Apple Pays $25 Million in Settlement Over Cover Flow, Time Machine Patents

[Piggie]

Find a patent that has been AWARDED to Apple that they don't use.

Here's the 1st one:

http://www.novascientia.net/articles/292/Apple-patents-touch-sensitive-bezels

Touch Sensitive Bezels


.

Another one.....

Camera behind the screen:

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...h-andor-fingerprint-scanner-until-needed.html


.

How about a Flexible display?

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...-flexible-oled-iphone-or-wearable-device.html

.

 

[ellsworth]

Whoa.... totally didn't expect any of this to happen this way.

 

[akash.nu]

Not saying they aren't justified since they own the patent. It's just a slimy business model.

It's not a business model. It's protecting copyrights.

 

[MH01]

Good grief.

You really shouldn't be posting in his thread if you actually think Apple uses all the thousands of patents it has, on everything from tubular zirconium cases, to scanning for a face to wake up a phone, to emotion based advertisements. Their years of Liquid Metal related patents alone should be a clue.

Apple even famously sued Samsung this past year, over a patent claim that Apple itself does not use.



Not useless. The chart he posted showing the number of relative filings, lets us know how hard each company is trying. Remember, it takes years for a patent to be granted.

That said, you have a point about filing vs. grants. Perhaps you should do as he suggested and do some research to back up (or disprove) your ideas..

For example, I just did a quick search at the USPTO and found that of the ~2000 filings in the chart for 2011, Apple has so far been granted over 1400.

You can easily learn how to do the same kind of search, and look at them and notice how many / few are likely in use. Try it. Facts are much more fun than the alternatives.

Talk about not understanding the basics of parents .... Someone would actually believe Apple uses all thier patents...wow .

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Seems like Apple has been busy copying rather than inventing or being creative these days. Sad isn't it?

Maybe but, different thread. This is about something Apple introduced in it's Jobs II era heyday. And $25m settlement doesn't sound like much copying. That's a token fee to make trolls w/ no case go away because it's easier and cheaper than going to trial. $25m for Apple is like $5K to you and me.

 

[Kabeyun]

Unless apple does it. Then its called protectiong intellectual property

That old saw is worn out, I'm afraid. People who keep trying it out as a counterargument don't bother to consider if there are any differences between these two kinds of companies.

I'm pretty sure Apple has actually made one or two things. The IP they tend to protect is IP they either developed in house or acquired so they could use it to make something. In some cases they buy it to protect against a competitor using it, but it always applies to a product line.

If you're interested, look at Network-1's press release log. It contains three kinds of entries: patent purchases, lawsuit updates, and financial reports. That's. All. They. Do. The patent portfolio is the product. That's the litmus test for a patent troll. Patent categories and relationships with inventors/investors is just detail.

If anyone honestly believes Apple's business model (please don't bother reminding us that yes, they have licensed parents before) is to make money through patent licensing, I extend them an invitation back to Earth where they'll discover otherwise.

Sry, couldn't resist getting a little snarky. Equating patent trolls (or in this case, "patent trolls plus") to a tech company gets my dander up. And yes, I'd come to Samsung's, RIM's, Nokia's, etc. defense on this too.

 

[xDKP]

Challenge for you.
Go and find out how many patents Apple holds. Then find out how many products they make/made that actually utilise those patents. They should sell the ones they aren’t using or have them removed by your logic?

In fact. I’ve done a little of the legwork for you;
Now, if you look here you’ll be able to read the entire article but just to quote part of it, (my emphasis);

But who has the strongest patent portfolio?
There are a few ways to answer this question. The first, and most common way is to look at patent filings. However by itself this is a bit simplistic, as this does not take into account the quality of these patents. For this reason in this blog we look carefully at both the quality and quantity of patents filed by these three leading companies.

The graph on that page;
View attachment 639590
Shows that Apple, (ignore the others as we are talking about your loved ones right now), filed 2000 patents in 2011 ALONE.

Apple is in no way "my loved one", but to compare them with a company that haven't produced a single product in their history is just plain stupid. The system requires the big companies to patent not just products, but ideas and possible products so yeah, major difference

 

[Tech198]

EDIT: Also, the link to the patent seems broken.

Not broken.

 

[Morod]

I do miss my Cover Flow....

