What happened was, as the internet grew the patient office really didnt know how to deal with requests so they approved alot of very vague patients. That werent actual things but vague sketches which is why no one ever goes after these to years later. Lawyers start companies and buy these never implemented patients cheap and sue.They do it in Texas which is plaintiff heaven. Patient law is so expense most will just license.
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
You really don't know how the legal system works, or how it hasn't worked in the past.
It's not over until the 'fat lady sings'. There will be an appeal, and if the appeals court invalidates this earlier decision, will you be around to eat crow?
It's not like that very thing has never happened, and especially considering this venue, it is very possible that it will be smacked down either in whole, or in part.
Popcorn anyone?
Last edited by a moderator:
You're a genius.
If Apple says "we are willing to pay $4.5 million", they acknowledge that they are willing to pay $4.5 million, nothing else.
If Apple said "we admit we are guilty", they would admit they are guilty. But they never said that, so they haven't admitted any guilt.
Your brilliant idea that offering a settlement is admitting guilt, if that how the law worked, would mean that nobody would ever again get a settlement from any company, because they would be absolutely unable to make any offers and would be forced to fight any case to the end.
They didn't. They patented a new method of toasting bread. And if someone finds a new and better method for toasting bread, I'm all for it. You can still use your old toaster. Toaster manufacturers can still build their old toasters and can continue to do so forever. If you want to build a toaster using this new and hopefully improved method, you have to pay a license fee. If you find a different way to improve toasters, you can patent it.
Here's what Google's plan was:
1. Acquire patents from a failing or failed company - Nortel
2. Form a company that produces nothing - Starrock Consortium
3. Sue large company for settlement or damages - Apple and Microsoft
4. File suit in patent holder friendly jurisdiction - Filed in East Texas
Apple and the others in their group offered more. Obviously they paid for (a) the right to use these patents and not be sued and (b) the right to sue others. And that is exactly what Google would have paid for.
Now you must help me, but where did Apple actually sue Google using the Nortel patents? I must have missed that. I didn't miss that Google actually _did_ sue Microsoft for $4 billion using patents they bought from Motorola, and they lost their case. And I didn't miss that Samsung tried to sue everyone and was threatened in the EU with a 13 billion dollar fine if they didn't stop their anti-competitive behaviour.
There's the German system, where the cost of lawyers and the cost of the court (the loser pays the court, not the state) are based on the amount of money the plaintiff asks for. If they asked for $500 million, and Apple offered $4.5 million, then they are suing for $495.5 million, and the fees paid are a percentage of that.
If Apple were ordered to pay $10 million instead of the $4.5 million they offered, the court would say that the plaintiff got $490 million less than they asked for, while Apple pays $5.5 million more than they offered, so the cost of lawyers and court are divided up accordingly (with these numbers, the plaintiff would pay almost 99% of the cost). Note that the cost of lawyers is limited by these rules. You can't make them spend unlimited money and drive the cost up.
That's why nobody sues for ridiculous amounts of money in Germany. Because it would be really expensive if you don't get it.
1. True - Google did bid for the Nortel patent portfolio
2. Outright lie - you made that up.
3. Another outright lie - why make up crap?
4. Trifecta of lies - congrats. I am embarrassed for you.
To say you have no proof of what you wrote is a massive understatement. You have no clue what Google's plan was. Neither do I. Regardless, Google's "plan" in no way negates Apple's Rockstar actions. Instead of addressing what I wrote, you pull out some fictitious red herring, straw man stuff. I seriously don't understand how you thought this was okay.
This straw man still fails to address the topic of my quote. There was never a question of who won the bid or what they planned to do with the patents. My assertion was Apple, through Rockstar, did the exact same thing Smartflash was accused of doing. I had no idea of Apple's plan. I do know what they did though.
October 2013 Rockstar sued Google, Samsung, HTC, LG and a number of other companies. Google countersued in December of 2013. Settlement was reached in November of 2014. What? Did you actually think I was making this up about the lawsuit?
You love the straw man don't you? What does this have to do with the topic at hand? A topic you neglected to address; choosing instead to talk about everything else but. As I told Gasu E. earlier, I am will to discuss anything as long as we engage in honest dialogue, free from made up stuff.
Actually the head of our patent legal department always used to say "Remember, a patent doesn't give you the right to use that invention. It gives you the right to prevent other people from using that invention." (without compensation)
I agree the patent system is broken, but unfortunately they CAN do precisely this without having any intention of using it themselves. I think the better questions is, after scanning the patent, it is so general that I don't see how ANY smart card transaction would not be in violation; it seems to me like it should not have been granted in the first place. Maybe they're planning on going after VISA and MC next.
----------
No, you don't.
Again - yes you can. The system may be broken, but that is exactly how it is set up.
