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

All this garbage goes away when somebody releases a 'TurboLaw' for consumers (a la TurboTax) and makes 90% of lawyers obsolete. It's a profession that could easily be replaced by machines and software. If software is good enough for accounting and your money, it's more than good enough for legal paperwork and filings.

TurboSue, TurboCounterSue, TurboPatentSuit, TurboPatentCounterSuit

Dilute the marketplace with alternatives and most of the bullsh@t legal stuff becomes lost in the background noise.

The only way to fight these leeches is to go after their ability to earn. Kinda like when you take away the easy bonus cash under "Free Parking", suddenly Monopoly is a competitive game again.
 
cmaier said:
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.
Click to expand...

This basically describes most of the businesses.
 
oxygenhose said:
All this garbage goes away when somebody releases a 'TurboLaw' for consumers (a la TurboTax) and makes 90% of lawyers obsolete. It's a profession that could easily be replaced by machines and software. If software is good enough for accounting and your money, it's more than good enough for legal paperwork and filings.

TurboSue, TurboCounterSue, TurboPatentSuit, TurboPatentCounterSuit

Dilute the marketplace with alternatives and most of the bullsh@t legal stuff becomes lost in the background noise.

The only way to fight these leeches is to go after their ability to earn. Kinda like when you take away the easy bonus cash under "Free Parking", suddenly Monopoly is a competitive game again.
Click to expand...

You are high.
 
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...

There is a very good economic reason why "lawsuits should not be a business model". People produce things, and people consume things. The amount of things you can consume is what constitutes your wealth, and the amount of things that everyone produces equals the amount of things everyone can consume. Every company that produces things that people consume produces wealth.

A company basing their business on lawsuits doesn't produce anything of value. They are not producing anything of value to society; quite the contrary. They are skimming wealth out of the system, they are nothing but parasites.
 
oxygenhose said:
All this garbage goes away when somebody releases a 'TurboLaw' for consumers (a la TurboTax) and makes 90% of lawyers obsolete. It's a profession that could easily be replaced by machines and software. If software is good enough for accounting and your money, it's more than good enough for legal paperwork and filings.

TurboSue, TurboCounterSue, TurboPatentSuit, TurboPatentCounterSuit

Dilute the marketplace with alternatives and most of the bullsh@t legal stuff becomes lost in the background noise.

The only way to fight these leeches is to go after their ability to earn. Kinda like when you take away the easy bonus cash under "Free Parking", suddenly Monopoly is a competitive game again.
Click to expand...


LOL. That's like saying if you released "TurboCop" you could go into a ghetto and protect innocent kiddos. Also, I used to use TurboTax and now use an accountant. And I get WAY better results with the accountant!
 
gnasher729 said:
There is a very good economic reason why "lawsuits should not be a business model". People produce things, and people consume things. The amount of things you can consume is what constitutes your wealth, and the amount of things that everyone produces equals the amount of things everyone can consume. Every company that produces things that people consume produces wealth.

A company basing their business on lawsuits doesn't produce anything of value. They are not producing anything of value to society; quite the contrary. They are skimming wealth out of the system, they are nothing but parasites.
Click to expand...

LOL, now IP has no value?
 
anubis said:
Patents were introduced to protect companies who invent something and then subsequently produce the invention from having their invention copied. It was never intended to provide a source of income for trolls who never intended to even build a product. Support patent reform!
Click to expand...
What if they actually produced it, in premium segment, say, for $1000,000 for a unit, and now seek protection from manufacturers of cheap $1000 ripoffs?
 
So the general consensus is that Apple should be able to protect its R&D with patents, but should be free to freeload off others' R&D?
 
ShiftyPig said:
So the general consensus is that Apple should be able to protect its R&D with patents, but should be free to freeload off others' R&D?
Click to expand...

If you can extract a general consensus from this debate, then you are a better man than me.
 
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...

That first line made me LMAO and the rest I could just j. off over. You are soooo right!

Thank you for keeping fanboys here humble.
 
cmaier said:
I haven't seen a single person say that if Apple is infringing that it shouldn't have to pay.
Click to expand...

You're suppose to just sweep it under the carpet and look forward to the next Apple development like a tablet or point out when Microsoft does something that's instantly going to be wrong here.
 