 

[doctor-don]

It seems like they were academic computer scientists coming up with innovative ideas. Not exactly my image of a patent troll but who knows.
[doublepost=1468023764][/doublepost]For those wondering Mirror Worlds LLC's compensation was

"The consideration paid by Network-1 to Mirror Worlds, LLC for the Patent Portfolio consisted of (i) $3,000,000 in cash, (ii) 5-year warrants to purchase 875,000 shares of common stock of Network-1 at $1.40 per share, and (iii) 5-year warrants to purchase 875,000 shares of Network-1 at $2.10 per share.

Recognition also received from Network-1 an interest in the net proceeds realized from the monetization of the Patent Portfolio as follows: (i) 10% of the first $125 million of net proceeds, (ii) 15% of the next $125 million of net proceeds, (iii) and 20% of any portion of the net proceeds in excess of $250 million."

So they got $3 million up front, plus they'll get $2.5 million (10%) from this lawsuit + licensing.

You refer to Mirror World Technologies but the lawsuit is from Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc,, the company that bought MWT for $3M. I wonder what the first lawsuit against Apple cost MWT.

"The newly acquired Patent Portfolio [from the acquisition in May 2013 of MWT by NSS] includes 9 issued United States patents and 5 pending applications covering foundational technologies that enable unified search and indexing, displaying and archiving of documents in a computer system."

 

[H2SO4]

Apple is in no way "my loved one", but to compare them with a company that haven't produced a single product in their history is just plain stupid. The system requires the big companies to patent not just products, but ideas and possible products so yeah, major difference

No, not at all. Apple are guilty of filing patents for things that have not materialised into a product. Period. Fact. Are you going to argeu the point?
Now, company B hasn’t made a product, fine, but it doesn’t stop company A being a hypocrite. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

I’ll repeat it again in case you missed it.

Two. Thousand. Patents. In one year alone. In one year. This is them playing silly buggers, no question.

 

[997941]

Except that Apple actually MAKES things protected by the patents they own, whereas, "Network-1 describes itself as a company 'engaged in the development, licensing and protection of its intellectual property and proprietary technologies.'"

Or in other words, they don't make a damn

So, if i have a great idea that I protect with a patent, (because you know, thats what a patent is supposed to do), but I dont have the capital to put my idea into production, anyone who can see my patent can just steal my idea, because my idea is not in production? Is that your stance......really?

 

[Chrisadapt]

Mirror Worlds doesn't sound like a patent troll. But on the other had Network-1 does (correct me if I'm wrong). So perhaps Network-1 wasn't deserving of that win, but Mirror Worlds was. But to expect MirrorWorlds to spend all that time, money and energy fighting a legal battle is a lot. They're the little guy. So they took an advance and let the big guys, whom we don't like, do the fighting.

Morally ambiguous.

EDIT: Also, the link to the patent seems broken.

All these patent lawsuits are getting out of hand! Organizing papers of forms in chronological order has been around since way before computers even existed and porting it over into a computer doesn't mean you inveted it!

 

[Piggie]

So, if i have a great idea that I protect with a patent, (because you know, thats what a patent is supposed to do), but I dont have the capital to put my idea into production, anyone who can see my patent can just steal my idea, because my idea is not in production? Is that your stance......really?

Si I've invented by skill/chance and a bit of luck a cure for cancer, but I patent it, as one day I "might" get the funds together or decide I wish to create the cure into something others can use. But perhaps I take a dislike to humanity or I just don't feel like sharing, and keep it to myself.

Others try and infringe on my method, so I take them to court and block them.
Millions continue to die of cancer as I'm personally blocking the cure to be put into production.

You happy with me doing that?

==== AND ====


[doublepost=1468072187][/doublepost]I'd like a time machine so I could go back and patent the wheel
(A circular shape made from any material that rotates around a central hole of any size that accepts a shaft to pass thru it, which allows the wheel to turn)

I'm not greedy.
I only want 1 cent from every wheel that's ever made anywhere by anyone.

Nice

 

[thespacekid]

Shouldn't the patent have expired by now? I suspect licensing fees will be ending pretty soon.

 

[oneMadRssn]

The original developers of the patent were academic computer scientists. Network-1 is anything but that.

How do you think those original inventors, the academic computer scientists, get funding for future research? Maybe by selling or licensing the fruits of their prior research to companies willing to monetize it?

If you suggest companies like Network-1 should have some sort of lesser rights, that kills the value of patents, kills researchers ability to sell prior research, and kills their ability to fund future research. Is that what you want?

