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 Preemptively Sues 'Patent Troll' to Address Threats Over USB-Related Power Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Awesome. Go get the scum. Those losers should go contribute to society rather than stealing.
Please tell us where exactly Apple sued anyone for "rectangle with rounded corners".
You have a lot of nerve accusing Apple of "calling someone a patent troll." Where, precisely, did they do that?
Answer: they didn't.
[doublepost=1549472018][/doublepost]
No, it does not.
[doublepost=1549472124][/doublepost]
Congratulations. You just put every engineering university with research departments out of business by eliminating the validity oft heir patent portfolios.
They're already one of most litigious companies in the US. You want them to be more litigious?
So all research universities are patent trolls? The CDC and USDA are patent trolls? Even Apple has asserted patents they do not use themselves, so is Apple a patent troll? You're definition is way way too broad.
It's also too narrow. I would consider a small company, even if it also uses its patents, but which asserts its patents seeking small dollar settlements (less than cost of litigation) from as many people as possible to be a patent troll.
In today's economy, one of the many reasons patents exist is so that companies can create valuable assets that they can offer as collateral to investors. This is HUGELY important to startups. What you are suggesting would make all patents worthless, which would really hinder investment in startups with no other assets to offer up.
Again, it's not about money. The patent system exists to promote the proliferation and use of ideas. Anything that holds back the use of ideas in actual products is violating the very tenant of patent law. Patent law came about not because people couldn't find a way to profit on their ideas, but rather, because the best ideas were being kept as company secrets and dying with that company. Patents were designed to be a compromise: "Tell ya what - you can exclusively profit from this awesome idea fo 20 years, PROVIDING that after that you explain to everyone in the world how it's done and let them use it for free forever after." This prevents critical technological backsliding and useful information getting lost. It's a higher principle than capitalism.
To your second point, I would be amazed if it ever really occurred that a company was literally "using a patent". The common case is that it's an obvious thing that the other company was found to be "already using" and is trivial to replace without effecting the end result - such is the sad state of patents today, and it's why patent trolls try to hide what patent they are suing you for.
You are making too much of this. It's an epithet. It's not a legally meaningful term. You aren't allowed to call someone a patent troll in court. Lawyers seldom use the term. (We prefer "NPE").
You are entitled to call small practicing companies who elicit cost of litigation settlements patent trolls if you'd like (free country and all) but nobody else does.
[doublepost=1549472723][/doublepost]
Seriously?
Patents are in the U.S. Constitution (1783). That derives from English law that preceded it, which derives from laws dating all the way back to Venice in the 1400's. You think there were a lot of "company secrets" back then?
I think that is a very different scenario. A patent can only be registered to one owner. So a consortium was required to share the ownership of the patents purchased from Nortel. All of the consortium partners actively use the patents it holds.
You didn't read the article did you?
"FISI, described by Apple as a patent assertion entity formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation...."
I did. Where do the words "patent troll" appear there?
Is it untrue that FISI is a patent assertion entity formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation?
Is that irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the case? (It's not. It's relevant to damages, so it should be pled).
Of course, nothing in this fan forum is legally meaningful. I'm a patent litigator myself, so I know all the terms (NPE, PAE, monetization vehicle, litigation corp., etc.).
I think in the past several years there has been a lot of misinformation, or information presented in a very misleading context, to the regular public and that has caused them to really misunderstand the what, how, and why of IP. Specifically, This American Life had 2 episodes, and John Oliver had an episode, about patent trolls. Both included very bad definitions of patent troll, and both also made the issue seem far more prevalent than it really is. So I do my little tiny insignificant part (mostly while pooping at the office) to correct people on this forum. I think if people understand that patents having value drives investment in startups, funds incredible research, and allows investors to recoup losses, they might understand the context for these types of lawsuits a bit better.
The other think is there really is a problem, albeit a small one, with patent trolls. Companies that don't engage in good-faith litigation. I've been opposite these a number of times. I usually describe them as companies seeking solely nuisance settlements, and have no intention of actually valuing their patents. They also always have terrible horribly invalid patents. They probably picked them up for very little ($1,000 per patent or less), after all the serious investors have picked out the better ones out of a portfolio. In other words, the patents are bottom of the barrel. They know the patents suck, so they just file against everyone they can think hoping to get enough settlement before having to engage in any meaningful discovery. Those are not contributing to the economy in any way, and in my opinion, actually doing harm. So they should be labeled as trolls and I can think of a few rules or laws that should pass to curtail them.
FISI, described by Apple as a patent assertion entity formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation
Right there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
In other words, they words "patent troll" do not appear, and Apple didn't call them a patent troll.
Apple: patent assertion entity formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_definition: Related expressions are "non-practising entity" "patent assertion entity" (PAE)
You keep posting more and more proof that the words "patent troll" were never uttered by Apple with respect to this entity. Apple never called them that.
What about this are you not getting?
Apple calls them a patent assertion entity. Patent assertion entity is related name for a patent troll. Did they use the words patent troll specifically? No. Did they call them a patent troll? Yes.
It's "a related term?" So what. If someone calls me a Jew they aren't calling me a [nasty term for jew], even though the latter term is "related" to the prior term.
One term is an epithet. The other is simply the correct terminology that accurately describes the entity. You said they called them a patent troll. They have not.
Alright. Well I'm not going to get a notice from Weaselboy so I'm done with this conversation. If you can't see that Apple called them a patent troll there's no further point in discussing this you.
Honestly the main issue that I have with the current patent system is the standards are far to low. In many cases these tech companies are implementing obvious solutions with no inspiration from the patent holder.
Companies are creating solutions independently, digging through patent archives to see if they are in violation, and still being sued.
Companies are creating solutions independently, digging through patent archives to see if they are in violation, and still being sued.