Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple isn't a patent troll. Apple patents something to implement in current and future devices.
Good day.

A simple question for someone who isn't versed in patent law turns into an odd debate. I don't believe my question was out of line, if Apple sits on a patent for a product that they have not manufactured and will readily sue someone else for infringing on that patent, why does that not make them a patent troll?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A simple question for someone who isn't versed in patent law turns into an odd debate. I don't believe my question was out of line, if Apple sits on a patent for a product that they have not manufactured and will readily sue someone else for infringing on that patent, why does that not make them a patent troll?

Super hard to get a honest discussion here. Apple can do no wrong here, they steal tech and its ok. But god forgive any company that steals from them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Super hard to get a honest discussion here. Apple can do no wrong here, they steal tech and its ok. But god forgive any company that steals from them

There will always be fanboys to defend their position. Apple sitting on patents they will never use is one example, there should be a limit on how long they can sit on a patent without implementation yet. I'm not familiar with patent law, does anything like that exist or is the time frame the same for an executed patent versus a patent which has not been executed?
 
There will always be fanboys to defend their position. Apple sitting on patents they will never use is one example, there should be a limit on how long they can sit on a patent without implementation yet. I'm not familiar with patent law, does anything like that exist or is the time frame the same for an executed patent versus a patent which has not been executed?

It's the same time frame.

After all, a patent does not give you the ability to use your invention. It gives you the legal ability to prevent others from using your invention. Subtle but important difference.

That doesn't necessarily mean you must do so. As the famous IP Judge Posner put it one time, it's a mistake to think that "just because someone has a patent, he has a deep moral right to exclude everyone else [from using the same invention]".

As for sitting on patents, every US company is now racing to patent as much as they can, for defensive purposes. What else can they do? But at least that is a benign use, compared to those companies who actively try to use their software patents offensively in order to stop their competition.
 
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..

Yes, I did read your post. No, I don't work for Yahoo News. The "small part" was one of two sentences. What, you prefer I quote the whole thing? OK.

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 expressed an opinion (should only...), and followed that with a statement, as if factual (You can't just...)
I don't see where context is missing.
I pointed out that the statement was wrong, i.e. you CAN patent an idea and do nothing except sue people for it.

If you had instead said "You *shouldn't* be able to just come up with an idea...", I would have agreed.
 
full judgment

hello, thanks for your information.
But I'm really wondering where can I find the full judgment of the district court of Texas?
Can anyone provide me a link?
Thank you.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.