Apple Number One Target for Patent Trolls With 171 Cases in Five Years

[keysofanxiety]

but lots of other companies already had products in the pipeline that were like the iphone.

Yes, their pipeline for release in 5 or 10 years -- or 2 or 3 -- a 'head-scratch', a 'oh, let's maybe work on this later', a 'this looks interesting, what do you think, guys?'.

That's a very different mentality to 'this is going to change phones forever, let's put all our effort into it into it'. And let's face it, had Apple not done it first, others wouldn't have done it right. They just wouldn't have.

Occasionally I'd love to have a magic crystal ball, where I can show alternative futures. I'll just go back in time and completely shut off the iPhone, and see where we are now with the smartphone market.

 

[york2600]

We need a reform in our patent system. It completely blows and allows leeches to mooch off company's efforts. Regardless if said company is Apple or not. Patent trolls stifle innovation everywhere.

The patent system really screws the guy in the middle too. I worked for a mid sized Analytics company with extensive patents in the web analytics field. We started the industry and these were true original designs. Google came along and systematically ripped off all our work with every release of Google Analytics. It was really obvious, but we didn't have the cash to go after Google. The patent system only protects the guys with the biggest lawyers.

 

[alent1234]

Yes, their pipeline for release in 5 or 10 years -- or 2 or 3 -- a 'head-scratch', a 'oh, let's maybe work on this later', a 'this looks interesting, what do you think, guys?'.

That's a very different mentality to 'this is going to change phones forever, let's put all our effort into it into it'. And let's face it, had Apple not done it first, others wouldn't have done it right. They just wouldn't have.

Occasionally I'd love to have a magic crystal ball, where I can show alternative futures. I'll just go back in time and completely shut off the iPhone, and see where we are now with the smartphone market.

apple didn't get the iphone right until the 3G came out with Exchange support and an app store. so it's not like the original phone was some magical breakthrough product. it had a big screen and a real web browser going for it. rumor has it steve jobs was against the app store at first and it was announced by tim cook while he was temporary CEO. so its not like apple had this plan to conquer the market. they were figuring things out as they went along

 

[IJ Reilly]

First, a NPE is sometimes known as a "patent troll," not the other way around.

Second, NPEs still account for only 20% of patent lawsuits. They are not the real problem.

Yes, NPEs appear to be contributing to a rise in patent litigation. But overall, NPEs account for only 20% of patent litigation, according to the report.

The other 80%? That comes from "practicing entities" or PE. That is, real companies. Companies such as Apple, Google, Samsung and so on.

"These data also show that companies that make products brought most of the lawsuits and that non-practicing entities (NPE) brought about a fifth of all lawsuits," the report says.

That has important policy implications, not to mention public relations ones. The people pointing the finger at others for driving up their litigation costs are actually the ones doing most of the suing.

But in terms of fixing the problem, the report basically says that if legislators focus on NPEs and limit their power or ability to litigate, they're only going to address 20% of the problem.

The real focus, the report says, is the quality of patents. Software patents account for 89% of patent litigation. The problem is that many patents are too vague or broad, essentially opening the door to endless litigation.

http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...yth-of-patent-trolls-20130826,0,1901885.story

Emphasis mine.

 

[keysofanxiety]

apple didn't get the iphone right until the 3G came out with Exchange support and an app store. so it's not like the original phone was some magical breakthrough product. it had a big screen and a real web browser going for it. rumor has it steve jobs was against the app store at first and it was announced by tim cook while he was temporary CEO. so its not like apple had this plan to conquer the market. they were figuring things out as they went along

Yes, it's arguable they hadn't got the iPhone right until the 3G. But to say that it wasn't a 'breakthrough product' is looking at the past through very muddy glasses.

The tech world were creaming themselves at the iPhone. I really think you're forgetting just how amazing it was at the time.

 

[FakeWozniak]

the biggest patent troller just got trolled. maybe now will apple learn something and stop this.

The newest MacRumors troller just got outed. Maybe now you will learn something and stop this.

 

[gnasher729]

No. Digital photography was invented at Kodak by Steve Sasson and they license that IP. They've changed their business strategy, since they didn't move into the manufacturing of digital cameras quickly enough. Most of the IP they license, they invented.

It is impossible to have this sort of conversation with someone that has never bothered to invent anything but believes that inventions are so easy that they should just be free or their inventors forced to allow other people use them.

Come off it. What I said is absolutely correct: They were a great company in the photography market and didn't make it in the digital camera market. And now, as I said and as you have said, they changed their business strategy.

 

[darkplanets]

We need a reform in our patent system. It completely blows and allows leeches to mooch off company's efforts. Regardless if said company is Apple or not. Patent trolls stifle innovation everywhere.

While somewhat true, patents must still exist. There's already a diminishing incentive to innovate. Take the pharma industry -- as requirements for clinical trials increase (especially once personalized medicine takes hold), the actual market time under patent protection will decline. It's already a battle with generics companies, which now also have legal protection against product health and safety concerns, while the originator does not.

While the tech industry moves much faster, the same concepts remain. Those who originate IP are continually getting screwed by copycats and knockoffs. The only time I lack sympathy is when the so called "trolls" obtain IP for the sole purpose of litigation, without ever developing products or services.

 

[jav6454]

The patent system really screws the guy in the middle too. I worked for a mid sized Analytics company with extensive patents in the web analytics field. We started the industry and these were true original designs. Google came along and systematically ripped off all our work with every release of Google Analytics. It was really obvious, but we didn't have the cash to go after Google. The patent system only protects the guys with the biggest lawyers.

True, more reason to reform it.

 

[old-wiz]

Smart Trolls head to East Texas

where judges and juries are so friendly to them that I keep wondering if the trolls are bribing both judges and juries.

Or maybe giving them a percentage of any awards?

After all, judges need money and so do the people on the juries.

 

[Iconoclysm]

where judges and juries are so friendly to them that I keep wondering if the trolls are bribing both judges and juries.

Or maybe giving them a percentage of any awards?

After all, judges need money and so do the people on the juries.

Judges are quite well paid...they start out as attorneys after all. Juries? Who the hell wants to be on a Jury anyway?

 

[dBeats]

The patent system was supposed to inspire innovation by allowing inventors to be rewarded by preventing copy-cats to stand on their coat-tails and steal away the money that the inventor should earn.

Instead the patent system is like an open market where entities own patents that they didn't invent, and don't plan to innovate or develop around.

It's a complete bastardization of the system. Software patent law should be changed that you must develop software around this patent within a year, or show demonstrable progress towards a software product goal. Otherwise your patent is abandoned and considered invalid.

 

[Antares]

the biggest patent troller just got trolled. maybe now will apple learn something and stop this.

Huh. So, you are saying that Apple doesn’t actually produce or sell any products using their patents?…They just hold patents for no other reason than to sue companies who try to use them without paying a license?

It's a complete bastardization of the system. Software patent law should be changed that you must develop software around this patent within a year, or show demonstrable progress towards a software product goal. Otherwise your patent is abandoned and considered invalid.

While I agree with you, how could this possibly be monitored? It just doesn't seem practical given the sheer volume of patents and patent application that run through th esystem.

 

[iBug2]

RIM and MS may not have done anything but lots of other companies already had products in the pipeline that were like the iphone. they just needed a better OS and Google had that

Google did not have the OS ready in 2007 so nobody had anything resembling iPhone in their labs at that point. I wonder why people separate the software from the hardware. You need both to make a phone. If anything, software matters even more since software is in-house but everyone else has access to the same hardware parts as Apple.

----------

apple didn't get the iphone right until the 3G came out with Exchange support and an app store. so it's not like the original phone was some magical breakthrough product. it had a big screen and a real web browser going for it. rumor has it steve jobs was against the app store at first and it was announced by tim cook while he was temporary CEO. so its not like apple had this plan to conquer the market. they were figuring things out as they went along

Apple did get the first iPhone right. The 3G model was probably the smallest increment they had along the way. Each model added something missing from the earlier one, but the first one set the benchmark. And of course they were figuring things alone the way. And they figured them correctly.

 

[Renzatic]

You're missing the point. Other phone manufacturers had other ways of zooming and stuff. Of course I'm not suggesting they shouldn't use pinch-and-zoom, I'm just saying nobody was complaining at the time.

I'm sure at least a couple of people were. I need to dig it up again, but there was a guy on TED showing off touch display technology roughly a year before the iPhone was first announced, and one of the biggest things that got a reaction from the audience was the pinch to zoom feature. It was like watching the iPhone announcement 7 months in advanced.

There's no doubt the iPhone pushed the industry forward in a big way, but some of the patents surrounding it are complete BS. You all have to realize that the computer industry isn't static until one company produces something that alters the paradigm. You've almost always mulitple companies working on roughly the same thing around roughly the same time.

 

[nickgri]

Agree with gnasher

But it would be absurd to think that I shouldn't be allowed to write a book, or music, or software, just before you did so first. But that's what patent law says. Just because someone "invented" something, I'm not allowed to invent it.

