Sidebar Sidebar
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

!¡ V ¡! said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The point is lawsuits shouldn't be the business model. If you can't sell the widgets yourself, license the patent to someone who can. But don't sit on the patent, wait for someone to make a lot of money, then sue him or her. Especially when the patent is vague, probably not actually infringed, but you are willing to settle for, say, $5 million (conveniently less than the cost of having to defend against the lawsuit).
 
!¡ V ¡! said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hey. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with someone who owns a patent but does not practice it. After all, the point is to promote science by publicizing ideas in exchange for a right to preclude others from practicing your invention. Why does it matter if you don't practice it? You've already done what was required. And I agree, lack of funds is a big deal...
 
Small White Car said:
So I take it all you "patent trolls suck" posters were in favor of Pystar being able to sell OS X?

You're probably upset that "Apple the patent troll" sued Pystar over that, right?

It's funny, because I see a LOT of you here in this thread but for some reason there wren't a lot of you in the Pystar threads defending Pystar. Where were you then?
Click to expand...

sheesh, you should knowby now most here support whatever side of the argument that helps apple out lol
 
An actual claim. Relevant filing date is 1990.

16. A process for storing an electronically sensed video image comprising the steps of:
generating an analog image signal corresponding to the imagewise pattern of radiant light incident on a plurality of light sensing pixel elements,

converting the analog image signals into digital electronic information signals wherein a distinct digital electronic signal corresponds to the analog image signals corresponding to the intensity of radiant light falling on the light sensing pixel elements,

temporarily storing the digital electronic information signals,

recording in selectable addressible memory means at least one of a plurality of different digital output data format codes where each of said plurality of output data format codes corresponds respectively to one of a like plurality of different data formats for different types of computer apparatus,

selecting from said selectable addressible memory means one of said different digital output data format codes to be associated with each said digital electronic information signals, and

storing said digital electronic information signals in a digital memory in accordance with said selected output data format code.
 
cmaier said:
The point is lawsuits shouldn't be the business model. If you can't sell the widgets yourself, license the patent to someone who can. But don't sit on the patent, wait for someone to make a lot of money, then sue him or her. Especially when the patent is vague, probably not actually infringed, but you are willing to settle for, say, $5 million (conveniently less than the cost of having to defend against the lawsuit).
Click to expand...

You can't just sit and wait till something develops and then attack. Courts will not find for you. This is patent misuse..
 
cmaier said:
No part of the "actual patent" matters for validity/infringement other than the CLAIMS. (BTW, the "abstract" IS part of the "actual patent.")
Click to expand...

Ok, did you read what I said? I am not fighting the patent. I am pointing out how incredibly vague the patent is.

How can you make a claim and win with something like this in a court's eyes is jaw dropping.

For that matter I will say something similar, patent it and sue everyone who makes digital cameras.
 
Shasterball said:
You can't just sit and wait till something develops and then attack. Courts will not find for you. This is patent misuse..
Click to expand...

No it's not, and yes a court will. "Patent misuse" is something else entirely. You may be thinking of "laches," but I'm aware of only one case where laches was a successful defense.
 
jav6454 said:
Ok, did you read what I said? I am not fighting the patent. I am pointing out how incredibly vague the patent is.

How can you make a claim and win with something like this in a court's eyes is jaw dropping.

For that matter I will say something similar, patent it and sue everyone who makes digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Let me be very clear. The thing you excerpted is IRRELEVANT. That language doesn't determine whether the patent is "vague." The only thing that matters is whether the CLAIMS of the patent (a particular part of the patent) are valid and whether they are infringed. The language that determines "vagueness" is the CLAIMS. I presented a sample claim from the patent. It is very specific and narrow. It may be anticipated by prior art and thus invalid, but it's certainly not "vague."
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.5; en-gb; HTC Hero Build/CUPCAKE) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)

jav6454 said:
ChazUK said:
Apple patents being infringed on (I.E the recent charger design infringement):

OH NOES, THEY IS STEALIN' FROM TEH APPLE! THEY IS THE EVIL! :mad:



Apple infringing on other patants (Nokia, OPTi Inc.)

OMG, THEY R TEH PATENT TROLLS/JEALOUS OF TEH APPLE SUCCESS! :rolleyes:







Predictable.
Click to expand...



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:



An electronic still camera comprising a lens, shutter, and exposure control system, a focus control circuit, a solid state imaging device incorporating a Charge Couple Device (CCD) thru which an image is focused, a digital control unit through which timing and control of an image for electronic processing is accomplished, an Anologe-to-Digital (A/D) converter circuit to convert the analogue picture signals into their digital equivalents, a pixel buffer for collecting a complete row of an image's complete digital equivalent, a frame buffer for collecting rows of an image's digital equivalent and a selectively adjustable digital image compression and decompression algorithm that compresses the size of a digital image and selectively formats the compressed digital image into a compatible format.
Click to expand...



