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

[koach]

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.

Except for the fact that Walt Disney and his bought and paid for Congressman are one of the major reason that copyright in this country is absolutely broken. The damages they did to the copyright system because Disney didn't walt Mickey Mouse going into the public domain have ruined our copyright system. Yes the system was broken before, and yes it has been made worse, but the Walt Disney Company was one of the biggest setbacks for copyright in this country. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

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.

Except for the fact that I can buy a retail box of OSX Leopard in a number of places, without a EULA being presented anywhere to me before hand, nor requiring me to agree to it or sign anything before handing them my money. THAT is the issue. OSX Leopard exists as a standalone product for anyone to buy, and it is not in any way presented in such a way that it is part of a hardware/software package. Period. End of story.

 

[rdlink]

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.

Gee, it doesn't take you long to use 2+2 to equal 5, does it? Apple sells a product. That product is a LICENSE to use their software, under terms of an agreement that you accept by virtue of buying it and using it. Your only recourse, if you don't want to abide by that license is NOT TO BUY AND USE IT. You have no constitutional, legal, moral or birth right to use Apple's OS. The only right you have is to buy the license to use it, UNDER THE TERMS AGREED TO IN THAT LICENSE.

What gets me about the weak a** arguments I see and hear from all of the "EULA and DRM are anti-freedom" supporters such as yourself is that you seem to lose sight of this one question: What about Apple's right to sell their product, that they developed and manufactured, in the way that they want? Legally, they can do that without stomping your right, which I will reiterate, is to just not buy it.

If you want to load an OS on any piece of hardware that will support it, buy a Windows license, or download Linux.

And no, claiming that installing OSX on another piece of hardware will harm Apple's brand is not silly. Silly is claiming the opposite. Apple has two distinct reasonings for this. First, their business model is based on selling a hardware and software combination. Selling software alone would not sustain that business model. Consequently, they put the conditions for agreeing to use their product in place. Second, they have invested millions of dollars telling their consumers that they have the most stable personal computing system on the market. Whether you agree with their claim is a subject for another debate. But their claim is possible, in their view, because they control the relationship between the hardware and software. Others putting their software on non-apple hardware would be damaging to their business model, and their reputation. So, again, they put the conditions for agreeing to use their product in place.

I am not naive enough to think that I will ever convince you that you're wrong. I've had this debate with many, many people such as yourself, who only want what they want, will use whatever reasoning necessary to get it. Fortunately for the many companies such as Apple, and others, who all make fine products, there are laws in place to protect them from the likes of you.

 

[pc-proud]

I'm glad apple never sues.

Really! Anyone remeber a website called Thinksecret! I went there all the time until apple SUED him for simply posting stuff insiders sent him. They didn't try and get the information on who sent it, they just sued to SHUT it DOWN!

 

[*LTD*]

Really! Anyone remeber a website called Thinksecret! I went there all the time until apple SUED him for simply posting stuff insiders sent him. They didn't try and get the information on who sent it, they just sued to SHUT it DOWN!

He was being sarcastic.

 

[twoodcc]

I bet apple will appeal

 

[Rocketman]

The entire market cap for OPTI is $40.7m. They could buy the company, pay themselves the $27m, and collect on the other stuff OPTI is doing and TURN A PROFIT.

Rocketman

cite:
They only need to negotiate with four firms to do the deal:
Owner Shares Cost value %ownership
S. Muoio & ... 1.6M $3,006,218 +33%
MG Capital ... 1.6M $2,947,983 +32%
Whitaker (Don C) 1.0M $1,888,930 +21%
Dimensional Fund ... 581.2K $1,104,280 +12%

 

[polaris20]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.0; en-us; Droid Build/ESD20) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

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?

Way to completely not understand what a patent troll is.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.0; en-us; Droid Build/ESD20) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

I have to say congrats to all the people in this thread completely not getting what a patent troll is, despite a lawyer explaining it to you.

Macrumors: the benchmark for stupidity.

 

[space1nvaders]

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!

So true! These patents also make it harder for small businesses to come out with products because of the high legal costs of patents and the potential of infringement. The protection should be of "willfull" infringement, but then again if a company doesn't move quick enough on an idea, others should be able to take the ball and run with it.

