Non-Practicing Entities, or NPEs) have a role in that system. The reward inventors get from their innovation is valuable property (a patent) that they can monetize, not simply a piece of paper. NPEs are companies that buy those patents because they have superior ability and resources to maximize the value of those patents as compared to the inventors. Inventors want to invent, they don't want to spend their time negotiating licensing agreements or, in the event of infringement, going after the infringers. That's why we allow them to sell their patents.
Well, you are correct it also means that you don’t have to worry about some lawsuit you’re not expecting. If I decide to make a blue shirt and some someone patented a pointy color with a 45° angle, I’m all the sudden filing for bankruptcy because I can’t afford to pay the lawyers. Of course Apple can easily fight or pay these trolls but smaller companies would never be able to do that.For sure. Way easier to just blatantly copy existing products and then give everyone the finger.
Because it's not a capitalistic market - patents are a temporary monopoly set on an idea. Whoever has a patent can decide whether it is $0.05 or $100 of the cost of the phone, and there may not be a way to avoid it if say it is a mandatory technology for 5G phones.Why not? I get the hate against patent trolls, but having a market for patents is—at least arguably/in theory—something that promotes innovation. Do you think inventors should not be allowed to monetize their inventions? What system would you propose in the alternative?
Yes, that the above is a load of rubbish. So they're fining their way towards extorting a FTA from the US as they hurt our companies. Their courts are as independent as ours are non-partisan so yes, everything after Load of rubbish in the quote above is in fact a load of rubbish.Load of rubbish. The U.K. has been trying for years to get a free trade agreement with the US. Nobody is targeting Apple but if they keep breaking the law they will keep getting sanctioned. The courts are independent of government in the U.K.
Yikes, that's a reductionist take on the matter!Yeah, Tim Cook is the problem. When he took the reins at Apple on August 24, 2011, its market capitalization was $350 Billion. Today, May 1, 2025, Apple's market capitalization is $3.2 Trillion. Please tell me what the problem is.
The company sued in London, knowing full well that it is difficult to win against Apple in the US as it will lie like a trooper.Why is the UK ruling on a patent dispute between two American companies?
“Apple can still petition the UK Supreme Court to review the case, but such appeals are usually granted only in limited circumstances, such as significant points of law or matters of public interest.”Apple will never pay Optis $700 million. They will countersue, and the judgement will either be overturned, or will be settled for way less than half that. Optis doesn't have the money to fight a protracted legal battel with Apple. Apple has the money to fight a protracted legal battle with Optis.
That would be far too sensible for Tim the bean counter. He wants to keep reinventing the wheel every time rather than buying in the necessary technology and patents.
A free trade agreement has nothing to do with fines. The courts are simply enforcing the law. Apple broke the law so they get fined. I don’t know why you find that difficult to understand. Forget the conspiracy theories and look at the facts.Yes, that the above is a load of rubbish. So they're fining their way towards extorting a FTA from the US as they hurt our companies. Their courts are as independent as ours are non-partisan so yes, everything after Load of rubbish in the quote above is in fact a load of rubbish.