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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response.



I have a few issues here. In The recent case where Apple went after the knockoff charger company people were cheering along if the patent sysyem was flawless. Of course that was in apple's favour. (I fully support apples claim there BTW)



Another issue with the attitudes on this forum is that some people had the audacity with the nokia case to say that their claim was invalid and that nokia was even even doing it because they were "jealous". What would a company like Nokia know about gsm tech eh?



All of a sudden, apple are on the wrong side of an infringement case and all is bad in the world of patents and everyone is quick to point out how flawed the patent system is.



I'm sorry if I've let you down by replying but i didnt want to live up to your assimptions about me.
 
ChazUK said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.5; en-gb; HTC Hero Build/CUPCAKE) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)



Thanks for the response.

I have a few issues here. In The recent case where Apple went after the knockoff charger company people were cheering along if the parent sysyem was flawless. Of course that was in apple's favour. (I fully support apples claim there BTW)

Another issue with the attitudes on this forum is that some people had the audacity with the nokia case to say that their claim was invalid and that nokia was even even doing it because they were "jealous". What would a company like Nokia know about gsm tech eh?

All of a sudden, apple are on the wrong side of an infringement case and all is bad in the world of patents and everyone is quick to point out how flawed the patent system is.

I'm sorry if I've let you down by replying but i didnt want to live up to your assimptions about me.
Click to expand...

Of course, it is entirely consistent to side with people who actually practice their patent (i.e.: not trolls) and people who don't steal IP. Apple may or may not infringe this patent. If so, they should have to pay. But that doesn't mean we have to like a patent system that encourages parties to sit on the sidelines, wait for someone to be successful, then to leverage an iffy patent that may be invalid and may not be infringed against the successful company in an effort to extract a dollar amount less than the cost of defending the lawsuit.
 
cmaier said:
No it's not, and yes a court will. "Patent misuse" is something else entirely. You may be thinking of "laches," but I'm aware of only one case where laches was a successful defense.
Click to expand...

Oops. Classic case of thinking one thing and writing another. Not patent misuse. You are correct.

You seem very confident for someone who graduated law school 3 years ago!
 
cmaier said:
The point is lawsuits shouldn't be the business model.
Click to expand...

Why not? You may not like it, but if someone is in the market for making profit, this may be very well a legal way to do it (after you have something to patent).

This is no surprise in this era where value is based in IP and not in acres of land (with all the history in between).
 
Shasterball said:
Oops. Classic case of thinking one thing and writing another. Not patent misuse. You are correct.

You seem very confident for someone who graduated law school 3 years ago!
Click to expand...

And the patent bar a year before that.

I've been involved in lots of patent litigation, and have been able to be involved in ways ordinary associates wouldn't be involved, due to my advanced engineering degrees and a decade of experience designing microprocessors for AMD, etc.
 
cmaier said:
Of course, it is entirely consistent to side with people who actually practice their patent (i.e.: not trolls) and people who don't steal IP. Apple may or may not infringe this patent. If so, they should have to pay. But that doesn't mean we have to like a patent system that encourages parties to sit on the sidelines, wait for someone to be successful, then to leverage an iffy patent that may be invalid and may not be infringed against the successful company in an effort to extract a dollar amount less than the cost of defending the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which what this company is clearly doing. I've been trying to say this all along. Now, if you didn't understand me it's my English, not being my first language.
 
cmaier said:
And the patent bar a year before that.

I've been involved in lots of patent litigation, and have been able to be involved in ways ordinary associates wouldn't be involved, due to my advanced engineering degrees and a decade of experience designing microprocessors for AMD, etc.
Click to expand...

Ya, the MS helps -- but it's pretty standard in the IP law profession...
 
fifthworld said:
Why not? You may not like it, but if someone is in the market for making profit, this may be very well a legal way to do it (after you have something to patent).

This is no surprise in this era where value is based in IP and not in acres of land (with all the history in between).
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's not a legal way to do it. It's just not a good way to foster technological innovation and productivity, and society would be better off if the rules were different.
 
Quick fanboys, shield Apple with a group hug!

It isn't a case of 'patent trolls', don't Apple owe Nokia for infringing their patent? Something with pretty much every other mobile maker acknowledges?

The court's ruled against Apple, maybe they should just pay up and shut the f**k up?
 
mutantteenager said:
Quick fanboys, shield Apple with a group hug!

It isn't a case of 'patent trolls', don't Apple owe Nokia for infringing their patent? Something with pretty much every other mobile maker acknowledges?

The court's ruled against Apple, maybe they should just pay up and shut the f**k up?
Click to expand...

There are two different legal cases being discussed here, genius.
 
Pot calling Kettle black!!! LOL

On one hand, Apple should pay these fines as they institute similar practices.

On the other hand, could you imagine how much cheaper cool tech would be if all lawyers would just leave tech alone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back