----------
1] a dumb patent that should not have been issued
2] that is not the definition of a patent troll
Sometime its laughable of what all things can be patented. I just imagine if the ******** pot was patented that company would've been much bigger than Apple as there's hardly any different way to make that
Last edited by a moderator:
If there is an infringement happening, companies just overblown it like its a big deal by trying to back it up...
If a company infringes on anything, then they know it. And if they don't, they look at least do the right thing and look at the patents, instead of complain in court over a long windy lawsuit..
Nothing wrong with telling the truth.
If a company infringes on anything, then they know it. And if they don't, they look at least do the right thing and look at the patents, instead of complain in court over a long windy lawsuit..
Nothing wrong with telling the truth.
The purpose of patents
The purpose of the patent system was PRIMARILY to promote the invention and sale of new and useful items. The method by which this was done was to afford a temporary monopoly to the first inventor, and subsequently show the content of the patent to the public so that the monopoly was necessarily time-limited. Everyone sees the invention in its entirety and can benefit from it after the patent expires by having the information available to the public.
Does the penalty of half a billion dollars promote the sale of items based on this invention? I'm not against inventors, but if someone offered me $4.5 million for my ideas, I'd be happy for the money, and to see my invention out in public use making the world a better place. Half a billion is not based on the value of the patent, but on the value of Apple. This is not a company trying to get credit for its invention, this is an opportunistic money grab. This gives Texas, patents, and lawyers all bad names. It's disgusting.
The purpose of the patent system was PRIMARILY to promote the invention and sale of new and useful items. The method by which this was done was to afford a temporary monopoly to the first inventor, and subsequently show the content of the patent to the public so that the monopoly was necessarily time-limited. Everyone sees the invention in its entirety and can benefit from it after the patent expires by having the information available to the public.
Does the penalty of half a billion dollars promote the sale of items based on this invention? I'm not against inventors, but if someone offered me $4.5 million for my ideas, I'd be happy for the money, and to see my invention out in public use making the world a better place. Half a billion is not based on the value of the patent, but on the value of Apple. This is not a company trying to get credit for its invention, this is an opportunistic money grab. This gives Texas, patents, and lawyers all bad names. It's disgusting.
A few interesting things after reading the news stories and the court documents.
Smartflash claimed that they had a meeting 10-years ago with the guy who went on to become one of Apple's senior directors.
Apple claimed that they did know about the patent but that they had decided that it was invalid.
Apple and Smartflash both demanded a jury trial rather than a judges ruling.
Looks to me like Apple willfully violated the patent (counting on the fact that it would later be nullified by the courts) and then demanded the jury trial to try and capitalize on the whole patent troll aspect.
In other words, they knew exactly what they were doing and counted on the rewards outweighing the risks.
Business 101.
Think whatever you like but neither side really deserves any pity here -- it's all just business.
Smartflash claimed that they had a meeting 10-years ago with the guy who went on to become one of Apple's senior directors.
Apple claimed that they did know about the patent but that they had decided that it was invalid.
Apple and Smartflash both demanded a jury trial rather than a judges ruling.
Looks to me like Apple willfully violated the patent (counting on the fact that it would later be nullified by the courts) and then demanded the jury trial to try and capitalize on the whole patent troll aspect.
In other words, they knew exactly what they were doing and counted on the rewards outweighing the risks.
Business 101.
Think whatever you like but neither side really deserves any pity here -- it's all just business.
wow, you totally didn't even read my post. If you did, you'd realize the context of the small part you decided to quote. Do you work for Yahoo News?. Typical..
You forgot one thing. Apple will drag this on 10 years and eventually they'll pay 5-10M max if they pay anything at all. That those crappy software patent are about to be dealt their death knelt in the supreme court and all those people won't get anything very soon.
Also :
- this patent is a heap of dung, and I've dealt with a lot of IP.
- they didn't demonstrate meeting that guy at all, so hey!
- what'S their excuse for going after Google, or whatever... They all met these guys in coffee shops 10 years ago.
- the reason for jury trials is that they're often easier to overturn (especially with this crazy award thing) and go to appeal. Courts in east Texas are a joke and Apple wants to get the hell out of there.
When did Google sued Microsoft?
No, Samsung was not threatened
----------
The amazing world of software patents, non practicing entities and the East Texas district, what can be wrong?
I never understood the difference between a patent troll and Apple patenting so much stuff out of left field that it probably will never use. If Apple sues me for infringing on one of their patents that they are just sitting on, aren't they patent trolls as well? There should be some kind of time limit on patents if they are not actually implemented.
A patent troll doesn't manufacture anything. They just collect other peoples (tenuous highly generalised) patents and attempt to extort money from those companies that manufacture using lawyers.
In case you didn't notice, Apple actually manufacture quite a lot of things...
I still don't understand the patents they sit on though, not the stuff they actually manufacturer. Just because the company suing Apple hasn't manufactured or produced a product doesn't mean that are any less of a patent troll than Apple themselves are.
Apple isn't a patent troll. Apple patents something to implement in current and future devices.
Good day.
Last edited by a moderator: