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
So a large company that has patents they might not be using is more entitled than a small company that has patents they aren't using?
I think it's the plaintiff's right to fight for their patent and I think it's the defendant's right to fight to invalidate the patent. We should applaud the testing of the system. Not a particular side.
The issues is, I think, is that the current Patent office was originally set up for physical things, like mousetraps.
You can see them, you can see their parts, and how they work and it's relatively easily compare them to other physical things.
but with software, we have companies patenting things that are very abstract.
And, while I do think that some software should be patent-able, like a new novel compression algorithm, we have companies (Apple included) patenting such overly broad ideas that it seems if I worded it right could patent the idea of a picture!
This problem seems hard to solve. Perhaps, require the patent submitter on non-physical items (like software/pharmaceuticals/etc...) have them peer reviewed by a panel of experts from the appropriate field at their expense.
If the company really believes in their software is a specific and novel invention, then the cost would be worth it. If they are just trying to patent garbage, then they would be throwing money away, as it will likely never make it through review.
You can see them, you can see their parts, and how they work and it's relatively easily compare them to other physical things.
but with software, we have companies patenting things that are very abstract.
And, while I do think that some software should be patent-able, like a new novel compression algorithm, we have companies (Apple included) patenting such overly broad ideas that it seems if I worded it right could patent the idea of a picture!
This problem seems hard to solve. Perhaps, require the patent submitter on non-physical items (like software/pharmaceuticals/etc...) have them peer reviewed by a panel of experts from the appropriate field at their expense.
If the company really believes in their software is a specific and novel invention, then the cost would be worth it. If they are just trying to patent garbage, then they would be throwing money away, as it will likely never make it through review.
Hmmm...from what I've read here and the links provided, wouldn't this patent have to predate basically all internet shopping of downloadable content in order to not be thrown out on the basis of an overwhelming amount of prior art? Theoretically, due to how broad it is, it covers even gaining access to pay wall sites, digital subscriptions and file access, as well as non-free software repositories, etc...right?
Also, are the holders required to try to license the patent first? And due to the generality and broadness of the patent, there being literaly 10's of billions of devices that are possibly infringing or have infringed earlier...would something like a FRAND claim be in order? Similar to the antenna patent thing we were hearing about a year or two ago?
Just asking speculative questions, anyone with more knowledge want to share their thoughts on my ideas?
Also, are the holders required to try to license the patent first? And due to the generality and broadness of the patent, there being literaly 10's of billions of devices that are possibly infringing or have infringed earlier...would something like a FRAND claim be in order? Similar to the antenna patent thing we were hearing about a year or two ago?
Just asking speculative questions, anyone with more knowledge want to share their thoughts on my ideas?
Last edited:
You have way too much faith in a broken patent system. Someone successfully patented toasting bread in the year 2000:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436
There is always source code to look at...there must be tons of instances where completely different code is used to accomplish the same or similar task or effect. I think you are on to something though. You've got what seems to be an issue where you can patent an idea, but you don't have to create a working prototype or functioning program to get it patented.
It seems like I could theoretically use very technical sci-fi terminology to describe a system that uses an internal nuclear fusion cell to power an anti-gravity propulsion engine to power a flying car, such as those seen in Back to the Future II, and then just sit back and wait for it to actually be invented by someone else - Then rake in the money?
Is there a fundamental problem with requiring a functional prototype/proof of concept in order for a patent to be awarded...other than it being cumbersome?
Apple now operates in anyway it wishes no matter who they harm, which laws they break, or what their products are like, just be sure the magic Apple logo is predominantly displayed.
That's their pass allowing them to do whatever they wish. In turn any legal action or consequences directed at them are quickly smothered under a pile of cash given to the opposing party.
The massive, evergreen cash reserves of Apple assures their domination.
It's good to be Apple
That's their pass allowing them to do whatever they wish. In turn any legal action or consequences directed at them are quickly smothered under a pile of cash given to the opposing party.
The massive, evergreen cash reserves of Apple assures their domination.
It's good to be Apple
Ha ha ha...to be fair though, this was a toaster that super-heated bread for about half the time of a traditional toaster, and at four times the temperatures (4500F vs circa 1500F)...
Did I...
... Get it right? The patent was filed in 2006 and is about iTunes that was introduced in 2001?
... Get it right? The patent was filed in 2006 and is about iTunes that was introduced in 2001?