Patent trolling must be a profitable business. How this was finalized seems really fishy. INB4 ninja mod post deletion.


jav6454 said:
Ahhh, America, if you can't work for your money, take it away from someone else.
Click to expand...

*golfclap* :rolleyes:
 
Are you kidding me?

anubis said:
Patents were introduced to protect companies who invent something and then subsequently produce the invention from having their invention copied. It was never intended to provide a source of income for trolls who never intended to even build a product. Support patent reform!
Click to expand...

The constitution (Article 1, section 8.8) states: "Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Nowhere does the constitution state you must be a company, or even have the means to mass produce your idea; just this: that you "own" your discovery for a limited time. If someone wishes to use your patented idea, they must reach an agreement with you. THIS IS A PROPERTY RIGHT AS REAL AND TANGIBLE AS OWNING A HOUSE OR CAR.

Large companies routinely engage in the cold calculus of "willful" ignorance (or worse) of patents their products may potentially infringe (particularly when the players are too small to "matter"), simply because defending the odd patent infringement lawsuit is *cheaper* than proactively seeking out the rightful owners and paying royalties. Many small inventors and companies have been crushed over the years by this attitude and practice.

So the shoe's on the other foot once in a while. How damned inconvenient...
 
Patent Trolls. Funny.

But then, the same "Apple first" crowd call Xerox "stupid," for not going after Apple for stealing from them (things like WYSIWYG, icon-based interface, desktop, folders, the ball-mouse, etc..) If they had, there may not be been Apple today.

In reality, Apple has built major chunks of its business by infringing:

First it copied Star for its computers and OS, then it copied Creative for it iPod (and paid $100 million to settle, after it took over the market.) Same for the famous "touch" interface of the iPhone. Even the name "iPhone" infringed on Cisco's existing trademark!

At the same time, we have Apple suing smaller companies out of business, or burying even remotely competing products with litigation.

We have Apple v. Franklin Computer, Apple v. Mackintosh Computers, Apple v. GEM, Apple v. eMachines, etc..

Apple even went after BluWiki and if it wasn't for EFF, it would have steamrolled over them.

Apple IS an IP Troll, and one of the very worst! Even though I like and buy their products.
 
Xavier said:
Don't they have anything better to do
Click to expand...

*sighs* What makes me think if this were against Microsoft, it would "be a win for the little guy"???

Hmm, the court ordered Apple to pay, so there must be some merit for it. Oh, but this is "Saint" Apple so it's a free pass. Why hold them to the same laws of common man? :rolleyes:
 
lightpeak said:
*sighs* What makes me think if this were against Microsoft, it would "be a win for the little guy"???

Hmm, the court ordered Apple to pay, so there must be some merit for it. Oh, but this is "Saint" Apple so it's a free pass. Why hold them to the same laws of common man? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Again, there are two lawsuits and you are confusing them.
 
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...

Agreed, that the lawsuit should not be the business model, however there is a patent database of the various patents and who owns them. If a company is interested in it then they should seek to acquire a license for its usage. Companies such as :apple: spend thousands if not millions on patenting they own concepts, however when it comes to incorporating it into they own system they jump on it without doing an in-depth search to see if it is someone else owns the IP. What are the lawyers at :apple: doing, only filling patents however not checking to see if the IP used is clear or available for licensing. Just a practicing these methods would not result in these costly and length lawsuit, even though most are filled in Texas. Sure the US patent office requires some reform, however I do not see it as a major issue when compared to others at the moment. Its low on the priority list to be honest.
 
Sue you all

I'm going to patent the process that when you expand your lungs air comes into them and when you collapse them the air expels. Then I can sue all 6 billion+ people on earth and wont have to ever worry about money again. Yeaaa
 
If they infringed,pay up,move on Apple.


What makes me sick is these companies buying other companies,with the express idea to become a patent troll.



Another patent troll is that company who bought the patent for the web shopping cart process.I believe they nailed a few companies with that.It would have to be one of the most frivolous patents out there.


Say someone tries to patent a new invention,with said invention being something catalogued / top secret military already patented,does the original petitioner get clarification it is already patented and classified etc,or does the patent just get turned down,but with no reason whatsoever added?.....have always wondered about this process.
 
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