Apple Ordered to Pay $85 Million in Royalties to WiLan in Patent Infringement Case

[robjulo]

Sports aren't complicated...patent law is. I'd be willing bet 90% of those opining on this subject (in this thread and the various others) have no clue what they are talking about, but are keyboard geniuses and will opine anyway.

If you think think you need credentials to hold a valid opinion then sports are going to blow your mind.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

The only pertinent information is the fact that only one of the parties has no interest in, nor ability to bring anything to market- and literally only exists for the purpose of manipulating the legal system w/ regards to patents, & making money off of others’ work, having done none themselves, beyond hiring lawyers.
Those are the ones that are “in the wrong”.

They do have an "interest" in the patent - it is something of value that they hope to be compensated for by an entity that has the ability to bring it to market. You can call it manipulation but if Apple violated the patent then it is Apple who is "in the wrong" and the patent owner should be compensated. If Apple had done their due diligence on prior art, they might have discovered this patent and worked around it. But they didn't. I'm sure Apple files defensive patents on things they don't plan to bring to market and would vigorously defend those patents should someone violate them. And I have no sympathy for Apple in this case as its own greed is well documented.

 

[farewelwilliams]

nope, many phones were NOT able to do that

WiLan doesn't even make a phone. They couldn't *do* that either.
[automerge]1580061522[/automerge]

They did not patent it though.

Square with rounded corners.."because the rest of the world didn't think about that idea."

"And boy have we patented it!" S.J.

Oh, because every tablet must absolutely be rectangular with rounded corners or else it prevents the user from using the device. There's no other way to make a tablet. Not even a tablet with 90 degree corners. It's probably a standards essential patent! That must be why iPad is dominating the tablet market!

Your take is pretty awful. Feel free to reply, but I'm not reading anymore from you.

 

[jw2002]

How in the world was such a patent ever awarded? The concept of multiplexed communication has been around for 5+ decades.

 

[MEJHarrison]

I don't understand the thinking of people who read a brief story like this and without knowing the legal and technical details simply assume that the company suing Apple is sleazy because Apple can do no wrong.

I absolutely agree! I think it's absurd to draw ANY conclusions from a handful of paragraphs summarizing a 10-year long legal battle. I come here hoping to find others who actually do have the legal and technical expertise who will offer up their own water-down version of the facts so I at least have something to compare to.

I'm ignorant on this topic and am here to simply educate myself. I consider stories like this one to be a treasure map to the actual truth. If you want the treasure, you're going to have to put in a lot of legwork to get there. A story like this simply tells me that there is a treasure and then points me in what I hope in the right direction. I see way too many people who think the map itself is the treasure and there's nothing left to be done. They frame it, proudly hang it on their walls and love to tell visitors all about the glorious treasure, what gems it contains, how many pounds of gold there is and exactly where to find it, all from their comfy recliner. I don't get it.

 

[cmaier]

How in the world was such a patent ever awarded? The concept of multiplexed communication has been around for 5+ decades.

You don’t get a patent on an abstract concept. You get a patent on an invention.

The claims go to more than the mere concept of multiplexing.

 

[macfacts]

$85 million dollars is small change to Apple, but patent trolls shouldn’t exist. They’re not actually doing anything productive to the economy except bullying companies to give out cash.

You have forgotten or made one big mistake. The "patent troll" paid for the patent, the inventor got paid. It is apple trying to get something for nothing.

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

They do have an "interest" in the patent - it is something of value that they hope to be compensated for by an entity that has the ability to bring it to market. You can call it manipulation but if Apple violated the patent then it is Apple who is "in the wrong" and the patent owner should be compensated. If Apple had done their due diligence on prior art, they might have discovered this patent and worked around it. But they didn't. I'm sure Apple files defensive patents on things they don't plan to bring to market and would vigorously defend those patents should someone violate them. And I have no sympathy for Apple in this case as its own greed is well documented.

Let’s take Apple out of the equation & I’d like to see you try again to defend your point!
In my earlier example... of a smaller company, with less money to make these things disappear- if some garbage “company” owns the rights to say, 500 minor inventions that would be cool, but aren’t big enough that any super wealthy company will pursue them- the consumer should just be screwed and never see any of those 500 products, the small companies that all have the desire to offer such a product should all be screwed because they can’t afford to pay off the trolls, & the only winner should be the scumbags holding the future hostage by collecting rights to random implementations of ideas that may or may not be implemented someday by someone else, but DEFINITELY will never be created by them?
I mean... I guess that’s a valid opinion to have. But not one I can imagine ANY normal consumer sharing with you. Patent trolls & their lawyers, perhaps- but average consumers probably would prefer to, you know, see the products built for them.