Just want to call to attention that this is not accurate.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8118221 (claim 32)
http://www.google.com/patents/US7334720 (claim 13)
http://www.google.com/patents/US8336772 (claims 26 and 32)
Four things are worth noting about them: (1) their priority date is 1999, far predating iTunes; (2) they are drawn to a very specific implementation of DRM, and not the vague concept of DRM; and (3) the original assignee in all of them is Smartflash, which means this is not just some troll who bought the patents and went crazy suing with them. (4) They received a 3x judgement in which demonstrates that Apple KNOWINGLY violated these patents ("After deliberating for eight hours in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the jury said that Apple not only had used the Smartflash patents without permission but also had done so willfully.")
None-the-less, patent (mainly software) definitively need a reform. Tyler, TX is especially known to rule in favor of the one bringing the lawsuit.
Last edited:
Read what I wrote within the context in which it was written. Intentionally or not, you overlooked the very sentence in my quote that makes your reply moot: "That's why it's so hard for me to have sympathy for Apple in this particular situation."
You then acknowledge but ignore the the entire reason for my post. Zorilynx posted his definition of a patent troll. My reply: "Because based on what I bolded from your quote, Apple was just as guilty of this behavior as Smartflash." I then proceeded to show the similarities; using Rockstar as an example.
Your reply to my quote simply introduces a straw man argument and completely changes the subject to one not being discussed. None of what you wrote has anything to do with my quote. Not even remotely. I'm more than happy discuss my position on what I wrote. I'm more than happy to discuss what you wrote. I'd only ask that we discuss each separately, since they have nothing to do with each other.
So forgive me if I don't see how my quote is nonsense.
The problem is, patents should only be good for 12-24 months unless you can prove that you are actively working on the product/service or actively licensing or selling the product/service.
You can't just come up with an idea, patent it, and do NOTHING with it except sue people.
You can't just come up with an idea, patent it, and do NOTHING with it except sue people.
The iTunes STORE was closer to 2003/4 in adoption that encompasses what the patent in question covers; payments, content distro, accounts, etc. whatevs.
It hasn't been proven it's "their work" as of yet. So as of now Superflash can be considered a patent troll.
But that isn't what was said. Yes, there is a current 20+6 expiration for patents, but the statement was 'if they aren't used' they expire, assuming the writer was meaning earlier.
There appears to be no mechanism that would 'expire' a patent if it's not used.
So a company can buy a patent, and sit on it, like a spider, or a snake, and wait until someone puts something out that is remotely like their patent, and 'throw the spaghetti on the wall[/i] and see if they luck out and get a sympathetic court.
There was a recent case where the court, on appeal, ruled that the original court erred in deciding for the patent holder because the patent did not cover the actions of the infringer. The patent holder has nothing to worry about. If they lose, they pay their costs. If they win, or are able to force the alleged infringer to settle, well, they win...
MANY smaller companies have been forced to settle outrageous suits based on them not having the capital to fight the case. Considering that these cases can, and often do, last for tens of years, and the costs involved of searching for prior work, and other avenues, they are very costly for the accused.
That's why, IMO, software should never have been allowed to be patented. Period.
I'm really amused to see how some comments could always be turned against Apple here, even when it's clear enough they are the victim .......
How is it clear?
And victim is an interesting word. It's a personification of a corporation.
If you read my posts - you'll see that I'm all for testing the system. And both sides are valid in doing so
Correct. The point here it's not Samsung or Apple. Here there is someone trying to steal money using a bugged framework.
Patent trolls can't be approved.
But you know, if it's against Apple someone is happy.....
I think we're saying the same thing. But you're trying to twist it around to make it sound as if I'm putting personal bias here.
Fact is, venue shopping is a known plaintiff strategy. Plaintiffs are not supposed to "pick" a court. A lawsuit's jurisdiction is intended to be determined by the residency of the parties of the lawsuit, and the application of laws by federal courts are not technically supposed to differentiate between jurisdictions.
But East Texas has been known as a huge plaintiffs' venue shopping destination for decades.
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-and-patent-litigation/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/east-texas-courts-are-back-on-top-for-patent-lawsuits/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq
Whole local economies have been built around it.
I bet if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be calling for someone's head on a pike. (like most of you did when Samsung copied Apple's "look")
These guys own the patent.
Apple stole it. (and it's not the first time they did so)
It's the law....rightly or not.
The end!
These guys own the patent.
Apple stole it. (and it's not the first time they did so)
It's the law....rightly or not.
The end!
Last edited by a moderator: