So is that the same for all the items Apple patents and never makes?
Are you totally happy with other companies using those designs as Apple had just sat on their patent?
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 Ordered to Pay $309 Million for Infringing DRM Patent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So is that the same for all the items Apple patents and never makes?
Are you totally happy with other companies using those designs as Apple had just sat on their patent?
Only the creator of the patent... Are you sure about that?
So if I design a new Battery, but don't have the means to take it into production, so after a couple of years you (who own a factory and have a lot of money) buy the patent from me, so you can start making things based upon my design.
You would be happy for someone else to copy it, as YOU would have no rights as you never created it, I was the original creator.
Unfortunately, Apple (and other companies) will have to keep dealing with the trolls.
Ah yes the oligarchy being rewarded by the overly legalistic system they created, just for jotting some vague and materially useless ideas on paper with no intention of providing any sort of value to the world. You can rest assured tonight knowing the patent system is still stiffing American innovation as intended.
That’s basically scientists vs the engineers. They have the same back ground, but one does basic research and the other does applied research.
Just to make it plain in case anyone wonders.
Personally I think you should need to show you are going to produce or have plans in place to find someone to produce anything you wish to patent in a significant volume.
I don't agree with coming up and an idea, doing nothing with the idea, and stopping someone else from making that idea into a reality to offer the general population.
There has to be something in place to protect individual inventors of course from companies like Apple etc stealing their work and just paying the fine at the end.
Personally I think you should need to show you are going to produce or have plans in place to find someone to produce anything you wish to patent in a significant volume.
I don't agree with coming up and an idea, doing nothing with the idea, and stopping someone else from making that idea into a reality to offer the general population.
There has to be something in place to protect individual inventors of course from companies like Apple etc stealing their work and just paying the fine at the end.
You think Scientists and Engineers have the time, resources and the skills needed to discover and litigate against every infringement parties?
Well, that's not how the patent system works. Everybody is gaming the system... patent trolls, patent attorneys, and companies... including Apple.
People would be surprised to know just how many patents tech companies sit on simply to prevent their competitors from... well... competing. Google, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, etc. They own patents that they haven't used in products and have no plans or interests in doing so... they're simply defensive patents.
And with the loosening of patent laws regarding what is allowed to be patented, it's to the point of absurdity.
I understand it is low hanging fruit to go after the patent trolls, but the problem goes far deeper and far wider than that... and on the whole, the patent system is overwhelmingly tilted toward companies like Apple. These kind of settlements are a little token sacrifice to the patent gods.
If companies were being so damaged by patent laws, they'd be lobbying congress heavily to get the laws changed.
I agree with Apple and other companies who get caught out by companies who are no different to ambulance chasers, never having an intention to produce anything, which will never create jobs or a product. They merely sit on patents, usually ones they have bought up, and then site like vultures, which does stifle innovation, whether it be Apple or anyone else. Now if the patent case was brought by a company producing things, producing jobs and products that were affected by any infringement, fair enough. I suspect Apple could have bought whoever owned the patent originally for peanuts. ITS COFFIN CHASING, and really does not help the USA or anyone else when we should be concentrating on copyright and patent infringement products against products, such as counterfeit goods etc.
A federal jury in Texas has ordered Apple to pay around $308.5 million to a local licensing firm for infringing a patent related to digital rights management, reports Bloomberg.
Following a five-day trial, jurors on Friday said Apple must pay running loyalty fees to Texas-based Personalized Media Communications (PMC). A running loyalty is generally based on the amount of sales of a product or service.
PMC originally sued Apple in 2015 for allegedly infringing seven of its patents. As part of the legal action, the company claimed Apple infringed its patent with technology including FairPlay, which is used to distribute encrypted content through the company's iTunes, App Store, and Apple Music apps.
Apple successfully challenged PMC's case at the U.S. patent office, but an appeals court reversed that decision in March 2020, opening an avenue for a trial to proceed.
Apple told Bloomberg it was disappointed with Friday's ruling and would appeal the decision.
PMC is a non-practicing entity that holds a patent portfolio and generates revenue through patent litigation. When such companies employ hardball legal tactics to enforce patent rights far beyond the patent's actual value, they are often referred to as patent trolls.
The Sugarland-based company has infringement cases pending against several other tech companies including Netflix, Google, and Amazon.
Article Link: Apple Ordered to Pay $309 Million for Infringing DRM Patent
Not so, I would state the same claim to competitors of Apple if they were similarly affected. It stifles new products and innovation and subsequently jobs for what are no more than coffin/ambulance chaser companies who do not have the wherewith all to run a production business or invent anything themselves.
Different if its a patent infringement where a product rivals another, or counterfeit etc. etc., but companies who in all likelihood bought up patents that no one foresaw using or were about to give up on, usually for not large money, and just sit like vultures until one day in a future technology or a new product might conceivably be seen to incorporate often vague patents from years ago bought for a song do no one any favours.
I dont understand why is it so difficult to manage these patents trolls by the gov. I feel.....
1. Guys who hold patents should release the products in certain years.
2. If they dont release the product in say 3 years, it should become open and accessible to the world.
3. The patents should be active till the point company is making and selling products or for certain number of years, whichever comes first, the patent should be released for all.
4. And, above all, the damage value should be based on the product that patent holder was not able to sell because someone else used its patent.
But i feel, gov/authorities are just being too lazy to address these isssues.
1. Guys who hold patents should release the products in certain years.
2. If they dont release the product in say 3 years, it should become open and accessible to the world.
3. The patents should be active till the point company is making and selling products or for certain number of years, whichever comes first, the patent should be released for all.
4. And, above all, the damage value should be based on the product that patent holder was not able to sell because someone else used its patent.
But i feel, gov/authorities are just being too lazy to address these isssues.
I think the point is that patent troll companies have no intention to do anything with the patent but just sit on it. Also, when I had a patent, I had to pay a lot of money each year to retain the patent.
When a company is formed, you have to state the business of the company. I don’t think it is a legitimate company type to say Patent Honey-Trap. There is a difference between inventing something and having the patent, and a separate company just buying a random existing patent.
Do the small parties see any benefit to the IP protection offered by non-practicing aggregators?
Another idea is to treat patents like trademarks. Use it or lose it. And software patents all expire in 5 years.
Also the public interest in patents isn’t that companies get rich its to encourage the creation of ideas and products that move us all forward (getting rich is a great side benefit of that innovation). Patent trolls fulfill none of these functions they are a hack created by outdated law and lawyers being evil lawyers.
What you suggest in your first sentence gives open license for patent pirates to infringe without compensation the IP owner. If the owner can’t sue, then the IP creator can’t sell his IP to a third party because it’s unenforceable and this the third party won’t buy from the creator.
By your standard, patents become worthless unless created by a big company able to afford sue infringers.
You’ve basically just destroyed the patent system for anybody but big corporations.
Seems obvious, doesn’t it? If the aggregators buy or license their IP, they sure would. In fact under that deal they might be better off then in being unable to protect their patent in their own.
The whole practicing (manufacturers) vs non practicing (IP holders) is a strawman.
The value of IP is in the idea itself and incentivizing it’s creator to reveal it by giving time limited rights own it and sell it.
Remove that and the inventor just sits on a new idea that advances the state of the art.
Over time somebody may come up with same idea but the goal is to bring ideas into the public consciousness rather than disincentivizing creators.
And what of big companies that create blocking patents that are designed to protect a patent in use? Should anybody be able to just use them because it’s corporate creator doesn’t actively use it?
So you’re in favour of patent trolls then? At least come up with a suggestion!