As a final nitpick... I don’t think you’re using the term “prior art” correctly. It’s my understanding that typically refers to something existing, that is similar to your invention- NOT a description of an implementation of an idea, that will never be pursued by the owner, or see the light of day at all- unless it is “violated”, by someone with an actual purpose (beyond taking advantage of others).

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

You have forgotten or made one big mistake. The "patent troll" paid for the patent, the inventor got paid. It is apple trying to get something for nothing.

Nobody forgot anything... the patent troll (no quotation marks necessary), is the only useless ingredient.
The inventor created it & deserved to get paid.
Apple is creating something real & tangible and users deserve to have access to it.
I guess it’s only the patent troll that literally does ZERO work beyond writing two checks- one to bribe creators to abandon chances of their inventions happening, so they can be added to a hoard of patents they’ll never explore utilizing, and one more to their lawyers to scour the world, looking for any company that may have “infringed” on their hypothetical ability to create a product which they have no intention of.

 

[Puppuccino]

You have forgotten or made one big mistake. The "patent troll" paid for the patent, the inventor got paid. It is apple trying to get something for nothing.

The company (troll) should be using it then. Sitting on it doing nothing does nothing but hurt the market as it blocks companies from legitimately utilising patents to create products for the general populous to use.

Only companies with huge resources like Apple stand a chance of getting by when battling these trolls.

 

[weckart]

The company (troll) should be using it then. Sitting on it doing nothing does nothing but hurt the market as it blocks companies from legitimately utilising patents to create products for the general populous to use.

Only companies with huge resources like Apple stand a chance of getting by when battling these trolls.

Or maybe they could actually innovate by finding their own solution to the problem addressed by existing patents. Maybe?

And it blocks companies from legitimately utilising patents to create products for the general populous to use is rather a grand way of saying using existing patents without the intention of paying the inventor for their use. If the patent fees are excessive, then the courts will usually step in and mediate or mandate as the case requires.

 

[cmaier]

Let’s take Apple out of the equation & I’d like to see you try again to defend your point!
In my earlier example... of a smaller company, with less money to make these things disappear- if some garbage “company” owns the rights to say, 500 minor inventions that would be cool, but aren’t big enough that any super wealthy company will pursue them- the consumer should just be screwed and never see any of those 500 products, the small companies that all have the desire to offer such a product should all be screwed because they can’t afford to pay off the trolls, & the only winner should be the scumbags holding the future hostage by collecting rights to random implementations of ideas that may or may not be implemented someday by someone else, but DEFINITELY will never be created by them?
I mean... I guess that’s a valid opinion to have. But not one I can imagine ANY normal consumer sharing with you. Patent trolls & their lawyers, perhaps- but average consumers probably would prefer to, you know, see the products built for them.

As a final nitpick... I don’t think you’re using the term “prior art” correctly. It’s my understanding that typically refers to something existing, that is similar to your invention- NOT a description of an implementation of an idea, that will never be pursued by the owner, or see the light of day at all- unless it is “violated”, by someone with an actual purpose (beyond taking advantage of others).

Your definition of prior art is wrong.
[automerge]1580069486[/automerge]

Or maybe they could actually innovate by finding their own solution to the problem addressed by existing patents. Maybe?

And it blocks companies from legitimately utilising patents to create products for the general populous to use is rather a grand way of saying using existing patents without the intention of paying the inventor for their use. If the patent fees are excessive, then the courts will usually step in and mediate or mandate as the case requires.

No they won’t.

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

Your definition of prior art is wrong.
[automerge]1580069486[/automerge]

Noted.

Please strike from the record.

Lol, wow... these legal articles are getting in my head. ;0)

 

[H2SO4]

Making phone calls while simultaneously downloading data...because the rest of the world didn't think about that idea.

Was thinking the same thing, but I suspect there must be more to it than it appears on the surface. As to the usual group of, "I hate patent trolls", postsers. Any company that doesn't exercise their patents whether they bought or filed them, (but holds on to them just to stop others getting them), is one too surely?

 

[wigby]

All about money. Not just the Chinese infringe on patents but Apple as well. Then there are those that create patents just to sue.

