Apple Ordered to Pay Finalized $21.7 Million Patent Verdict, Hit With New Suit Over iPhone Camera

[pc-proud]

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?

Oh wow! MacBooks would be what $5 cheaper, MacPro's would be $10 cheaper. Get real. Technology is expensive bc of R&D and fabrication plants. Apple is expensive bc fanboys and the rest of the Borg hive fall for it. I have an iPhone granted (who doesn't these days) but I'd rather control what I build my PC with and what goes on it. It's still way faster than and a 1/2 of what a Mac cost to start. Anyway, off topic...

Patents are here to protect work from being used and the person who was hard at work doesn't get recognition. The one fella that said it best about if Apple infringes it's not a crime but may God protect your soul if you infringe on Apple.

Open your eyes and think for yourself, don't let someone tell you what you need.

FYI - Apple, when is the iPhone gonna catch up with the rest of the smart phones in technology. They all had video recording b4 you were made. How about flash or silverlight. Youtube is flash video but I can't watch flash videos in the browser. WEAK!!!!

Ok bye.

Keith

Oh and Im no pc fanboy bc Bill Gates and his MS crew do some stupid **** too, I just know better when not to use an MS Product. Windows 7 is awesome.

 

[ikir]

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.

Cmon it is too easy to write such a post, but do a reality check: it is not true. Apple considering it as a company, a entity to make $$, is quite good and clear. You can't say these troll are right given their actual activity.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

I'm glad Apple never sues.

 

[scottness]

I'm glad Apple never sues.

It's because they can.

 

[macrumorsMaster]

I hate patent trolls.

Really??
I hate legalese trolls, which Apple is.
Now Apple knows how Psystar feels

 

[MorphingDragon]

Really??
I hate legalese trolls, which Apple is.
Now Apple knows how Psystar feels

The Psystar case had nothing to do with patents. Plus Apple have had Patent cases before.

 

[scottness]

Really??
I hate legalese trolls, which Apple is.
Now Apple knows how Psystar feels

Really.

I'm not sure Apple has done what Psystar has.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Because thats going to do sooo much...

Strive to become a Patent Reform Attorney.

 

[Argonic]

"Permission of patents, software, ... may typically be granted in the form of a license". Is there a bell ringing somewhere?

Patent infringement= stealing
Violating EULA (Psystar) = stealing

 

[cliveren13]

Pay up or Nut up

Can anyone say Microsoft? well Apple is getting bigger and with that comes lawsuits just like microsoft so what goes around comes around so for all of u fanboys get used to it and if apple doesnt wathc it they could go the way of the dinasour,s

 

[Shasterball]

I think if you purchased software you probably wouldn't have EULAs. EULAs are the terms for individuals purchasing a license to use the software.

Yup. You are not purchasing someone's copyright when you buy software. You are purchasing a license to use it. And when you agree to buy it on their terms (you don't have to buy it, you know), then you need to play by the rules you agreed to.

Somehow he knows that when he buys a book he doesn't have the right to hire a bunch of actors and turn it into a movie, but he thinks that buying a CD gives him the right to do whatever he wants with the contents.

I think you are forgetting about the barrier to producing your own movie. That's the main reason people don't do it for $$...lol. It's pretty easy to rip a CD. If it took 2 years and millions of dollars to rip a CD, I doubt people would do it.

 

[koach]

I think if you purchased software you probably wouldn't have EULAs. EULAs are the terms for individuals purchasing a license to use the software.

You ARE purchasing the CD. It should be MY right to do whatever I want with it, save for making other copies and distributing/selling to other people. There should be no laws stopping a person from doing whatever he wants with the software CD he owns for his own personal use.

That's why I am against EULAs, the DMCA, and all other laws that are designed to strip away our freedoms. It seems like we are moving towards a world where we don't own anything, we just license it.

I don't want to get sued in the future by Chevrolet because I used my Traverse in a way they did not intend. I don't want to get sued by Campbells because I used their soup in a recipe that they did not approve. Yes I am using hyperbole, but if you would have mentioned stuff like EULAs and the DMCA to people decades ago, they would have seemed like hyperbole.

I don't expect Apple to offer any support for OSX if I buy it and install it on a generic PC. They should not be held responsible for helping me make a hackintosh. But they should NOT be able to tell me that I cannot make a hackintosh.

 

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

I think that this is completely ridiculus. A company that stop producing just to start filing lawsuits for patent infringement against other companies, how low can you sink? Can you say self indulgence and greed? This makes me sick.

 

[koach]

Somehow he knows that when he buys a book he doesn't have the right to hire a bunch of actors and turn it into a movie, but he thinks that buying a CD gives him the right to do whatever he wants with the contents.

Apples and oranges. If I buy a CD I should be able to do whatever I want with it for my personal use. The same with a book. Creating a movie from a book would not be for my own personal use, because it would be seen by many people. I would argue that it should be legal to film a movie adaptation of a book, and then only show the movie to yourself in the content of your home. I suspect if someone did that they would not be sued. The movie/book people only get mad when you are distributing it to other people,e specially for a monetary gain.

Yup. You are not purchasing someone's copyright when you buy software. You are purchasing a license to use it. And when you agree to buy it on their terms (you don't have to buy it, you know), then you need to play by the rules you agreed to.

Ahh, but here is the problem. You don't agree to the license before you buy it, you agree to the EULA AFTER you buy it. Imagine if you bought a car, and signed all the paperwork and made it official. And then when you started it up for the first time you had to agree to some legalese mumbo jumbo (essentially another contract) before you could drive it!

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that when you own a CD, you cannot do whatever you want with it for your own purposes but what really makes my blood boil is signing a contract (without actually signing your name nor having a witness) for some license AFTER you buy a product. It should be a illegal to require someone to sign a license after the purchase.

 

[rdlink]

Get your facts straight

The Eastern District of Texas: just another reason that Texas should secede or be given back to Mexico.

The Eastern District of Texas, or, as it really should be known, just an extension of Arkansas, since the courthouse actually sits on the state border, and the courtroom shares a common wall with the US District Court for Arkansas, is actually completely NOT what Texas is about.

It's in fact an outpost of the liberal agenda. It was one of Bill Clinton's first opportunities to start loading the federal judiciary with plaintiff friendly judges. David Folsom is a Clinton appointee, and slept in the White House the night before both Clinton inaugurations.

The courthouse is located in Texarkana, TX, which is a miserable little armpit. NOBODY would ever file a case there unless they were venue shopping, which Judge Folsom's many absurd and plaintive-friendly pre-trial rulings encourages.

 

[Shasterball]

Ahh, but here is the problem. You don't agree to the license before you buy it, you agree to the EULA AFTER you buy it. Imagine if you bought a car, and signed all the paperwork and made it official. And then when you started it up for the first time you had to agree to some legalese mumbo jumbo (essentially another contract) before you could drive it!

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that when you own a CD, you cannot do whatever you want with it for your own purposes but what really makes my blood boil is signing a contract (without actually signing your name nor having a witness) for some license AFTER you buy a product. It should be a illegal to require someone to sign a license after the purchase.

Wait. If you purchase software at a store, the EULA needs to be on the outside of the box If you buy it online, you can read the EULA before you buy it. You just need to do a little research (less than you would do when you buy a car!).

Also, you can do a lot with a CD, but you cannot distribute the music! It's not yours. You don't own the copyright. That music needs to be protected or else artists could not make money. And if that were true, a lot of artists (not all, I know) would not be in the field...

 

[rdlink]

Really??
I hate legalese trolls, which Apple is.
Now Apple knows how Psystar feels

You're kidding, right? Please tell me that your understanding of patent and copyright law is not that unsophisticated. If it is, you really should keep your mouth shut, because your post makes you look like an ignorant a**.

Pystar was engaging in acts that were harming Apple's brand. It's a brand that Apple actively uses (and has defended successfully before) by manufacturing and distributing product based on their own legitimate copyright.

OPTI is a company who's only business is to use yours and my tax money, and waste the resources of the PTO, to file patent claims that they never intend to use for anything other than litigate against people who actually work for their money. They're the equivalent of that scumbag who jumps around and screams on television telling you to buy his book on how to get free government grants.

 

[Shasterball]

You're kidding, right? Please tell me that your understanding of patent and copyright law is not that unsophisticated. If it is, you really should keep your mouth shut, because your post makes you look like an ignorant a**.

Pystar was engaging in acts that were harming Apple's brand. It's a brand that Apple actively uses (and has defended successfully before) by manufacturing and distributing product based on their own legitimate copyright.

Easy buddy. First, Apple goes nuts over protecting it's TM. Too far really. I mean, they sued Walgreens in Australia for having a green apple logo that looked nothing like Apple's logo. How is there going to be any confusion at a grocery store with Apple computers? Plus, the TM looks totally different. It's ironic that they were originally sued by the Beatles for TM infringement!

Also, the Psystar thing is interesting. I almost wonder when Apple's CR requiring that OSX be installed only on Apple hardware will be looked at as a tying arrangement. I guess their market share is too low now to appreciably restrain trade in the market of computers. Still, I am curious...

 

[PolarIced]

Wow!

The Eastern District of Texas: just another reason that Texas should secede or be given back to Mexico.

That is just so ignorant I don't know where to start.

I too, wish someone would nuke that district court. But you might consider, however, that 5 states contribute 40% of the whole US GDP. Texas is one of them. And unlike California, we're not on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

[SPUY767]

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.

You can't get your facts from a Hollywood movie. The story told by the movie is biased in order to make it a better film.

 

[koach]

Wait. If you purchase software at a store, the EULA needs to be on the outside of the box If you buy it online, you can read the EULA before you buy it. You just need to do a little research (less than you would do when you buy a car!).

The EULA is most certainly NOT on the outside of the box of most software you purchase at a store. And if you buy it online, it should force you to read and agree to it before reading it. It is not up to the consumer to research if there is a valid EULA before buying a product. It is up to the manufacturer to to provide that info and require you to agree to it before you buy the product. To use my previous example, when you buy a car, it is not up to you to track down any contracts that you are inadvertently agreeing to by taking ownership of the car. The dealership must present you with contracts, and then you must sign them before you take delivery of the vehicle. Having a contract, that may or may not be easy to find, presented to you after the sale should be 100% illegal in all cases, including EULAs.

Also, you can do a lot with a CD, but you cannot distribute the music! It's not yours. You don't own the copyright. That music needs to be protected or else artists could not make money. And if that were true, a lot of artists (not all, I know) would not be in the field...

Which part of "whatever you want for your own personal use" did you not understand from my previous posts? Distributing it to other people is not for your own personal use. Ripping to iTunes, copying a CD for yourself in case the original gets damaged, selling the CD when you are tired of it, etc. are example of personal use. I don't think anybody, including me, is saying that if you buy a CD you should be able to mass produce it and sell it. What we're saying is that you should be able to do whatever you want with that copy for your own personal use. Distributing it for free or commercially would fall outside of "your own personal use."

Just as a side note, keep in mind that the idea of intellectual property and copyrights on music is a relatively modern invention. From the damn of time until recent history, musicians made their living by performing. They didn't just spend one day in a recording studio, then kick back while the millions poured in. Musicians were just like everyone else - they ha to get up and go to work every day if they wanted to earn a living. The bastardization of copyright, combined with organizations like the RIAA and the ability to mass produce CDs/tapes/records is what changed all of that. I am not saying I condone buying a music CD and sharing it with others via P2P, I'm just pointing out that historically musicians made their living from performance, not from copyrights and royalties. Our copyright system is completely insane and utterly broken, and we need to return to something more reasonable. Something like 5 years copyright and make it legal for non-commercial sharing. Musicians should make their living the same as you and I do - getting up every day and going into work.

 

[SPUY767]

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!

Turbo Tax $1200.00 back at Tax time, My accountant paid 400$ to do my taxes, six grand back at tax time. Looks like Intuit won't be getting any more of my money.

 

[koach]

Pystar was engaging in acts that were harming Apple's brand. It's a brand that Apple actively uses (and has defended successfully before) by manufacturing and distributing product based on their own legitimate copyright.

They were providing a way for you to run a legally licensed copy of OSX on a generic PC. Claiming it harm's Apple's brand is just silly.

If I buy a new battery for my GM car, and find out that the battery has some sort of restrictions so that it can only run in a BMV, is it wrong to modify the battery to work in my car? Nope. Is it wrong for me to buy a product that does the modification for me? Nope. Yes, it may cause problems for my car and I can't expect the battery company to support it, but I should be legally allowed to do that. And it would certainly not hurt the battery's brand name.

I just can't fathom how any person that favors individual liberty and freedom can support stuff like this - EULAs, DRM, the DMCA, etc. are all anti-freedom evils.

 

[SPUY767]

In this case all that is important is that the information is transient. That is vague if you are an engineer (as I was for many years), but it is much more specific than most patent claims are (most claims wouldn't bother pointing out that you have to store things in a memory). The patent doesn't have to claim details that would be apparent to "a person having ordinary skill in the art." (PHOSITA) Since a PHOSITA would know how to store something in memory temporarily, the patentee does not need to explain the details of that step. And this claim would cover ALL such methods of storing things temporarily (as long as all the OTHER claim limitations are also present in the device).

As for the quality of my engineering education, I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering with a concentration in solid state physics, and designed microprocessors for AMD for 9 years, and two other companies for about a year and a half. So why don't you lay off the aspersions?

And I used t gloat about having 2 MS and a BS. :-(

 

[rdlink]

Easy buddy. First, Apple goes nuts over protecting it's TM. Too far really. I mean, they sued Walgreens in Australia for having a green apple logo that looked nothing like Apple's logo. How is there going to be any confusion at a grocery store with Apple computers? Plus, the TM looks totally different. It's ironic that they were originally sued by the Beatles for TM infringement!

Also, the Psystar thing is interesting. I almost wonder when Apple's CR requiring that OSX be installed only on Apple hardware will be looked at as a tying arrangement. I guess their market share is too low now to appreciably restrain trade in the market of computers. Still, I am curious...

A lot of companies are voracious about defending their TM. It's smart. Especially when there are so many companies out there that try to blur the lines in subtle ways every day, and so many gullible consumers who fall for it. Did you know that Walt Disney turned down the government during WWII when they asked him to loan out the likeness of Disney characters for use in forest fire prevention PSMs? It wasn't because he was un-American. But Ol' Walt knew that it's easy to lose your IP to public domain if you're not diligent. Smart companies realize that the doctrine of waiver can be dangerous when not defended proactively, especially in the hands of stupid juries and activist judges.

There is nothing particularly interesting about the Pystar case, other than the cahonas that the defendants showed in engaging in their illegal activity. Apple sells their software/hardware combination as a complete package. They are very clear in their intent to do so, and anyone purchasing the license to use the software is bound by those terms. Period. End of story. As a purchaser, your only recourse is to NOT PURCHASE IT.