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 Finalized $21.7 Million Patent Verdict, Hit With New Suit Over iPhone Camera
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple patents being infringed on (I.E the recent charger design infringement):
OH NOES, THEY IS STEALIN' FROM TEH APPLE! THEY IS THE EVIL!
Apple infringing on other patants (Nokia, OPTi Inc.)
OMG, THEY R TEH PATENT TROLLS/JEALOUS OF TEH APPLE SUCCESS!
Predictable.
OH NOES, THEY IS STEALIN' FROM TEH APPLE! THEY IS THE EVIL!
Apple infringing on other patants (Nokia, OPTi Inc.)
OMG, THEY R TEH PATENT TROLLS/JEALOUS OF TEH APPLE SUCCESS!
Predictable.
You would think someone would do something about this district. It's blatantly obvious something fishy is going on there. Practically every major IP lawsuit is filed there.
http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Software/wtr_16280,300,p1.html?PM=GO&a=f&a=f
Patent cases presented before Ward are more frequently won by the patent holder plaintiff than the defense.[9] One source claims that patent holders win 88% of the time in Ward's court, compared to an average of 68% nationwide.[3] Another source claims that patent cases in Marshall are won by patent holders 78% of the time versus 59% nationwide.[1] And a third source claims that in 90% of cases patent holders win jury verdicts.[8]
Ward believes the problem of patent trolls is overstated and that his record of only being overturned once supports this view.[7] Between taking the bench in 1999 and June 2006, Ward was only overturned in one patent case.[10][7]
The main district judge is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._John_Ward
In a very small town of 23,935.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall,_Texas
I've seen the patent troll business from the inside, up close, and the patent trolls can all DIAF for all I care. A more worthless bunch of people as patent attorneys has not been bred on this earth yet.
So (for another example) you think that Robert Kearns got what he deserved? You think that what the automakers did to him was ok?
I disagree with that.
The automakers all claimed his invention was "obvious." Funny how none of them thought of it until after they saw his proposal, though.
Bravo.
I particularly despise patent trolls because of the overall damage they--and other people who much prefer to sit on patents and sue rather than license or produce--do to productive advancement of technology. Being involved in the fuel cell industry, I've seen the negative effects of companies sitting on IP to everybody.
Now, to be fair, there ARE legitimate patent disputes--sometimes a company willfully and illegally infringes on a patent because they figure the company that owns the patent either can't afford to defend it or won't bother. Seen that happen too, and it's not cool. But those cases are usually pretty obvious when compared to garbage like these patent trolls.
Of course, whether software patents should exist at all is another matter. Frankly stupid, if you ask me.
Sooooo TRUE. It would more profitable to take the idea and lease it to a single entity with payday perks all around.
It's not "something fishy" per se. But a couple of factors are at work here: Judge John T Ward and his court are processing this kind of case much faster than any other court in the country, so if you do have a legit complaint, you would actually get to profit off your patent while it's still worth something. On the other hand, the local jury pool is a bunch of uneducated, simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons. Register yourself as a small American company if you haven't done so, claim big business is giving you the shaft, and you have already won.
You are making a strawman argument. Nonetheless, I've read Kearns' patent and, by today's supreme court standards (KSR), it was clearly invalid. At the time, it was valid, and he deserved to get paid.
The fact that I represent defendants against trolls doesn't mean that I dispute that trolls have the same right to obtain patents as anyone else. We have a system and it should be applied fairly. I'd love it, however, if we had patent reform that made it harder for submarine trolls to pop up and threaten companies that, unaware of the patents, had invested time and money in building up their companies or their product lines.
On the other hand, for example, universities and researchers are generally not considered trolls despite their lack of practicing the invention, and I think they should be able to profit. Any patent reform must therefore be nuanced.
I totally agree that there should be fewer patents.
I don't think this camera thing should be given a patent. But that's an issue for the patent office and patent laws.
I oppose this patent's existence, but since it exists I feel the court did the right thing by defending it.
Apple patents being infringed on (I.E the recent charger design infringement):
OH NOES, THEY IS STEALIN' FROM TEH APPLE! THEY IS THE EVIL!
Apple infringing on other patants (Nokia, OPTi Inc.)
OMG, THEY R TEH PATENT TROLLS/JEALOUS OF TEH APPLE SUCCESS!
Predictable.
lol If Mac Rumors allowed us to favourite a post, I'd favourite this one. You said it perfectly down to the intentional spelling errors.
Robert Kearns designed his windshield wiper, signed a deal with Ford where they would buy them from him, he bought a factory to start building them, and then Ford took the prototype he gave them for safety testing and ripped it off and broke their contract with him.
That is wildly different than patent trolls who get patents for things they never produce (often the patents are vague or for obvious things written in legalese so the patent office didn't notice). They never try to sell their product or license the technology and they just sit back until a real invention by another company is similar enough to their vague patent that they can sue. But wait! they often then wait until that real invention gets included in hundreds of products and then sues the most successful of the companies who produce some of those products.
The patent system is horribly broken, and if you can't see that you must not be looking very hard.
Eh. If the US doesn't like patent trolls, institute a working requirement. Otherwise, you can't complain if someone is playing by the rules -- which they are.
One company screws another while the other company screws another, and the world goes around. Big deal, we have to keep the judicial system busy doing something.
wins one case, is defeated in another. Who cares, they have lawyers to handle these cases. By referring to other companies as trolls is lame, since we all know that even patents concepts and never releases a product. That would make them a troll as well to a degree.
The fanboyism here makes me sick.
wins one case, is defeated in another. Who cares, they have lawyers to handle these cases. By referring to other companies as trolls is lame, since we all know that even patents concepts and never releases a product. That would make them a troll as well to a degree.The fanboyism here makes me sick.
Apple patents being infringed on (I.E the recent charger design infringement):
OH NOES, THEY IS STEALIN' FROM TEH APPLE! THEY IS THE EVIL!
Apple infringing on other patants (Nokia, OPTi Inc.)
OMG, THEY R TEH PATENT TROLLS/JEALOUS OF TEH APPLE SUCCESS!
Predictable.
You have some issues. I have no problem with Apple being sued if the patent is truly breached; however, some companies have such vague patents on purpose to leech or feed of any successful company that makes a product that resembles their oh so vague patent.
This Opti watchamacallit, company clearly is out against the big companies like Apple, so is the other company St. Clair. Their patent is *very* vague, here a small snip of it:
Now, where have I seen a device like that before? Digital cameras, have you ever heard of them? This type of ridiculous patents should be abolished as their meaning is too vague and can mean anything. That or the patent should be amended to mean one specific device.
Please I am awaiting a response from you, but after that quote, I highly doubt you will. So think well before say anything. Companies like these too leechers are no good and deserve to be put out of misery.
So ion short, if you have a brilliant concept and patent it and now for some unfortunate reason you do not have the funding to develop and sell a product another company can take that idea and not recognize your contributions. What if you decide that you do not want to pursue to develop and sell the products because it is not worth your time, should you not be compensated by another company who believes your idea is worth incorporating into they own products.
What am I thinking, we should just flood the market place with more junk.
The abstract is not relevant. Only the patent claims matter. And if the claims predate actual digital cameras, then the patent is valid.
It is what it is. As the author pointed out, this is pocket change to Apple.
Whatever Apple has been doing over the past three years, they've been doing a damm good job for us consumers. I hope whatever it is that they are doing, they don't change their approach. Keep it up Apple!
(And we should all be mindful that the verdict decided that Apple "did not willfully infringe" on the patent. The two companies just happened to be working on the same thing, except the other company just happened to file a patent sooner)
Whatever Apple has been doing over the past three years, they've been doing a damm good job for us consumers. I hope whatever it is that they are doing, they don't change their approach. Keep it up Apple!
(And we should all be mindful that the verdict decided that Apple "did not willfully infringe" on the patent. The two companies just happened to be working on the same thing, except the other company just happened to file a patent sooner)