Apple has more money than anyone and they don't care much about it. It's all about control with Apple and that means setting legal precedents or settling and just moving on to the next technology to gain more control over the user experience.

 

[justperry]

Why should they? Patenting exists to ensure your work is protected but if you have no plans to actually use the patent and simply try and sue other companies that may or may not infringe it then that’s just immoral. I know businesses are generally morally bankrupt by nature anyway but you’d hope some may see sense in what they’re doing.

Ummm.... you can’t see how this stifles innovation & new products??
Imagine you are NOT Apple, with super deep pockets to pay these clowns- so, a small company that has ideas they want to struggle to bring to fruition & offer genuine products to people should be able to be blocked and decimated because some lame company bought up a bunch of patents that they’re sitting on with no intention of ever creating anything.... waiting for someone else to do all the work, then pounce and demand the profits of their work?
Ok. Sounds like the consumers lose, the scrappy company trying to offer us something new would lose- the only winner would be... you guessed it, the patent troll.
I’m glad that at least they’re getting caught up for years fighting to to get this money- which, to me, seems like blatant extortion.

I added the ???!!! for a reason, I just wanted to make a point, it's not really much different if you make money yourself from a patent or let others do it.
Example, I own a flat, I rent this out..I make money, or I let someone else do it, in this case the "patent troll".

I am not really a fan of them either, same for so called investment bodies, they make life more expensive.

 

[now i see it]

once again.... goes to show that the iPhone is chocked to the gills with stolen IP - that (once again) has to be rectified in court with (once again) another jaw dropping lawsuit.

Obviously apple knows it's stealing other's IP when it implements it into an iPhone and feels it's a good business decision to force the defendant into a long protracted court battle.

They have such a tarnished image

 

[cmaier]

once again.... goes to show that the iPhone is chocked to the gills with stolen IP - that (once again) has to be rectified in court with (once again) another jaw dropping lawsuit.

Obviously apple knows it's stealing other's IP when it implements it into an iPhone and feels it's a good business decision to force the defendant into a long protracted court battle

None of that is obvious at all. You can infringe a patent without having any knowledge that the patent even exists. In fact, that’s how most patent infringement happens.

And infringing a patent is not “stealing” IP.

 

[cycomiko]

Why should they? Patenting exists to ensure your work is protected but if you have no plans to actually use the patent and simply try and sue other companies that may or may not infringe it then that’s just immoral. I know businesses are generally morally bankrupt by nature anyway but you’d hope some may see sense in what they’re doing.

you realize a large percentage of patents never lead through to any product? they are for additional leverage around your primary inventions.

 

[jimbobb24]

Software patents need to be restricted to 3-5 years from the awarding of the patent. The current system is ridiculous.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

As a final nitpick... I don’t think you’re using the term “prior art” correctly. It’s my understanding that typically refers to something existing, that is similar to your invention- NOT a description of an implementation of an idea, that will never be pursued by the owner, or see the light of day at all- unless it is “violated”, by someone with an actual purpose (beyond taking advantage of others).

No. And it's interesting that someone with such strong opinions about patents doesn't know what prior art is. This is just something I quickly found from the European Patent Office and is relevant:

Prior art is any evidence that your invention is already known. Prior art does not need to exist physically or be commercially available. It is enough that someone, somewhere, sometime previously has described or shown or made something that contains a use of technology that is very similar to your invention.

 

[oneMadRssn]

In my dream world, there’s no such thing as a patent licensing company.

In that dream world, investors don’t invest in new startups nearly as much because it would be far too risky. Patents are basically collateral for investors, knowing that worst case scenario they can sell the patents in bankruptcy and recoup some losses. For example, companies spun out of university research would get nearly zero investment.

Patent licensing companies are why patents have value, which is why investors care whether startups have IP and why it is critical for startups to develop IP to attract investment.

 

[rp2011]

Yes. So. Upset. That. Wealthiest. Company. In. World. Should. Pay. Royalties. For. Patent. Infringement.
very upset.

 

[cmaier]

Software patents need to be restricted to 3-5 years from the awarding of the patent. The current system is ridiculous.

What’s a “software patent,” and given that these patents don’t claim software, how are “software patents” relevant to this topic?

 

[Quu]

When people decry the high cost of iPhones this is the sort of thing that keeps the prices high. Not just this (obviously) but it's one of the laundry list of reasons. The words patent troll come to mind.