On the other hand, what a pointless and idiotic post to make. That sort of comment adds to the dialogue how exactly?
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 $532.9 Million in iTunes-Related Patent Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On the other hand, what a pointless and idiotic post to make. That sort of comment adds to the dialogue how exactly?
The flipside of patent trolls is patent research.
These big companies (Apple included) spend a lot of money on R&D and part of that should be researching whether these innovations of theirs are already patented by others.
You either find the patent holder and make a deal or you bull ahead figuring you'll just rake in the cash as long as you can and then give some back when finally forced to.
It's the cost of doing business.
This idea that patent trolls simply come out of the woodwork with surprise "gotcha" patents is just wrong.
Someone either didn't do their homework or decided it was cheaper not to.
These big companies (Apple included) spend a lot of money on R&D and part of that should be researching whether these innovations of theirs are already patented by others.
You either find the patent holder and make a deal or you bull ahead figuring you'll just rake in the cash as long as you can and then give some back when finally forced to.
It's the cost of doing business.
This idea that patent trolls simply come out of the woodwork with surprise "gotcha" patents is just wrong.
Someone either didn't do their homework or decided it was cheaper not to.
I believe you need millionaire lawyers in order to sue Apple and win too. And has Apple ever sued over technology that they own and were granted a patent on but have never implemented in any way? Companies that aren't patent trolls sue to protect their property even though they own thousands of IP they don't currently sell. Companies that are patent trolls sue over IP they own but do not nor ever utilize or sell.
My question to you is will you be saying the same thing about Samsung, Google, and Amazon when they are assessed the same damages for the same patents? Or ,like the Chinese labor issues, will you assert that only Apple is guilty?
You try license it and get a few penny for it per device, if its worth anything, people will pay for your license (like they pay for many others).. They won't pay 1 or several dollar per device though... (maybe that's were the 4.5M Apple is ready to give them comes from, a small multiple of current licensing fees for similar patents).
Also, those patents are not based on any effort at all. That so called little guy is being gibbed out of anything real really. If the patent office actually worked, they wouldn't have a patent in the first place. In many places in the word they in fact don't get those patents awarded (and they don't even try).
As for the straw man "litle guy".
What about the thousands of "little guys", small firms, which are hurt by the fact that everything that exist on earth, even the most trivial, have been patented and they don't have the 10 patent lawyers, the time, and the money, to investigate and license all those shlock patents.
Those schlock patents are an hindrance to entrepreneurship of tens of thousands of little guys.
So, what they often do, they start their business which actually uses all of them (often unwittingly) and when they are successful those dozens of "pseudo little guy" who do nothing at all except having a heap of those schlock patents sues.
If someone has discovered some truly new process, algorythm, material, patents are fine, I'm all for it. But, the current system is broken and it is small companies that actually produce something that suffer.
Last edited:
i don't have a problem with a patent protecting the work of someone. however, this is patent protecting an idea. there has to be some reasonable protection to allow an inventor some time to flush out his idea but it can't be forever. this company isn't producing anything. they are patenting ideas solely because they think someone else will use them later on and then they can get paid for them.
that's just wrong...
I think the patent laws today are somewhat of a joke. You should be forced to produce some sort of product or plan of action to use that patent in a specified time frame (i.e. 1 year) or forfeit the patent.
You can't have patent trolls getting around what the system was intended to do. It's akin to someone figuring out a way to get Social Security benefits or welfare when they really shouldn't be.
You can't have patent trolls getting around what the system was intended to do. It's akin to someone figuring out a way to get Social Security benefits or welfare when they really shouldn't be.
This is exactly it. Again, those of us who understand software development realize that most of the patents ABSOLUTELY should not exist. They are either based on ideas that are not in the least bit new or innovative or are overly broad. This creates an environment which makes it increasingly more difficult for the "little guy" to actually innovate and puts tremendous risk on them should they see success big enough to put them on the radar. If the Apple haters could turn it off for a minute and actually attempt to comprehend the situation they might actually get how horrible it is and how much worse it is getting. It's to the point where it would be better to take away all software patent protection than keep the system as it is.
Wasn't Apple sponsoring a well known patent troll called "Rockstar"? I suppose, since it's the "big ", that doing the same thing to others is ok.
I would have to agree if this law suit was filed 10 years ago. Waiting until Apple is worth mega-billions puts a whole different face on it. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, tastes like a duck...
They have made a business out of it. These same East Texas towns are notoriously famous speed traps too.
Worked up? Furious? Angry? over a forum discussion of patents that have nothing to do with you? Find a new hobby.
The Patent system is clearly broken as many have commented. However, if some genuinely invents something and gets a patent for it, they are entitled to defend it. Furthermore, if instead they sell their patent to someone else, that other person or company should be able to defend that investment in the patent. The problem really comes with companies that purchase the patent only to sue and make money. The should instead attempt to licence the patent so that others can use the technology. the difference in this approach is where I would distinguish the Troll from the Legit. But that difference should not negate the fact that it is a Patent that was awarded and can therefore be defended.
They weren't sponsoring a patent troll. They were protecting themselves from wireless technology patent infringement because of the system. Google tried to purchase them themselves. Apple was part of a consortium along with Microsoft, Sony and others trying to protect their own wireless interests. To try and spin it as Apple being a troll or sponsoring a troll is disingenuous at best.
So, what about the several 100K firms who don't have that kind of money to cover the massive amount of research that is needed to cover the hundreds of patents they unwittingly broke, many for the most trivial of things, by just writing a few lines of code or creating the simplest web site (or process). Those new guys have one brilliant idea but their existence is put in jeopardy because they didn't think to take out a patent for basic sorting in the 1990s, when they were 5 year old?
They are screwed in your book? This is more akin to net neutrality were crazy patents are a big barrier for everyone else. The affect of this for Apple is a pinprick, for those smaller firms it is a bane to their existence.
Software patents are such a mess, and so extensive, that saying researching them should uncover them is simply not true. By the time you've found one (even if your large), you may already have had your product released a few years. Often, companies (most are small) remove the crap when they find out (if it doesn't cripple them); but, the trolls off course still sue.
The same can be said of any defendant, as well. But I have some personal/professional experience with this. And when you venue shop to East Texas it generally means that you're smart enough to know that your case is better served if the law isn't necessarily applied equally...
No it doesn't. You clearly don't know what patents are for. A patent is to give a company time to develop and market its invention, and gives them protecting from unfair competition for a number of years.
BUT... you have to actually be making that product. So Apple started the facts that they are NOT a company making products, and are just a patent holding company. They bought a patent that never made it to market and are trying to make money off it. That's the definition of patent troll.
There's a Huge Difference
Apple made the iPhone in 2007. Samsung at first copied it down to the color of the telephone icon. Made it resemble the iPhone in many ways. The judge agreed. If you risk your own money to make something genuinely new, you get some period during which you get exclusivity. Does Windows Phone infringe? No. Does Blackberry infringe? No. Samsung did.
The other case is where some guy buys up patents and makes no products except a lawsuit. Where is the product that Apple infringed on? This is a patent troll.
But if the patent system goes away, a lot fewer new things will be made, because why bother? You invest a lot of time and effort and out come the copies within a year or less. With no patent law, there's no incentive to invest in something genuinely new. If it's a failure, you lose more money, and if it's a success, the copies begin immediately.
The idea that the patent law is worthless, and gives the public nothing, is absurd. Benjamin Franklin would be ashamed of you.
Apple made the iPhone in 2007. Samsung at first copied it down to the color of the telephone icon. Made it resemble the iPhone in many ways. The judge agreed. If you risk your own money to make something genuinely new, you get some period during which you get exclusivity. Does Windows Phone infringe? No. Does Blackberry infringe? No. Samsung did.
The other case is where some guy buys up patents and makes no products except a lawsuit. Where is the product that Apple infringed on? This is a patent troll.
But if the patent system goes away, a lot fewer new things will be made, because why bother? You invest a lot of time and effort and out come the copies within a year or less. With no patent law, there's no incentive to invest in something genuinely new. If it's a failure, you lose more money, and if it's a success, the copies begin immediately.
The idea that the patent law is worthless, and gives the public nothing, is absurd. Benjamin Franklin would be ashamed of you.
Well you know, unlike Apple, who employ, what, say, 600,000 App designers? Well, you know, that's what Cook keeps telling us.
There are not that many nickels in the world. But you believed that? lol
This firm doesn't make any products. If you have a patent you have to make a product or you run the risk of losing the patent. And this patent is really vague. They should never have gotten it.
Did anyone just say that it was worthless. We were calling most software patents worthless, and 99% of them are. Some software patents that deal with complex algorythms are not worthless (say for compression or crypto). But, those are by far the exception rather than the rule.
You can reform the patent system without throwing everything out. Right now the current system protects trolls and big companies and everyone else suffers. That's not what the original system's intent was I'm sure.
Patent searches
It's ridiculous to think that Apple, or any other big company, doesn't do patent searches before they bring out a new product. But there are vast numbers of things that may have a patent, but nobody has put them in the market. There's no product. Sometimes the description is so general and vague you might not see any significance at all to your product. Quick nuisance suits are settled quickly. If they wanted $10 million, here you go, sign this saying we don't admit to actual infringement, but here's your blackmail money anyway.
You should have to show actual infringement on an actual product that caused damage, beyond the patent troll's lack of money for a Merceds.
It's ridiculous to think that Apple, or any other big company, doesn't do patent searches before they bring out a new product. But there are vast numbers of things that may have a patent, but nobody has put them in the market. There's no product. Sometimes the description is so general and vague you might not see any significance at all to your product. Quick nuisance suits are settled quickly. If they wanted $10 million, here you go, sign this saying we don't admit to actual infringement, but here's your blackmail money anyway.
You should have to show actual infringement on an actual product that caused damage, beyond the patent troll's lack of money for a Merceds.