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
Yes. I think I am. The whole troll meme is based on ignorance and is frankly ridiculous. Pushing it plays into hands of big corporations and eliminating them would render plenty of small creator’s patents worthless. It would essentially eliminate the incentive for small fish to pursue patents and bring their ideas into the public square.
Maybe in the eighties, all the patents are based on these old 'inventions' and they are all basically the same. For all I can see these are pure patent trolls.
Issued Patents | personalized-media
By the time the patent troll gets the patent, the original creator of the patent is forgotten about and has no ownership, and does not benefit from the patent whatsoever.
At the front end of the action, it could be said when you have deep pockets you can consider infringing with impunity. Do it and don’t get sued you get IP for free. Get sued and lose and pay something on the order of what you would have paid under license. On average if this is your model and you manage it well, you pay out less in damages than license fees.
TBH and I don’t know if there is a measure of scienter but even though these are civil suits, proving a company willingly infringed should Cary a triple damages penalty. That would end such piracy, lead to more licensing deals, and put money in the pockets of the small and medium patent creator crowd that is presently denied them by big players fearlessly infringing.
nonsense reply. You think the original owner just gives their patent away? You are just saying words now without thinking about what they mean.
Perhaps you could point me to a link that details this particular patent argument and if this company is protecting the patent for the inventor?
Good. They need to be held accountable for technologies they get caught stealing. A trillion+ dollar company should be able to afford to purchase it or make their own and shouldn’t have to resort to illegally using technologies made by companies a fraction of the size and revenue.
But how much does a running loyalty cost? And can you really legally force someone to be loyal to you?
It's called a holding company, like Alphabet is a holding company. Also, Apple's patents are not held by Apple, but rather offshore subsidiaries that charge Apple US licensing fees to reduce Apple's tax burden in the US.
I wrote the "What will your verse be?" speech for Dead Poets Society. It was very personal to me because I'm against suicide. It was intended to be a paen against suicide and was intended in that context. Apple absconded with it, turning it into a successful iPad commercial. They refused to pay me any royalty whatsoever. In order for the creators of this world, people like me, to ever get anywhere, it appears we have to sue, especially the pirates at Apple who apparently think that stealing other people's ideas and designs is just OK for them because they're so big.
I am glad that Apple is being forced to pay in this case. Apple is just a bunch of thriving no-goods in my opinion with a pervert on top.
I am glad that Apple is being forced to pay in this case. Apple is just a bunch of thriving no-goods in my opinion with a pervert on top.
That’s what you say now, but when poor apple takes the hard work to implement your idea, you’ll patent troll them to deprive them of their hard earned money 😡.
Thank you. Actually, no, it didn’t seem obvious at all. At least I thought at first glance it looks like a middleman money grab and large scale exploitation. But I definitely see some benefits to the way you describe it that I hadn’t honestly hadn’t thought of: like individual idea obscurity and the promotion of new technology. That is really good. I guess it is just a business transaction anyway. Idk it’s all kind of out of my wheelhouse.
Macrumors doesn’t post an article every time the jury goes the other way. You are suffering from information bias.
There is no evidence the existing system doesn’t work. The goal of the system is to advance the state of technology by encouraging inventors to disclose what would otherwise be trade secrets in exchange for a time-limited monopoly on the invention. This disclosure allows other inventors to build on the idea, and in some cases is the “necessity” that is the “mother of“ a new, better, invention in order to work around the existing patent.
The current system allows grad students in universities, kids in a garage, and other underfunded people to patent ideas, and, if they don’t have the resources to implement them, to sell them to those who might.
It also is a major reason we have start-ups in the tech industry. The reason many startups get the funding they need is that the VCs see the intellectual property as a source of last-resort revenue in case the business fails.
And the country with the most patents and patent litigation also happens to be the country that seems to have the most innovation in nearly every area of technology.
Could the system be better? Sure. There could be more uniformity enforced in damage awards to prevent plaintiffs from forum shopping. The term of a patent could be adjusted based on the technology area - shorter for computer-related patents, where 20 years is an eternity, and perhaps longer in pharmaceutical patents, to encourage research into cures for very rare diseases where 20 years isn’t long enough to recompense the inventors. Severe penalties for when a plaintiff knows their patent was obtained or revived by fraudulent means should be broadened to more situations. Various other small changes around the edges.
But if you start with the premise that everything is completely broken, you need evidence for that. Apple losing a lawsuit and paying 9 figures is not proof of any such thing.
Agree with many points but companies will mess around to work around rules, unless rules are VERY clear.
Apple could for example, patent something, and then just make a handful of actual devices, sold just in one location to get around the "you must make and sell your idea" rule.
Then again, they will say they are working on the product before it can be released, and how many years do you give them to work on the item they have patented?
It's not easy to put rules together companies won't abuse.
In the UK there used to be a rule about when you can say something is in a sale and is reduced.
They used to mess around, and sell the item for a higher price in a few far away stores, just so they could then say legally it was discounted in the normal stores across the UK.
And even now, they raise the price of an item for a few weeks, just so they can have BIG adverts saying it's on special offer discount sale now.
I’m not defending Apple, or any company that rips off existing patents. I just do not like the concept of a company that buys patents and sits on them, with the sole purpose of not using them at all. They have paid off the patent holder and are therefore not protecting the inventor one iota. Having held a patent once, albeit for a piece of kitchenware, I am pro protecting the inventor. I could not sell enough of the items I manufactured and so I could not afford to keep paying the fees to protect my patent in the UK. If I wanted to protect the patent to cover the EU, the USA etc, the costs would have been huge.
I’d rather the rights stayed with the inventor once they are granted a patent. I realise this opens up questions around patent ownership long term etc, but I think the world can do better than the current situation.
35 USC 284 allows treble damages. Halo v. Pulse is a recent Supreme Court case on the parameters for such awards.
But you are wrong. Of course they are protecting the inventor one iota. The inventor didn’t have the resources to do something else with the patent, so he sold it. He got money for that. The reason he got money (and may also get a percentage of future lawsuits, by the way) is because the patent has value to someone. And the reason it has value is that it can be used to sue people.
The fact that the inventor was able to monetize his or her patent is a market force that encourages more inventions.
Your ideas would greatly diminish the value of the inventor’s patent, meaning he or she might have nobody to sell them to. Big companies would feel free to infringe, knowing that small inventor’s don’t have the ability to sue, or more importantly, to do the expensive research often necessary to even figure out if anybody is infringing - you typically cannot tell without spending a lot of money on reverse engineering. Your ideas would destroy innovation.
And you’d rather the rights stay with the inventor? What value would they have? Imagine you owned a piece of real estate, but were forbidden from selling it. How much is that property worth? Not much.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. If the inventor owned the patent forever, if a company wanted to use the patent, they’d have to pay the inventor, or their estate. I see this as completely different to a company buying the patent to just sit on it. The original inventor should have that right, a patent troll company should not.
That’s garbage. I own a patent. I’m just some dude. What’s going to force a company to pay me, exactly? I’d have to sue. How do I pay the lawyers? How do I even know that apple’s M1-chip uses the circuit I invented? Who is paying for the $50,000 per microprocessor I have to pay to get every microprocessor on the market reverse-engineered? I may need hundreds of thousands of dollars to even figure out who is infringing.
Your idea ignores the fundamental principles of economics. If something is not alienable, it likely is of no value whatsoever.
That’s my point. I am saying that laws need changing to protect the inventor, so they should get paid. I realise that this will probably never happen but IP would be protected in a decent world. I think the current situation is garbage.
But the inventors are getting paid. Who says they are not?
heck, they probably even get a cut of these big jury verdicts. Wouldn’t you insist on a percentage of any future recovery when selling your patent?