Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why would Apple believe 4.5 million dollars was a fair settlement if they truly believe they did not infringe upon these patents in the first place?

Oh that's right, what's a few measley million dollars when it will save us from paying out 1/2 a billion dollars in the long run.

The "scales of justice" in 2015.

Paying 4.5 million is cheaper than the lawsuit expenses.

It is a go away fee.
 
Nonsense. Apple vs. Google/Samsung is Godzilla vs. Mothra. Patent battles are one of the ways giant Megacorps fight for world domination. This is nothing like patent trolls, who are leeches that go after large and small companies alike. While Apple could choose to pay them off, patent trolls have happily put good companies out of business. You should applaud big companies like Apple who choose to fight; Apple may be doing this for their own reasons, but if Apple wins, these patent claims will be invalidated and small companies will benefit as well.

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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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 as s 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.

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 :)
 
Nah, it's fairly easy to comment.

If this were a company like Samsung, that actually produces a product and contributes to the economy, that would be one thing. The case might have some merit. But these patent trolls are not.

They produce nothing; all they do is acquire obscure patent portfolios from failing companies, then hire lawyers to look over them to try to find patents that might be violated by huge companies with lots of money, like Apple. Then they sue those companies and try to get damages or settlements.

These patent troll companies are a leech on this industry, and this practice needs to be shut down. Just because something is *legal* doesn't mean it should be allowed. Insider trading was once legal; do you think it should have continued to be permitted?

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:
Nonsense. Apple vs. Google/Samsung is Godzilla vs. Mothra. Patent battles are one of the ways giant Megacorps fight for world domination. This is nothing like patent trolls, who are leeches that go after large and small companies alike. While Apple could choose to pay them off, patent trolls have happily put good companies out of business. You should applaud big companies like Apple who choose to fight; Apple may be doing this for their own reasons, but if Apple wins, these patent claims will be invalidated and small companies will benefit as well.


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.
 
... Get it right? The patent was filed in 2006 and is about iTunes that was introduced in 2001?

The iTunes STORE was closer to 2003/4 in adoption that encompasses what the patent in question covers; payments, content distro, accounts, etc. whatevs.
 
The term patent troll really irks me. Let's see how happy you are when someone uses your work without paying for it. People have a right to be compensated for their work.

It hasn't been proven it's "their work" as of yet. So as of now Superflash can be considered a patent troll.
 
There is a statute of limitations on Patents.

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 think it's hard to comment on cases like this.

Just because it may appear like a money grab - doesn't mean it is. If there's a company or person that legitimately has a patent and wants to test the courts because they believe their patent holds up, they should have the right to do that. Apple's argument about creating job is irrelevant.

And honestly - Apple has sued plenty based on patents that other companies have probably "spent years innovating."

I don't fault Apple for fighting this either. If you believe you haven't "violated" patents that exists, you should take it to court as well.

But no doubt this thread will be filled with people crying patent trolls without knowing all the facts.

One of the ultimate truths is - there is often one (or similar) solution that makes sense and in this day and age - it's nearly impossible to NOT "violate" SOMEONE's patent. I would say this is done completely unknowingly. Not deliberately.

The problem is deeper - it's the patent system in general and how it currently works.
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 .......
 
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
 
Samsung is the next to be sued. You'll be okay when Samsung has to pay $500 million or so too, right?

It's a PATENT TROLL. Everyone should be against them. They're thieves. That's all they are. It's a way a group of lawyers can get rich quick and HAMPERS innvoation.

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.....
 
You're injecting your personal experiences and biases into your assumption. The fact that they are going through this court proves nothing other than they know how to pick a court that will give them the best chances of winning.

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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.