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

[Kabeyun]

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.

The confusion isn’t mine. Follow the thread. I said, “My patent protects it from being copied and sold by other would-be frammis makers.” This is true. Full stop. You then jumped in and asked what the evidence there was that this was the original point of patents. I cited chapter & verse from the patent act. First you brought up letters patent, a different idea although etymologically connected, and now you’ve changed to counterargue against an assertion I don’t make; that one needs to make or use the patented idea for the patent to be valid. Of course the law doesn’t require practicing the patent. That’s why there are patent trolls in the first place.

 

[temna]

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.

Any company that sues another for making a device that doesn't actually make anything is the definition of sleazy.

 

[cmaier]

Any company that sues another for making a device that doesn't actually make anything is the definition of sleazy.

I write a song. I sing it to my daughter to put her to sleep. I am not a professional musician. I do not attempt to publish or profit from it.

It’s fine with you if someone hears the song, publishes, and makes millions off it?

 

[mac_in_tosh]

Any company that sues another for making a device that doesn't actually make anything is the definition of sleazy.

You don't have to commercialize a product to have a valid patent. Your opinion is at odds with decades of patent law. As I mentioned before, I am sure that Apple, like other companies, has filed many defensive patents with the intent of preventing others from making something that Apple has no intention of making.

 

[temna]

I write a song. I sing it to my daughter to put her to sleep. I am not a professional musician. I do not attempt to publish or profit from it.

It’s fine with you if someone hears the song, publishes, and makes millions off it?

If they come upon the sond themselves, sure, why not.
[automerge]1581367367[/automerge]

You don't have to commercialize a product to have a valid patent. Your opinion is at odds with decades of patent law. As I mentioned before, I am sure that Apple, like other companies, has filed many defensive patents with the intent of preventing others from making something that Apple has no intention of making.

And that is why patent law needs to be reviewed, it is completely wrong and messed up.

 

[cmaier]

If they come upon the sond themselves, sure, why not.

Did you read what you responded to? I said they hear it and copy it, not that they come up with it themselves.

 

[temna]

Did you read what you responded to? I said they hear it and copy it, not that they come up with it themselves.

And do you think that matters to these patent trolls?

 

[cmaier]

And do you think that matters to these patent trolls?

Huh? I don’t understand where this is going.

 

[nano8gb]

What's interesting about this debate is that WiLAN originally was a engineering company that tried to sell products built from their patents. Big companies just stole their technology without paying fees anyways, so they quit that side of the business and just became the patent troll company we know today.

 

[cmaier]

What's interesting about this debate is that WiLAN originally was a engineering company that tried to sell products built from their patents. Big companies just stole their technology without paying fees anyways, so they quit that side of the business and just became the patent troll company we know today.

what evidence do you have that anyone "stole" anything from wilan?

 

[temna]

Huh? I don’t understand where this is going.

That patent trolls don't care how someone came up with something, all they care about is getting the license.

 

[Why-Not-Me]

A couple corrections...

The retrial was in January 2020, not in January 2019. Judge Sabraw's decision, finding (effectively) for Apple on its motion for a new trial on damages and against Apple on its motion for judgment as a matter of law, came in January 2019.

Also, the court - i.e. Judge Sabraw - didn't agree that Apple had infringed the patents at issue. Rather, she denied Apple's motion for judgment as a matter of law. In other words, she found that Apple's legal and evidentiary arguments weren't sufficient to warrant overturning the jury's finding with regard to infringement. That's quite different from the court agreeing with the jury that Apple had infringed.

A couple corrections...

The retrial was in January 2020, not in January 2019. Judge Sabraw's decision, finding (effectively) for Apple on its motion for a new trial on damages and against Apple on its motion for judgment as a matter of law, came in January 2019.

Also, the court - i.e. Judge Sabraw - didn't agree that Apple had infringed the patents at issue. Rather, she denied Apple's motion for judgment as a matter of law. In other words, she found that Apple's legal and evidentiary arguments weren't sufficient to warrant overturning the jury's finding with regard to infringement. That's quite different from the court agreeing with the jury that Apple had infringed.

Ken Stanwood, Wi-LAN’s chief technology officer, spent his career improving wireless communications technology. After studying computer science at Stanford, he worked on military radio signal processing, before developing cell phone chips and software. In 1998, Stanwood joined Ensemble Communications, which Wi-LAN later acquired. There, Stanwood and his team developed the technology underlying this case.

 

[Why-Not-Me]

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

One has to ask oneself if you feel it is stupid then why did Apple not think of the process before Ken Stanwood?

