They probably get paid a minimal amount and then the patent troll company gains complete rights to the patent. If the inventor retained a % of ownership and the patent troll company had to pay them accordingly, upon successful litigation, then that’d be great. I don’t see or hear that that is ever the case though, and the patent troll, plus its lawyers, takes the lot.
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
Should be no patents.
Ideas belong to the human race, if you’re not going to use an idea, then let someone who’ll actually innovate use it. The human race will better for it.
This is why we haven’t encountered aliens yet. We spend all our time arguing who’s idea it was to pick up the stick and use it as a club. We’re literally the joke of the galactic community lol
Ideas belong to the human race, if you’re not going to use an idea, then let someone who’ll actually innovate use it. The human race will better for it.
This is why we haven’t encountered aliens yet. We spend all our time arguing who’s idea it was to pick up the stick and use it as a club. We’re literally the joke of the galactic community lol
The idea behind of patents is that there is mandatory disclosure. If I have an idea, decide not to use, and don’t tell anyone about it, what good is it to anyone?
Sure they did. The recording industry didn't like the available options at the time, so Apple created a tailored DRM solution that they could all agree upon. Apple didn't want to use DRM, but that was the only way they could reach an agreement with the labels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlayApple didn't create DRM
While some take pleasure in such settlements, there is real world impact. Cover Flow disappeared from MacOS because of a patient troll settlement. Apple will have to decide how to change its software to comply. It's not $300M and free to use after that.
Like many things, litigation law in the US needs to be revised. But, much of settlement money allways recirculates back to legislators. Do you really think the pending infrastructure bill for Trillions is really going to build a bridge?
Like many things, litigation law in the US needs to be revised. But, much of settlement money allways recirculates back to legislators. Do you really think the pending infrastructure bill for Trillions is really going to build a bridge?
Texass...or 'I'm poor; you're rich...I want some of what you have even if its not going to me but someone else'.
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
Bunch of whinny little bitches they are. I just came from a thread where people were making fun of a $6 million ruling against Apple.
not the point though.
trolls who make nothing and never intended to. judge should be ashamed.
Patent companies should be stripped of patents. They are just leeches on society. Software patents, which is math, are bad enough.
Currently owning a Google Pixel phone, which I'm happy to admit I do really like as its clean, clear from 3rd party clutter and I do love the photo's it's able to take and constantly astounded by how it can take photo's and get great results when actual "Proper" cameras from years ago I owned would have produced trash in the same scenario.
Anyway, with that admission out of the window. The one silly little thing I wish Google would add to Android is the rubber banding/bounce back when you hit the end of an area you are scrolling.
It's such a tiny little unimportant thing, and I know Apple did think of it, but I'll admit, I'm shocked than, what? 14 years later? Google is still not able to use the bouncy end of scrolling visual aspect to Android.
Should such a tiny thing as this still be able to not be allowed to use by others for the vast majority of the worlds population to enjoy after 14? years?
Anyway, with that admission out of the window. The one silly little thing I wish Google would add to Android is the rubber banding/bounce back when you hit the end of an area you are scrolling.
It's such a tiny little unimportant thing, and I know Apple did think of it, but I'll admit, I'm shocked than, what? 14 years later? Google is still not able to use the bouncy end of scrolling visual aspect to Android.
Should such a tiny thing as this still be able to not be allowed to use by others for the vast majority of the worlds population to enjoy after 14? years?
Agree and appreciate a good argument put forward by you.
And I also agree, it is not as easy as i pointed out few points to change patent world, but it has to be started, its already too late.
Around the world people are studying and researching and trying to solve problems, i'm pretty sure 2 companies/labs, totally disconnected from each can arrive at the same solution to a problem, but the patent will be given to only one. Its a sad state. And i dont hear about any progress to fix patent problems it seems no one is even trying to fix such a broken system (i may be wrong, i havent researched too much into it).
The other side of the “patent troll” coin is that Apple, MS, Intel, Samsung, etc. routinely steal and reverse engineer billion dollar ideas, and the only recourse for the inventor is to sell out to a patent farm for a percentage of the take.
The courts are stacked against the little guy going up directly against the oligarchy, so you need to team with “Dewey, Cheatum and Howe” patent trolls to recover anything.
The courts are stacked against the little guy going up directly against the oligarchy, so you need to team with “Dewey, Cheatum and Howe” patent trolls to recover anything.
Conservatives are always wanting to close down the 9th circuit, yawn. It's "liberal." This little graft ring in Texas, the little incestuous racket run there, is screwing up our patent laws to make some corrupt cash. Can we just shut this place down? It would be for the good of all businesses and the whole industry, from startups to universities to business. One company that just amasses vague ideas and uses big corporations-- or sometimes, small software compaies, are not good for the economy, except among lawyers, hustler trolls, and clerks of the court who put this crap in a court. The patent law was about an industry doing capital investment and research that could be protected so you could make money on it and make the industry bigger. It's not about what I call "devil investors," who figure out how they can dig up some stupid patent and get a billion from Apple. Underwriting legal trolls is not good patent law.
I know nothing about patent law so I don’t know if Reverse engineering a patent and implementing it a different way will stave off the lawsuits. (Similar to the clean room approach to dos implementation and development in the 1980s).
I did catch the reference to “Dewey, Cheatum and Howe” as I started laughing.
You either do the thing that the patent claims, or you don’t. If you do, you infringe. Doesn’t matter how you learned about it (though if you knew about the patent ahead of time, and knew you were infringing, you could have to pay higher damages)