 

[appahappa]

Unless apple does it. Then its called protectiong intellectual property

No, it's different. Apple actually uses the "invention". Patent trolls just have the patent without doing anything with it.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Si I've invented by skill/chance and a bit of luck a cure for cancer, but I patent it, as one day I "might" get the funds together or decide I wish to create the cure into something others can use. But perhaps I take a dislike to humanity or I just don't feel like sharing, and keep it to myself.

Others try and infringe on my method, so I take them to court and block them.
Millions continue to die of cancer as I'm personally blocking the cure to be put into production.

You happy with me doing that?

That would never happen and is not possible under our current law. You need to be an active participant in the industry, at a minimum, to block someone from infringing in that same industry. (Search "ebay factors induction", if you wanna know more). Notice how these assertion companies never get injunctions.

If you just owned this cancer cure patent and sat on it, you wouldn't even be able to get lost profits, because you don't make anything. The most you would be able to get is reasonable royalties.

If you really did invent the cure to cancer, I think it's fair that companies that use your patent be forced to pay you reasonable royalties.

 

[AdonisSMU]

So if I came up with a great idea but not enough capital to develop it, I shouldn't be able to "hoard" that intellectual property? Really? Companies should be able to come and take it without licensing it? Because, Apple? Please.

Then maybe it's not a product by itself where it needs a patent.

 

[lars666]

$25m for Apple is like $5K to you and me.

Man, I wish.

 

[geenosr]

I do miss my Cover Flow....

I really miss cover flow also. I always wondered why it disappeared, and this news sheds some light on it. I'm sure they aren't bringing it back, but I really liked it. Maybe it's my connection to growing up with albums and enjoying the album art that came with records. I guess millenials don't have that connection and probably don't care.

 

[NewdestinyX]

I really miss cover flow also. I always wondered why it disappeared, and this news sheds some light on it. I'm sure they aren't bringing it back, but I really liked it. Maybe it's my connection to growing up with albums and enjoying the album art that came with records. I guess millenials don't have that connection and probably don't care.

You can still get CoverFlow in a jailbreak tweak.

 

[Elian_Gonzalez]

Seems like Apple has been busy copying rather than inventing or being creative these days. Sad isn't it?

Why they haven't hired you to lead them to the Land of Constant Creativity remains the greater sadness.

 

[_mdavenport]

You have violated my patent for a vessel that will hold a fluid substance containing molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. This vessel may be held to a users face at an angle from 280 degrees to 350 degrees causing the fluid to flow from the vessel into the user's mouth. This all to aid in the act of hydrating the user. Alternatively, other fluid substances beyond that which is mentioned above may also be contained and transferred within the aforementioned vessel.

Pay up, Nalgene!

 

[kdarling]

Seems like Apple has been busy copying rather than inventing or being creative these days. Sad isn't it?

That doesn't apply here.

Software patent infringement is rarely about outright copying. It often simply means that one company got a patent on a method before another one did, or even thought to try to.

Except that Apple actually MAKES things protected by the patents they own,

It'd be interesting to calculate approximately how many of Apple's patents they actually use in products. I suspect it's a very low percentage. Most companies file for defensive purposes these days, not for actual products.

whereas, "Network-1 describes itself as a company 'engaged in the development, licensing and protection of its intellectual property and proprietary technologies.'"

As others have pointed out, sometimes patent licensing companies are necessary for a patent to actually have a chance of being used.

Isn't it far, far better that a company is willing to license its patents for anyone to use, than for a single company to hold onto a patent only for themselves?

E.g. the iPhone would not exist if it were not for IP that Apple is able to license from other companies.

I'm pretty sure Apple has actually made one or two things. The IP they tend to protect is IP they either developed in house or acquired so they could use it to make something. In some cases they buy it to protect against a competitor using it, but it always applies to a product line.

Sometimes not. Just look at the Liquid Metal license they bought, which meant that companies like Samsung... who had been using LM since 2002, and had even made an entire phone chassis of it at one time... were blocked from continuing to use that material.

Yet Apple has so far done nothing with it for years, except make SIM extractors. A sad waste of its use on consumer electronics by other companies.

All these patent lawsuits are getting out of hand! Organizing papers of forms in chronological order has been around since way before computers even existed and porting it over into a computer doesn't mean you invented it!

The Supreme Court recently agreed with you that simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as a patent-eligible invention. In theory, that decision should invalidate thousands of such software patents.