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 Number One Target for Patent Trolls With 171 Cases in Five Years
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The first Android phone came out in Oct 2008. So, 21 months after the iPhone was announced. That's pretty close to the two year minimum that you suggested.
But those were not actual competitors. They were really subpar. Competition began in 2010. Hardware was ofc in the lab. Who cares about hardware? ARM processors were out there, Qualcomm chips were out there, touchscreen panels were out there. It doesn't take a genius to put them together in an enclosure. The software is the actual problem.
----------
It came out, but it wasn't an actual competitor.
This could be because apple patent everything, including "directional method of moving absorbent paper to remove and clean posterior waste extraction port on a human body"
Apple are one of the biggest "patent trolls" out and about today, its just they vaguely patent everything then retro actively try and apply that vague patent to things people release, usual with lots of money and lawyers behind them.
Personally i think Patents should only apply if you actually have a working, demonstrable prototype of a tech, that way, you cant patent stuff that doesn't exist "just in case" someone else actually makes it.
Patent law stifles competition and innovation.
Apple are one of the biggest "patent trolls" out and about today, its just they vaguely patent everything then retro actively try and apply that vague patent to things people release, usual with lots of money and lawyers behind them.
Personally i think Patents should only apply if you actually have a working, demonstrable prototype of a tech, that way, you cant patent stuff that doesn't exist "just in case" someone else actually makes it.
Patent law stifles competition and innovation.
Well Google bought Urchin Software Corp. in April 2005 and released it for free shortly after so your company must be doing pretty well to still be in business 8 years later.
Other than the fact that they don't meet the definition of a patent troll.
Or, you only read the titles of the patents in the news and assume that they are vague.
Well, here's a patent law precedent. I hope the USA follows suit:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/28/new-zealand-bans-software-patents/
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/28/new-zealand-bans-software-patents/
Well, there are two kinds of companies that sue over patents. One kind is actually trying to control their IP. The other kind is trying create nuisance suits that are so expensive the defendant company finds it cheaper to just settle. Quite a few of the latter, such as Lodys, actually hope the case never gets to court, as their claims are dubious, and they are likely to lose.
One way to fix this would be to require the loser in all cases to pay the legal fees of the winner. This would cut down on the dubious suits, as well as encourage defendants in such suits to fight rather than settle.
I was just thinking the other day how it's been a while since we've seen a patent article on MacRumors lol.
Guys, I have this great idea! Flying cars! I'm gonna patent it. Who cares if I don't know how to engineer one, I own the idea! Oh, and breathing, I have a patent for how to breathe, the USPTO approved it!
/s
How about patenting methods that produce actual results instead of ideas? All these ridiculous patents merely stifle technology, increase product prices to cover legal costs in some instances and hurt the consumer in the end.
Patent lawyer - the new oil tycoon
/s
How about patenting methods that produce actual results instead of ideas? All these ridiculous patents merely stifle technology, increase product prices to cover legal costs in some instances and hurt the consumer in the end.
Patent lawyer - the new oil tycoon
In our industry, a patent is not enough. You have a short amount of time to apply your pending patent to a product and bring that product to the market, or it's considered public domain and anyone use it and defend themselves against you.
Guess how I know!
. Unfortunately in my case, it took rather longer than allowed to prototype, refine, and produce that mechanism. Within 2 years they were everywhere, and I never saw a dime. Oh well, ya win some, ya lose some.
Sounds like the software industry could actually benefit from this.
Guess how I know!
. Unfortunately in my case, it took rather longer than allowed to prototype, refine, and produce that mechanism. Within 2 years they were everywhere, and I never saw a dime. Oh well, ya win some, ya lose some.Sounds like the software industry could actually benefit from this.
Nope, Han didn't use any techniques developed by FingerWorks. For one thing, his touch surface used frustrated internal reflection for input. (Basically, your fingers cause bright spots to appear under a side-lit acrylic sheet.)
FingerWorks didn't even work with displays. They were all about opaque capacitive surfaces such as trackpads and keyboards.
Jeff Han did, however, prevent Apple from getting a final trademark registration on the word "Multi-Touch". He wrote the USPTO and explained that it was a old, generic term in the touch field.
Facetime. Not Facebook
First off, lets put this in perspective. If smaller companies like BP and Exxon have the resources to manage f-ups the size of the gulf oil spill and the Valdez, Apple is more than equipped to deal with a few patent trolls.
But then there's this whole question about impeding innovation. Are people really serious? There aren't industries with a FASTER pace of innovation than mobile and IT. If anything, the industry is moving too fast. Seriously, the technology leap between a GS3 and GS4 has outpaced the customers and developers ability to absorb the new capabilities.
OK, maybe if all the patent trolls were in mag-rail, or flying cars, or teleport machines I'd be all like "these so called trolls are a real drag man," but this list is like warren buffet complaining about the price of his latte.
----------
You know what screws people. The fact that 15 other people in the world think they developed the same thing first.
The patent system, like all human systems is flawed, but its messy because what it attempts to address is messy.
But then there's this whole question about impeding innovation. Are people really serious? There aren't industries with a FASTER pace of innovation than mobile and IT. If anything, the industry is moving too fast. Seriously, the technology leap between a GS3 and GS4 has outpaced the customers and developers ability to absorb the new capabilities.
OK, maybe if all the patent trolls were in mag-rail, or flying cars, or teleport machines I'd be all like "these so called trolls are a real drag man," but this list is like warren buffet complaining about the price of his latte.
----------
You know what screws people. The fact that 15 other people in the world think they developed the same thing first.
The patent system, like all human systems is flawed, but its messy because what it attempts to address is messy.
Well than maybe that definition needs to revisited !
Wether someone is a "patent troll" shouldn't be based on wether the make products (lots of research only companies outb there) but it be based on:
- are those patents actual inventions or just a vaque combination of pre-existent tech fluffed up with techno-babble ?
- does the company offer licences to these patents at reasonable conditions ?
- does the company sue to regain actual damages or just to incurr maximum damage to a competitor ?
How productive? Nothing would happen as people would be like "why bother invent anything when the person next to me with a bigger advertising budget can rip it off sell it around the world and put me out of business.?"
----------
This is so very important it needs it's own article here.
The common sense in business is that there were no major ("disrupting") inventions since the early 90s (www). What we "invent" now are just applications based on research from 20-40 years ago. This is one of the major reasons why the economy is not growing as fast as it should.
Smartphones are more evolution than revolution and those rubberband-gimmicks and the other stupid trivial software patents that get protected today can barely be called innovation. It's not smarter than the invention of the radio-button or the modal dialogue.
Wow.That is covered by the patent approval process.
You are in favor of forced licensing?!
Damages are specified by law, not whatever a company feels like.
That is covered by the patent approval process.
You are in favor of forced licensing?!
Damages are specified by law, not whatever a company feels like.
Yeah, thats the theory.....
But the reality is that patents have been granted for utter nonsense, and that companies holding these do either hold other companies at ransom or even use them in an outright war of destruction (include obvious Jobs quote here).
was expecting this result. why do you expect good behavior from others when you aren't treating them nicely. but i am shocked to see that HP is also suffering from this, they are the 2nd most popular target of patent trolls.
the biggest fanboy just got burned!
----------
no need to prove, go and read apple's past
Far too many software patents are similar to your description.
A good example is Apple's so-called "universal search" patent (aka the "Siri patent"), which is not about a specific implementation, but more of the general idea of searching multiple sources using generic object-oriented methods.
Any current college CS student, if tasked with the same problem and told to solve it using OO techniques, would come up with the same idea.... without knowing about Apple's patent.
This is the problem with software patents. Developers all over the world are constantly inventing the same solutions. However, only large companies can afford to keep applying for (and refining) such patents, much less defending them.
Software patent infringement is almost never about outright copying. It's more often about accidentally coming up with the same method to solve a problem.