I agree here you can write a book because it is a common thought, nothing groundbreaking or so "novel" about it to be able to patent-like the idea that people will want to find their lost phones-well of course they might. If you wrote a particular method that was proprietary than yes that "method" and software could be yours-but these general "ideas" that are basic commonsense should in no way be patentable. The patent office has wrongly allowed basic common actions that will be a part of an evolving system to be owned by the first person that applied for the patent. Then these scumbag ambulance chasers make their money off it. Make something entirely unique and the method to do it fine-other methods and variables to do the same thing need not be punished.

 

[alent1234]

Google did not have the OS ready in 2007 so nobody had anything resembling iPhone in their labs at that point. I wonder why people separate the software from the hardware. You need both to make a phone. If anything, software matters even more since software is in-house but everyone else has access to the same hardware parts as Apple.

----------



Apple did get the first iPhone right. The 3G model was probably the smallest increment they had along the way. Each model added something missing from the earlier one, but the first one set the benchmark. And of course they were figuring things alone the way. And they figured them correctly.

no, they had them in the labs but running qualcomm's BREW OS, Windows Mobile or one of the other ones at the time. they had candy bar touch screen phones for sale around the same time as the iphone came out. like the LG Prada. it takes 2-3 years to take a phone from the lab to market so they had to have them in the labs. android was originally meant for printers and other devices and had to be coded to work on phones

verizon was streaming TV shows and other video to flip phones at least a year before the iphone came out. touch screen computing has been worked on since the 80's if not earlier.

the current boom only came out once samsung and others developed capacitive touch screens

 

[neuropsychguy]

the biggest patent troller just got trolled. maybe now will apple learn something and stop this.

Nice try at trolling...

 

[Pyrrhic Victory]

Imagine how much more productive people would be if there were no IP laws. Anyone could make anything they want and do anything they want with it. No lawsuits, lawyers, trials, patents, licensing fees, more lawyers, high-level negotiations of any kind required to make or use any product.

 

[mrothroc]

I'm sure at least a couple of people were. I need to dig it up again, but there was a guy on TED showing off touch display technology roughly a year before the iPhone was first announced, and one of the biggest things that got a reaction from the audience was the pinch to zoom feature. It was like watching the iPhone announcement 7 months in advanced.

I think you're referring to the talk by Jeff Han in 2006. He actually mentions in the talk that the technology he is using is not new. In fact, he's using techniques developed by a company called FingerWorks in 1998. Apple acquired FingerWorks, along with the rights to the technology, in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks

 

[Renzatic]

I think you're referring to the talk by Jeff Han in 2006. He actually mentions in the talk that the technology he is using is not new. In fact, he's using techniques developed by a company called FingerWorks in 1998. Apple acquired FingerWorks, along with the rights to the technology, in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks

Yup, that's the guy.

It goes back even farther than Fingerworks, though. Multitouch has been in development since the first Macintoshes rolled off the line. Everything we're seeing now is an extension of the work being done since the early 80's. The only thing new about it is the tech finally reaching the consumer market.

...and yeah, I'll admit, we do have Apple to thank in large part for that.

 

[scbn]

Not surprised, as Apple is the biggest tech company in terms of profits and innovations.

 

[iBug2]

no, they had them in the labs but running qualcomm's BREW OS, Windows Mobile or one of the other ones at the time. they had candy bar touch screen phones for sale around the same time as the iphone came out. like the LG Prada. it takes 2-3 years to take a phone from the lab to market so they had to have them in the labs.

Those OS's were not even remotely close to iOS 1.0. So no, nobody had something close to the iPhone in the labs. The first actual competitors to iPhone appeared in 2010. So yeah, when iPhone 1 was released, it took 3 years in the lab to get a product ready for release.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Imagine how much more productive people would be if there were no IP laws. Anyone could make anything they want and do anything they want with it. No lawsuits, lawyers, trials, patents, licensing fees, more lawyers, high-level negotiations of any kind required to make or use any product.

And anything anyone created could be and would be instantly copied. Nice dream, but a nightmare for anyone in a creative field.

 

[alent1234]

Those OS's were not even remotely close to iOS 1.0. So no, nobody had something close to the iPhone in the labs. The first actual competitors to iPhone appeared in 2010. So yeah, when iPhone 1 was released, it took 3 years in the lab to get a product ready for release.

HTC had an android phone less than a year after the first iphone came out. the droid came out in 2009.

the hardware was in the lab. they had to rewrite a lot of the software.