 

[Rocketman]

The only viable way to even defend a patent is to use so-called patent trolls. It is nearly impossible for each patent owner to mount the necessary legal preparation and subsequent lawsuits against deep pocket defendants like Apple and Intel.

By putting many patents into a pool and having a full time staff looking for violations, preparing the cases with proof, trying to settle, then suing uncooperative violators is VERY expensive.

It is inappropriate to attack patent law, lawsuit tactics, the fact there are patents at all, when judging a legal action under the CURRENT environment. Our courts are there for the specific purpose of litigating claims.

Want to rail against something useful? How about court procedures themselves which run up the cost of dispute resolution by about 95%, therefore preventing 95% of VALID disputes from being raised at all. The friction in the system promotes widespread and serial fraud and theft. Fix that first.

Rocketman

 

[scottness]

I bet apple will appeal

They should, anyway.

 

[scottness]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.0; en-us; Droid Build/ESD20) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

I have to say congrats to all the people in this thread completely not getting what a patent troll is, despite a lawyer explaining it to you.

Macrumors: the benchmark for stupidity.

lol. Not sure I would have called it the benchmark for stupidity (you know, you and I are both on here), but yeah, there sure are a lot of dumb things threading around.

 

[Master Chief]

I am pretty sure that nobody here actuallty has a single patent, because patents are an evil necessity, to protect your investments from companies like Apple, who keep claiming victory and invention for anything, even if they didn't really invent anything.

How else do we protect our work? By calling Apple and telling them to stop or simply by asking them to pay me? Get a life...

 

[AidenShaw]

I am pretty sure that nobody here actuallty has a single patent, because patents are an evil necessity, to protect your investments from companies like Apple, who keep claiming victory and invention for anything, even if they didn't really invent anything.

How else do we protect our work? By calling Apple and telling them to stop or simply by asking them to pay me? Get a life...

I'm an inventor listed on 3 patents, with 3 or 4 more pending. And yes, it's to not only protect your inventions - but also to get leverage in case your company develops something that is covered by a vague patent already filed. ("OK, it looks like we violated your patent #1234, but your XYZ product violates our patent #5678. Let's cross-license and call off the suits.")

 

[CharBroiled20s]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the world's newest business models....pursuing patent claims.

Nothing new about patent protection claims... My question is how can someone unknowingly infringe on another's patent?

Patents are to protect a unique design or idea from theft... so did Apple’s people re-create that same idea from scratch without any knowledge that it already existed?

If that's actually the case then should the patent stand? Clearly if multiple designers are unwittingly re-creating the exact same technology then the patent originator wasn't really all that clever...

Shouldn't the patent be subject to review or even be overturned?

Otherwise, Apple and Sony knowingly and willfully used other people's technology & lawyer fees should be reimbursed..... No?

Maybe I'm missing something here...

 

[cmaier]

Nothing new about patent protection claims... My question is how can someone unknowingly infringe on another's patent?

Patents are to protect a unique design or idea from theft... so did Apple’s people re-create that same idea from scratch without any knowledge that it already existed?

If that's actually the case then should the patent stand? Clearly if multiple designers are unwittingly re-creating the exact same technology then the patent originator wasn't really all that clever...

Shouldn't the patent be subject to review or even be overturned?

Otherwise, Apple and Sony knowingly and willfully used other people's technology & lawyer fees should be reimbursed..... No?

Maybe I'm missing something here...

There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of patents, and even more patent applications. Many patent applications are never published until the patent issues. No patent applications are published until at least 18 months after filing. So if someone out there has an application pending (being reviewed by the patent office) I may not have any way to even know about it. When it finally issues, it is deemed to have taken effect on the filing date.

Patents can be invalidated at trial by a U.S. district court, or by the Patent Office in a reexamination proceeding. Patents are invalid if they would have been obvious (at the time the patent application was filed - lots of patents seem obvious in hindsight, but that isn't the test), or is not novel (that is, someone else had already invented it). There are various other reasons they can be invalidated, but those are the most important.

In general, when creating an entirely new product, big companies will tend to do a "clearance" - they'll do a search for patents in the area to make sure they don't infringe. However, infringement is a very difficult thing to determine sometimes, and there are so many patents that in some technologies it is essentially impossible to do such a review. Sometimes it will turn up possibly problematic patents, but these patents may not be valid - lawyers will then sometimes write an "opinion letter" saying the patent is invalid, thus preventing a later finding of "willful infringement" against the company.

Having worked on R&D teams at various companies, I assure you that engineers are generally not aware that they are infringing any valid patents.

 

[milani]

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.

The idea for Mickey Mouse (and almost all of Disney's classic characters, for that matter) was borrowed. By the precedent that Disney set in protecting their right to "Mickey Mouse," Mickey Mouse wouldn't be allowed to exist.

 

[cmaier]

The idea for Mickey Mouse (and almost all of Disney's classic characters, for that matter) was borrowed. By the precedent that Disney set in protecting their right to "Mickey Mouse," Mickey Mouse wouldn't be allowed to exist.

And filmakers are in Hollywood because they were avoiding Thomas Edison and his patents.

 

[milani]

True as well.

One question I have regarding St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants is whether they can demonstrate ownership of the patent. Is it enough to just submit/register a patent? Isn't there some need to actually act on behalf of the patent (create a product, for example).

I find it hard to believe that what is essentially a holding company could secure such obscure patents, without demonstrating proper ownership of those patents by developing anything, and then essentially sue for profit. At least Disney created a brand behind his patent - something tangible. From what I can figure St. Clair has done, and intends to do, nothing whatsoever - save to sue the big camera manufacturers, and now presumably all the smart phone manufacturers as well.

Edit: upon further investigation it seems that the company that originally (and genuinely) developed the patents that are in question here, went out of business and sold the patent rights to this holding company. On that basis I suppose they're probably right in this case, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to refer to them as patent whores.

 

[cmaier]

True as well.

One question I have regarding St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants is whether they can demonstrate ownership of the patent. Is it enough to just submit a patent? Isn't there some need to actually act on behalf of the patent (create a product, for example). I find it hard to believe that what is essentially a holding company could secure such obscure patents, without demonstrating proper ownership of those patents by developing anything, and then essentially sue for profit. At least Disney created a brand behind his patent - something tangible. From what I can figure St. Clair has done, and intends to do, nothing whatsoever - save sue the big camera manufacturers, and now presumably all the smart phone manufacturers as well.

Two different issues. "Ownership" of a patent, by default, belongs to the inventor(s). The inventor(s) may assign ownership to anyone else, and often these assignments are recorded at the PTO (but they don't have to be). The owner of a patent, or an exclusive licensee of a patent, has standing to sue for patent infringement. In a patent infringement complaint, the plaintiff must give the basis for its standing, and if there is any question the defendant will undoubtedly press the issue.

The issue you raise is the troll issue - there is no need to commercialize a patent in order to be allowed to sue on it. When we refer to "patent trolls," most people mean non-academic entities which do not actually use the patented invention and derive all their income from suing on the patent or licensing the patent (we also exclude patent pooling companies which actually represent legitimate manufacturers, etc.)

In some cases people get patents specifically to prevent others from practicing the invention, even if they have no intention of practicing the invention or aren't allowed to practice the invention.

An important thing to remember is that a patent does NOT give the inventor the right to practice the invention. The invention might, for example, be illegal to practice. Or, more commonly, the invention might be an improvement on another invention, and the other invention might be patented by somebody else.

All a patent does is give the inventor the right to PREVENT OTHERS from practicing the invention.

 

[milani]

Thanks. That does answer my question. The problem I have with patents is that, from my limited understanding of their historical creation and conception, they were originally conceived as a way of protecting the rights of an inventor to his product (and the fruits of that product, idea, etc) insofar as to encourage the inventor to continue to invent.

That is, if I invented something and was justly rewarded by having it protected, that is an incentive for me to continue to innovate. Conversely, if my hard work is thwarted by someone stealing my idea then there is little incentive for me to continue to innovate.

It seems to me that when patents (designed to protect creative purists) are used to stifle other creative pursuits there is a problem between conception and execution. That is the problem that I have with the Disney patents. If they were allowed in order to secure future creative endeavors then they have served their function correctly; however, this is hardly the case (especially not now, when their products should have entered the public domain). Moreover, they have stifled future creativity (the sort of borrowed creativity that allowed Disney to exist in the first place).

It seems to me that the case of St. Clair is much along the same vein. The patent is no longer serving its function: the developers, even given the incentive of protection, are not creating anything else. Likewise, St. Clair's holding of that patent has the potential to stifle future creative works. I'm by no means an expert, but if the theory of patents as I understand it is true, then I don't see much validity in this case (though I'm sure a jury would disagree with me - as they did with the Disney cases that I'm making vague reference to).

 

[segfaultdotorg]

Why don't they sue Apple over the excessively grainy cameras on the iPhone (the 2G model, at least, haven't used the 3G's camera)?

 

[cmaier]

Thanks. That does answer my question. The problem I have with patents is that, from my limited understanding of their historical creation and conception, they were originally conceived as a way of protecting the rights of an inventor to his product (and the fruits of that product, idea, etc) insofar as to encourage the inventor to continue to invent.

That is, if I invented something and was justly rewarded by having it protected, that is an incentive for me to continue to innovate. Conversely, if my hard work is thwarted by someone stealing my idea then there is little incentive for me to continue to innovate.

It seems to me that when patents (designed to protect creative purists) are used to stifle other creative pursuits there is a problem between conception and execution. That is the problem that I have with the Disney patents. If they were allowed in order to secure future creative endeavors then they have served their function correctly; however, they have also stifled creativity (the sort of borrowed creativity that allowed Disney to exist in the first place). It seems to me that the case of St. Clair is much along the same vein.

The patent is no longer serving its function: the developers, even given the incentive of protection, are not creating anything else. Likewise, St. Clair's holding of that patent has the potential to stifle future creative works. I'm by no means an expert, but if the theory of patents as I understand it is true, then I don't see as much validity in this case.

I think the disney issue is copyright, not patents. The problems I see with copyright are: 1) they last too long. Now it's 120 years, essentially. 2) the laws weren't designed for the digital age.

As for patents, I see what you're saying, but, to be fair, they serve a purpose even if I don't practice them. The fundamental tradeoff of patents is that in exchange for disclosing my invention, I have a temporary (20 year) monopoly on it. Disclosure comes in the form of the patent application, which is supposed to disclose sufficient detail to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.

Even if I don't practice the invention, society may benefit from my "patent trolling" if I am really the first to disclose the invention. It's possible no one else may have thought of the idea. It's possible that others, seeing my idea, will come up with even better ideas, or can leverage my idea into other ideas.

The problem is that in some industries (computer engineering, for example), 20 years is forever, and dozens of people are simultaneously coming up with the same ideas. Even if the troll didn't publish his ideas, someone would have come up with them months later. And, more importantly, trolls typically assert their patents against technology that has little to do with what the patent inventor had in mind - patent prosecutors (those who write patents - patent agents and attorneys - I'm one) are trained to write patent claims as broadly as possible to cover anything that could ever be invented in the future.

 

[milani]

Yes, that's true. And yes, I might be confusing patents with copyrights (forgive me, year and a half left until law school!). I understand what you're saying. By the letter of the law everything is fine, and Apple will likely have to pay up. I suppose my issue is, as you say, that things move too quickly for an antiquated patent system (especially in terms of dealing with digital-related patents).

 

[scottness]

Why don't they sue Apple over the excessively grainy cameras on the iPhone (the 2G model, at least, haven't used the 3G's camera)?

Why would they do that?

 

[Master Chief]

...

It seems to me that when patents (designed to protect creative purists) are used to stifle other creative pursuits there is a problem between conception and execution.

Not true. Companies like Apple, using other peoples work, should simply pay for it, and not brutally claim ownership for something they didn't "invent". To me that equals theft.

And when someone here ever gets smart enough to actually invent something, and get rewarded with a patent, then I'll patiently await your reply or blog post where you cry fool after a company like Apple rips your work. Then we talk... because most people here simply have no clue whatsoever. Not to mention the post junks here, who don't seem to have a life since all they do is post here. Another invention by Apple I guess