 

[Suckfest 9001]

You get caught stealing something, you pay damages. It’s as simple as that

 

[cmaier]

You get caught stealing something, you pay damages. It’s as simple as that

Apple wasn’t accused, nor did any court find that they did, “steal” anything.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

Apple wasn’t accused, nor did any court find that they did, “steal” anything.

You sure you're in the right thread or

looks at avatar

ah carry on

 

[Why-Not-Me]

Apple wasn’t accused, nor did any court find that they did, “steal” anything.

WiLAN, a company that holds a number of patents related to the wireless industry, has launched another patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and others. Patent 5,282,222 is especially interesting because of how long it's been around and how broad it is. The patent was filed for in 1992, and issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1994.

 

[cmaier]

WiLAN, a company that holds a number of patents related to the wireless industry, has launched another patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and others. Patent 5,282,222 is especially interesting because of how long it's been around and how broad it is. The patent was filed for in 1992, and issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1994.

And what is your point? And the patent sounds like it’s expired. Rough estimate is the expiration would be 2012ish. Statute of limitations is 6 years. So if sued today, they couldn’t get any money. What am I missing?

 

[cmaier]

You sure you're in the right thread or

looks at avatar

ah carry on

Avatar is me. What’s your point?

And patent infringement is not stealing. Again, what’s your point?

 

[Suckfest 9001]

WiLAN, a company that holds a number of patents related to the wireless industry, has launched another patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and others. Patent 5,282,222 is especially interesting because of how long it's been around and how broad it is. The patent was filed for in 1992, and issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1994.

Yeah don’t bother lol, some people will never admit that apple has terrible business practices

 

[cmaier]

Yeah don’t bother lol, some people will never admit that apple has terrible business practices

You guys seem to be fighting a fight against a straw man argument. Apple absolutely infringed the patent. Patent infringement means that you performed a method or produced a device that infringes at least one claim of an issued, valid, and unexpired patent. There are over 10 million issued patents in the united states alone. Many contain dozens of claims. Nobody could possibly know whether or not they are infringing all of these patents. That is why it is not a crime, and it is not stealing.

 

[Why-Not-Me]

And what is your point? And the patent sounds like it’s expired. Rough estimate is the expiration would be 2012ish. Statute of limitations is 6 years. So if sued today, they couldn’t get any money. What am I missing?

An important effect of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) on the life of any patent, be it biotechnological, pharmaceutical, or other, is the new patent term of twenty (20) years from the filing date of the patent application.

 

[cmaier]

An important effect of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) on the life of any patent, be it biotechnological, pharmaceutical, or other, is the new patent term of twenty (20) years from the filing date of the patent application.

Again, what’s your point? It was filed in 1992. Add twenty years and you get 2012, which is what I said.

 

[Why-Not-Me]

Again, what’s your point? It was filed in 1992. Add twenty years and you get 2012, which is what I said.

And what is your point? And the patent sounds like it’s expired. Rough estimate is the expiration would be 2012ish. Statute of limitations is 6 years. So if sued today, they couldn’t get any money. What am I missing?

This legal battle has been going on since September 2, 2011 and Apple just keeps dragging it on and on and on and on and on and on and on. That is my point.

OTTAWA, Canada – September 2, 2011 – Wi-LAN Inc. (“WiLAN” or the “Company”) (TSX:WIN) (NASD:WILN), today announced that it has commenced litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division against Apple, Inc., Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, HTC America, Inc., Kyocera International, Inc., Kyocera Communications, Inc., Novatel Wireless, Inc., and Sierra Wireless America, Inc. (individually and collectively, “Defendants”).

In its filing, WiLAN claims that these companies have infringed and continue to infringe WiLAN’s U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 (“the ‘802’ Patent”) related to CDMA and HSPA and U.S. Patent No. 5,282,222 (“the ‘222’ Patent”) related to Wi-Fi and LTE.

 

[cmaier]

This legal battle has been going on since September 2, 2011 and Apple just keeps dragging it on and on and on and on and on and on and on. That is my point.

OTTAWA, Canada – September 2, 2011 – Wi-LAN Inc. (“WiLAN” or the “Company”) (TSX:WIN) (NASD:WILN), today announced that it has commenced litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division against Apple, Inc., Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, HTC America, Inc., Kyocera International, Inc., Kyocera Communications, Inc., Novatel Wireless, Inc., and Sierra Wireless America, Inc. (individually and collectively, “Defendants”).

In its filing, WiLAN claims that these companies have infringed and continue to infringe WiLAN’s U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 (“the ‘802’ Patent”) related to CDMA and HSPA and U.S. Patent No. 5,282,222 (“the ‘222’ Patent”) related to Wi-Fi and LTE.

So what was the point of post number 120? It had nothing to do with anything I said, but you quoted me.