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

[coolfactor]

$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.

Patent licensing companies represent many "inventors", many of which are individuals. It would be a very different world if these individuals were attempting to sue billion dollar companies. Instead, they consolidate under patent licensing companies that specialize in protecting those assets.

But all that said, I think an invention should _only_ be protected if there's a real-world product or service brought to the market.

I think this would be fair:

• If "Company A" think of an idea/solution/approach/algorithm/etc, but never capitalizes on it within a certain period of time, they can't protect it.
• If "Company B" comes up with a similar approach—on their own—they do not owe Company A anything. They would have to prove that they did not know about the pre-existing solution.

Yet in today's world, Company A is "entitled" to royalty payments because they hold the patent. It's crazy!

The patent system must make inventing anything a super-expensive process, even in time to search for existing solutions.

 

[cmaier]

Patent licensing companies represent many "inventors", many of which are individuals. It would be a very different world if these individuals were attempting to sue billion dollar companies. Instead, they consolidate under patent licensing companies that specialize in protecting those assets.

But all that said, I think an invention should _only_ be protected if there's a real-world product or service brought to the market.

I think this would be fair:

• If "Company A" think of an idea/solution/approach/algorithm/etc, but never capitalizes on it within a certain period of time, they can't protect it.
• If "Company B" comes up with a similar approach—on their own—they do not owe Company A anything. They would have to prove that they did not know about the pre-existing solution.

Yet in today's world, Company A is "entitled" to royalty payments because they hold the patent. It's crazy!

The patent system must make inventing anything a super-expensive process, even in time to search for existing solutions.

Nobody would ever take a license to company a’s patent if they knew they need merely run out the clock.

 

[YaBe]

It’s not square, it’s a rectangle. But hard to sell a phone that is a square with rounded corners. It’s a design patent, not a utility patent. Steve Jobs was talking about utility patents. And Samsung has a design patent for a rectangular phone shape with rounded corners as well.
[automerge]1580058948[/automerge]

You are talking about Samsung and their rectangle-with-rounded corners design patent for Galaxy phones?

Nope talking about square icons with rounded corners...

 

[Bonte]

I’m also sure the patent does not merely claim “transmit data while on the phone” or whatnot. It’s what the patent claims say that matters.

This is the patent and it sure looks broad enough, just some fancy drawings to illustrate a 2-way connection. Just stupid.

US8457145B2 - Method and apparatus for bandwidth request/grant protocols in a wireless communication system - Google Patents

A method and apparatus for allocating bandwidth in a broadband wireless communication system is disclosed. One embodiment uses a self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocol. The self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocol utilizes a combination of incremental and aggregate bandwidth...

patents.google.com

 

[weckart]

No they won’t.

Yes they will.

Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (ex Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty) require essential patents to be licensed on FRAND terms.

 

[cmaier]

This is the patent and it sure looks broad enough, just some fancy drawings to illustrate a 2-way connection. Just stupid.

US8457145B2 - Method and apparatus for bandwidth request/grant protocols in a wireless communication system - Google Patents

A method and apparatus for allocating bandwidth in a broadband wireless communication system is disclosed. One embodiment uses a self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocol. The self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocol utilizes a combination of incremental and aggregate bandwidth...

patents.google.com

read the claims. The claims are what determines the scope of the patent

Yes they will.

this is not an essential patent. An essential patent is a patent is a patent from an entity that was involved in a standards setting process (and which must be infringed in carrying out the standard)

Everyone complaining about “patent trolls” should understand that such patents are almost never required to be licensed under FRAND, because the “trolls” were not involved in standards setting. Only when they purchased the patents from bigger entities does FRAND come up.

And when FRAND is not an issue, patentees may charge whatever they’d like. If you refuse to pay, then it’s true they have to justify their damages, but they may also be entitled to an injunction preventing you from selling your products until you pay.

 

[V_Man]

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.

Being in business is about ONE thing. MONEY. No morals in business.
[automerge]1580129106[/automerge]

 

[DeepIn2U]

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

Back in 2001 nobody did until EDGE debuted for GSM based networks. Verizon back then on CDMA2000/2000-EV still could not do that. So, since this case is over a year old, we need to see what year this claim comes from and which iPhone (ahem carrier) this pertains to. Maybe it's over WiFi connectivity?

 

[Kabeyun]

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.

Yes, we’re aware of that hysterical argument. The part I italicized is as hilarious as it is hysterical. A patent licensing company is not the same as a company that does something with its IP besides license and sue.

 

[weckart]

this is not an essential patent. An essential patent is a patent is a patent from an entity that was involved in a standards setting process (and which must be infringed in carrying out the standard)

Everyone complaining about “patent trolls” should understand that such patents are almost never required to be licensed under FRAND, because the “trolls” were not involved in standards setting. Only when they purchased the patents from bigger entities does FRAND come up.

