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

And People

Wonder why the economy is so ****** up, bunch of sue happy attorney's.......................

You'd think Apple would wake up and cross all the t's and dot the i's before using such an application also. Amazing how the suing market is picking up now a days
 
phineas said:
Wonder why the economy is so ****** up, bunch of sue happy attorney's.......................

You'd think Apple would wake up and cross all the t's and dot the i's before using such an application also. Amazing how the suing market is picking up now a days
Click to expand...

Attorneys don't sue. Clients do.
 
pdjudd said:
I think the implications are that the attorneys are the ones who are convincing people to sue or are responsible since they do all the work...
Click to expand...

I get the implication, but it's wrong. It's not like you've seen ambulance chasing patent attorneys on tv - "has your patent been infringed? Call us!"

Intellectual property law doesn't work that way. Potential clients come to us, we analyze their situation and determine if they have a case, and whether they have anything to gain by suing. (in my case, I've always been on the defendants' side). Often there is already an underlying business dispute, and the two sides have already been skirmishing about contracts or licenses.
 
cmaier said:
I get the implication, but it's wrong. It's not like you've seen ambulance chasing patent attorneys on tv - "has your patent been infringed? Call us!”
Click to expand...

That’s fine. I was not commenting on the accuracy. I know it’s wrong.

Intellectual property law doesn't work that way. Potential clients come to us, we analyze their situation and determine if they have a case, and whether they have anything to gain by suing. (in my case, I've always been on the defendants' side). Often there is already an underlying business dispute, and the two sides have already been skirmishing about contracts or licenses.
Click to expand...

In case it isn’t clear, I am familiar with the process. I haven’t been through it personally, but I have enough second and third hand stories and readings to have at least a minor understanding of how things work.
 
pdjudd said:
That’s fine. I was not commenting on the accuracy. I know it’s wrong.



In case it isn’t clear, I am familiar with the process. I haven’t been through it personally, but I have enough second and third hand stories and readings to have at least a minor understanding of how things work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was directing my comments at phineas.
 
Easy Come, Easy Go

2.7 Million in from Psystar,
(Another) 2.7 Million out for OPTi

Coincidence? :D
 
Can anyone explain what the unique and innovative concepts are in the digital camera related patent? This bothers me because I can look on scholar.google.com and find thousands of journal articles related to digital photography applications going way back to the 1980's well before this patent was filed.
 
cjmillsnun said:
This is the only reason I support Apple (and AMD) against OPTi Inc.


http://www.opti.com/
http://www.opti.com/html/releases.html

That is OPTi Inc's entire website.

A title page, and then press releases that are all to do with patent litigation.

They don't manufacture a thing. They exist to sue other companies.
Click to expand...

They should make some clause int the patent law, if the item isn't manufactured after the the "Monopoly" period. It should become public domain.
 
MorphingDragon said:
They should make some clause int the patent law, if the item isn't manufactured after the the "Monopoly" period. It should become public domain.
Click to expand...

that's exacty how patent law works. The monopoly period is 20 Years from when te Patent application is filed. Then it's public domain.
 
The funny thing about all of this for me is that I actually owned an OPTi product. It was the OPTI MAD16 sound card, and it was bundled with the Quantex 486DX33 that was my first PC. It did OK for what it was, and the Timpani sound built into the otherwise cheesy Yamaha FM chip doubled well as a bass synth sound to complement my Turtle Beach Monterey's samples.

Perhaps, then, it was a bit of foreshadowing about OPTi's current attitude when, as Windows 95 approached, it blatantly refused to update any drivers for its sound card products, rendering the cards obsolete. Many of OPTi's competitors using virtually the same chipsets found on the MAD16 provided Windows 95 drivers, so OPTi's move was baffling to me at the time.

I moved on to other sound cards, of course; I think I gave the card and the accompaning CD-ROM drive as a kit to Goodwill, as the CD-ROM drive used the proprietary Sony data connector. (Many of Quantex's 486 systems were released before ATAPI became the de facto standard.)
 
cmaier said:
I'm a patent attorney, and I only take the defendants' side.
Click to expand...

So if Apple sued over one of their patents, you'd fight Apple then? Sorry, but these threads are always one-sided on here. These are "evil patent trolls" when they're going after Apple, but when Apple goes against another company, the other company are the bad guys. And don't be fooled. Apple files TONS of patents on everything they can think of and they don't build everything they create a patent for...not by a long shot. The door swings both ways.

REAL patent reform should include the inability to patent mere "ideas" on how something would work, but should include a specific method or even a specific circuit design. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The very idea that someone can patent any "loose idea" they come up with for "predictive data snooping" without any METHOD to do it specifically is ludicrous, IMO. If you patent a medicine, it involves ONE SPECIFIC chemical formula. You cannot patent ALL "pain relievers" for example, only one you specifically come up with and then it's for a specific limited time interval. The mere idea that a company could patent the idea for having a camera mounted on a phone for example is stupid (not saying that is the case here, but that is the sort of thing I keep seeing tech patents for over and over again).
 
I'm going to patent something. The description will just be "a thing that does stuff".

Then when anyone builds a thing that does stuff, I'll SUE!
 
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