Don't be so sure. Most large companies are self insured, to one extent or another. I don't know why Apple would be purchasing insurance when they have boatloads of cash, but that's just my guess.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Ordered to Pay Optis Wireless $300 Million in Second LTE Patent Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"I still don't understand". I don't know enough to take a position on the specific lawsuit, but let me try to help you with your understanding. Some very smart person invents something useful. They don't have the means to exploit it in a product (and if you don't already understand why that might be true, I will explain that to you as well). So they sell it to an investor for significant money. That investor spends a great deal of money accumulating a set of patent rights, which they then make money off from licensing. It's like any other investment where you own the property, and you let people pay you to use it; like rent, for example, The reason the licensing entity is damaged is that they paid good money to the inventor in the expectation that they would gain licensing revenues; given that this is how the actual patent law works, they had every right to do so. It's the law, it's the rules, and it's how intellectual property works. They are letting people use their property in exchange for a fee.
As a 20 year in business insurance agent that other poster you quoted was 100% correct. ALL corporations, companies, small businesses and entrepreneurs must have blanket insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits. Apple's 2 trillion dollars isn't all surplus cash and they don't have as much liquid cash as it may appear. Companies are sued left right and sideways much more than the public sees. They cannot afford to dig in their pockets to settle every suit. They would lose a great deal of investors.
A patent is just a piece of paper from the government acknowledging you have the right to a piece of intellectual property. It's like the title on a house. The title is a piece of paper from the government acknowledging you have the right to a piece of real estate that they, or a predecessor government, seized from some other group of people in a war or other land grab some few hundred years earlier.
LOL, you really had to go to epipens in defending Apple. "But, what about the children?!?!?!" I don't think "Timmy" is likely to go without goose this Christmas.
I think some folks don't quite understand, conceptually, what happens here. It's irrelevant, and always has been, whether you have production going on if you own the patent to something.
Many of you may be familiar with IPs, characters, etc. No, they aren't patents, but the concept is the same. I don't need to have done anything with an IP or character to still own it, and disallow others to just use it on their products without my express permission, which often comes with royalties.
You can like this or you can not like it, but the issue with giving Apple the "right" by saying that the company doesn't have any production sets a precedent where a patent is literally useless unless there's a means of production behind it. Many companies, including Apple, own patents they've purchased before there was production behind them. I am sure Apple owns plenty of in-house developed patents that aren't in production as well and I can't see them just giving those patents up for competitors to use as soon as someone else employs them in their own product.
Not really picking sides here, just trying to look at the whole picture, all while fully admitting I am not a lawyer, and can only share that viewpoint. As a general stance, I feel like patent trolls are awful, but at the same time recognize that pointing to a lack of production as a lack of a patent's legitimacy isn't the answer, as it potentially hurts more people than it ends up helping.
Many of you may be familiar with IPs, characters, etc. No, they aren't patents, but the concept is the same. I don't need to have done anything with an IP or character to still own it, and disallow others to just use it on their products without my express permission, which often comes with royalties.
You can like this or you can not like it, but the issue with giving Apple the "right" by saying that the company doesn't have any production sets a precedent where a patent is literally useless unless there's a means of production behind it. Many companies, including Apple, own patents they've purchased before there was production behind them. I am sure Apple owns plenty of in-house developed patents that aren't in production as well and I can't see them just giving those patents up for competitors to use as soon as someone else employs them in their own product.
Not really picking sides here, just trying to look at the whole picture, all while fully admitting I am not a lawyer, and can only share that viewpoint. As a general stance, I feel like patent trolls are awful, but at the same time recognize that pointing to a lack of production as a lack of a patent's legitimacy isn't the answer, as it potentially hurts more people than it ends up helping.
A patent is property, like your house or your car. You can use it, OR NOT, however you wish. You don't need to have "operations". You can "sell" or license the property in whole or in part just like any other property you own as long as the property belongs to you (so long as the patent it valid). If I take your car without paying for it, you have been "damaged". The actual amount is usually based on the decision of the judge or jury, or often negotiated between the parties after the verdict.
It does. Patents are specifically mentioned in the Constitution and Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement actions. Since they can be filed anywhere a Federal court has jurisdiction, and Texas has proven friendly to patent holders, they file there. IIRC, you can setup an office in Texas and file there.
Last edited:
Ah......I was naively thinking along the lines that only one Federal Court (perhaps in DC?) would hear all patent cases so as to remove the regional variations and discrepancies. A patent expert court to provide some consistency.
No i don't know this for a fact, but either i / we don't know about what patents is this case, in general, it doesen't make any sence.
I have searched for LTE modems in iPhones since iphones
iPhone 6 will feature a Qualcomm MDM9625 LTE modem
iPhone7 - LTE modems from two different sources, Qualcomm and Intel. The A1778 and A1784 iPhone models use a GSM-only Intel XMM7360 modem while the A1660 and 1661 iPhone models use a GSM/CDMA-compatible Qualcomm MDM9645M modem
iPhone 8 is Intel's fourth-generation LTE modem -- the XMM 7480
iPhone X Model A1902 – This iPhone X also uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon X16 LTE modem, but is only sold in Japan. iPhone X Model A1901 – This model uses Intel's XMM 7480 modem — which is GSM-based
iPhone 11 / Pro uses Modem from Intel didnt find the type on the fly.
and where im going with this, Apple cant just buy a peace of HW / Chip from a company a use some other SW for it just as he likes, because it would simply not work, he must use the code from the chip maker, there could be adjustments but the core cant be changed, so how can it be that Optis is suing apple and not Intel / Quallcom.
Apple has nothing to do with this as i would see it, but as i wrote earlier i / we don't have all of the facts to understand it, thats why this doesent make any sence.
This is a simple problem to solve, the US Patent office should have the same stipulation it has on Trademarks ... you can have a patent but if you don't commercialize or license it commercially within a set period of time (lets say 5 - 6 years), then you relinquish the right to the patent. This can even be renewable via some other efforts .... This puts pressure to do things the right way instead of holding a random patent, that sits in the dark somewhere and waiting for someone to copy it 20 years later ....
The real issue is that absolute garbage parents are being issued by the USPTO. We’re long overdue for significant patent reform in the US.
List of Patents;
Patents Assigned to Optis Wireless Technology, LLC - Justia Patents Search
Justia - Patents - Patents and Patent Application Resources
patents.justia.com
Great article on this specific trial
A New Trial is Ordered with Respect to Damages in Optis Wireless v. Apple, Despite No FRAND Claims at Issue
On April 14, 2021, in a somewhat surprising about face, Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a new trial with respect to damages in Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00066-JRG (E.D. Texas), despite previously ruling that no FRAND based claims remained in the...
Quote from the article
" As is apparent from reviewing these decisions, one big reason alleged infringers of patents subject to licensing declarations are reluctant to raise such counterclaims and affirmative defenses is because the undertaking to license on FRAND terms is only to the extent the patents are “essential” to practicing the standard, and admitting a patent is essential can be used as evidence of infringement. But having now lost on infringement, there was no downside for Apple to go all in on FRAND, as part of what Judge Rodney Gilstrap described as a “post-trial epiphany regarding the absence of FRAND evidence” in the Order regarding Apple’s Motion for New Trial (“New Trial Order”). "
Long and short of it, this is a game lawyers play. Patent system needs a big re-write.
With the law the fight is not against what is wrong, but the rule book.
Last edited:
Under patent law in the United States there are two measures of damage. Lost profits (presumably not applicable here), and a reasonable royalty.