And when FRAND is not an issue, patentees may charge whatever they’d like. If you refuse to pay, then it’s true they have to justify their damages, but they may also be entitled to an injunction preventing you from selling your products until you pay.

That's fair enough. I thought this was indeed an essential patent as it seems critical to the operation of WiLan. Apple should just have come up with its own solution or tweaked the existing one enough to prevent legal action.

 

[cmaier]

That's fair enough. I thought this was indeed an essential patent as it seems critical to the operation of WiLan. Apple should just have come up with its own solution or tweaked the existing one enough to prevent legal action.

Being critical is not, of course, enough to mean it’s “essential” within the meaning of the law.

As for what Apple should have done, remember that Apple buys wifi chips from others, like Broadcom. It’s quite possible that Broadcom or other suppliers will end up compensating Apple for this, and that Apple does not even care about it. The patent (which does not seem to have anything to do with simultaneous voice and data, by the way) appears to involve negotiating which access point or cell site to connect to. That would be something that is more likely to involve the suppliers of the wifi chip than anything apple, itself, does, and Apple, like most companies, likely requires indemnification from its suppliers in situations like this.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Yes, we’re aware of that hysterical argument. The part I italicized is as hilarious as it is hysterical. A patent licensing company is not the same as a company that does something with its IP besides license and sue.

So you take issue with the statement that "Patent licensing companies are why patents have value"? But this is not a radical idea. It's pretty generic and obvious actually. Used car buyers are why used cars have value. Buyers of things are why things have value. It's basic economics.

So please explain. Why is it hysterical?

 

[Kabeyun]

So you take issue with the statement that "Patent licensing companies are why patents have value"? But this is not a radical idea. It's pretty generic and obvious actually. Used car buyers are why used cars have value. Buyers of things are why things have value. It's basic economics.

So please explain. Why is it hysterical?

Setting aside the spurious used car analogy, the burden of proof is not on me. That’s a logic fallacy. I want someone to prove that patent holding entities are the only reason, as asserted, that patents have value. The burden of proof is on whoever makes that claim.

In order to disprove this assertion, all that’s required is a single counterexample. Here are two:

1. I invent a frammis, patent it, make it, and sell the frammis. My patent protects it from being copied and sold by other would-be frammis makers. This is the original reason for the existence of patents. There’s no separate patent licensing company in this equation. This is the story of Colt revolvers, for example.
2. I invent a frammis, and patent it because it’s innovative and has serious income potential. But I can’t afford or don’t want to build or develop said frammis, so I sell the right to build/develop it to an entity who does. And they do. And there’s no separate patent licensing company in this equation either. This is the story of a lot of software and medical devices, for example.

Do these scenarios require the existence of a third party company whose sole reason for existence is to hoard patents and extract fees so those patents may be used by someone else? Of course not. Now prove that they do.

 

[cmaier]

1. I invent a frammis, patent it, make it, and sell the frammis. My patent protects it from being copied and sold by other would-be frammis makers. This is the original reason for the existence of patents.

What is your evidence that ”this is the original reason for the existence of patents.” The word “patent” comes from the concept of “letters patent,” and that wasn’t the reason for letters patent.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Setting aside the spurious used car analogy, the burden of proof is not on me. That’s a logic fallacy. I want someone to prove that patent holding entities are the only reason, as asserted, that patents have value. The burden of proof is on whoever makes that claim.

In order to disprove this assertion, all that’s required is a single counterexample. Here are two:

1. I invent a frammis, patent it, make it, and sell the frammis. My patent protects it from being copied and sold by other would-be frammis makers. This is the original reason for the existence of patents. There’s no separate patent licensing company in this equation. This is the story of Colt revolvers, for example.
2. I invent a frammis, and patent it because it’s innovative and has serious income potential. But I can’t afford or don’t want to build or develop said frammis, so I sell the right to build/develop it to an entity who does. And they do. And there’s no separate patent licensing company in this equation either. This is the story of a lot of software and medical devices, for example.

Do these scenarios require the existence of a third party company whose sole reason for existence is to hoard patents and extract fees so those patents may be used by someone else? Of course not. Now prove that they do.

First, I never said that patent licensing companies are the ONLY reason for patents having value. But they're the primary driver of what a patent is worth.

Second, have you heard the expression that a thing is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it? Well, if the thing is a patent and half the bidders are patent licensing companies, then patent licensing companies have a lot of influence over what it's worth.

In your first counterexample, the patent is never actually sold. So we don't know whether it's worth anything. It's worth something to the inventor, sure, but the example gives no information on whether its worth anything on the free market. That's the more important analysis today. An investor looking at whether to put money in a startup considers what that company's assets will be worth on the free market in the event of failure. That market is, like it or not, mostly influenced by licensing companies. They're the bidders driving up value.

Your second counterexample addresses this a bit. But you gloss over an important detail - how do the buyer and seller agree on a price? They must look at the market value, which as I explained above is driven largely by licensing companies.

But you also mentioned software and medical companies doing this. I assume (correct me if I
m wrong) you're referring to companies spun out from university research projects - like Google was. In those cases, the company almost never buys the patent and all rights outright, rather they usually license it from the original owner. Usually if its the researcher/inventor starting the company and they need the patent owned by the university, they get a exclusive and perpetual license and pay future royalties. So in my experience, your counterexample two is most often a licensee-licensor transaction.

 

[insoft.uk]

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

I’m glad they haven’t sued me, all the times I’ve downloaded while making calls
[automerge]1580152569[/automerge]

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. Isn't Apple equally aggressive in defending their patents? Apple even patented the glass staircase that's in their stores. I'm sure if some other company did something close to that they would hear from Apple's lawyers.

We’re well aware Apple is just as bad but the basic just of this fine it is so funny 🤣

so glad I’m not sued myself of all the times I’ve made calls and downloaded same time I know they is more too this.

 

[H2SO4]

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.

You seriously believe that Apple with its army lawyers just manages to miss things like this. I mean seriously.
Infringing is not stealing, I'll give you some leeway there. Knowingly infringing is though.

 

[BlandUsername]

Congratulations.
That’s the most outrageous lie I’ve ever seen posted here (and that’s REALLY saying something!). =)
Lol, even if that were Apple’s policy (it isn’t)... certainly of all people to realize information like that would be damning to Apple & should NOT be made public, it would be Apple’s “lead lawyer”, yeah?
Yet that’s who you claim said that, a decade ago?
Show me the quote & I’ll humbly apologize.
Otherwise- please stop.

His statement in the thread is partially accurate:

When asked what Apple’s position on licensing this portion of its portfolio was, Forbes reported that Teskler testified, “It’s Apple’s position not to [license]… keeping in mind Apple does not want anyone to build a clone product. “

Apple v. Samsung: Apple says it has no interest in licensing its patents (Updated)

Another witness says users pay a premium for “Apple features” on Samsung phones.

arstechnica.com

 

[cmaier]

His statement in the thread is partially accurate:

When asked what Apple’s position on licensing this portion of its portfolio was, Forbes reported that Teskler testified, “It’s Apple’s position not to [license]… keeping in mind Apple does not want anyone to build a clone product. “

Apple v. Samsung: Apple says it has no interest in licensing its patents (Updated)

Another witness says users pay a premium for “Apple features” on Samsung phones.

arstechnica.com

no it’s not partially accurate. That refers to out-licensing, not taking licenses.
Apple won’t give licenses. Apple will pay for licenses.

 

[Kabeyun]

What is your evidence that ”this is the original reason for the existence of patents.” The word “patent” comes from the concept of “letters patent,” and that wasn’t the reason for letters patent.

The Patent Act of 1790, and, since WiLan is a Canadian company, I suppose also whatever analogous Act applies in Canada (Wikipedia says it was in 1791). I/we are discussing patents as idea protection, not the different use sense of “letters patent.” Regardless, not my primary point. Thx for the history lesson, though.

 

[cmaier]

The Patent Act of 1790, and, since WiLan is a Canadian company, I suppose also whatever analogous Act applies in Canada (Wikipedia says it was in 1791). I/we are discussing patents as idea protection, not the different use sense of “letters patent.” Regardless, not my primary point. Thx for the history lesson, though.

You may not be talking about letters patent, but the Patent Act of 1790 does refer to letters patent. And nowhere in the Patent Act of 1790 do I see any text that refers to the “purpose“ of the act being what you say it is. Can you specify what you are talking about?

 

[lilkwarrior]

Patents like this shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[YaBe]

Being in business is about ONE thing. MONEY. No morals in business.
[automerge]1580129106[/automerge]

There are plenty of people who still do not understand business, and believe in the "we do it for you / we care about you" cr@p.

 

[Kabeyun]

You may not be talking about letters patent, but the Patent Act of 1790 does refer to letters patent. And nowhere in the Patent Act of 1790 do I see any text that refers to the “purpose“ of the act being what you say it is. Can you specify what you are talking about?

According to the Act the inventor is granted “sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used.” This is exactly what I originally stated: “I invent a frammis, patent it, make it, and sell the frammis. My patent protects it from being copied and sold by other would-be frammis makers.” I really don’t understand why you’re confused.

 

[cmaier]

According to the Act the inventor is granted “sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used.” This is exactly what I originally stated: “I invent a frammis, patent it, make it, and sell the frammis. My patent protects it from being copied and sold by other would-be frammis makers.” I really don’t understand why you’re confused.

You are confused. It is an exclusive right, not an obligation. The right that is granted is the right to PREVENT OTHERS from practicing the patent. Nowhere does the act (or any other patent act before or since) require or suggest that the patent is in any way dependent on the inventor practicing the patent.