Apple Reportedly Bidding to Purchase Nortel Patent Assets

[kdarling]

The courts will decide..

Yep, a jury in Delaware will decide if Nokia has a license case against Apple.

--

My favorite-ever response on the Internet was from someone who was in a discussion about patent cases.

A patent lawyer commented that the person wasn't professionally qualified to discuss such cases.

The person replied: since I'm in the juror pool for my state, I'm qualified to actually _decide_ such cases, much less simply discuss them!

 

[cmaier]

Yep, a jury in Delaware will decide if Nokia has a license case against Apple.

--

My favorite-ever response on the Internet was from someone who was in a discussion about patent cases.

A patent lawyer commented that the person wasn't professionally qualified to discuss such cases.

The person replied: since I'm in the juror pool for my state, I'm qualified to actually _decide_ such cases, much less simply discuss them!

More likely a judge will decide it in response to an MSJ as a matter of law.

And your referenced forum poster was wrong. He is not qualified to decide anything. He is qualified to be one ninth (more or less) of a pool of people who decide what facts are true, after education and instruction from a judge, which your forum poster did not have. A judge would then apply the law, as he interprets it based primarily on precedent, to those facts.

 

[Stella]

No, it isn't. It's a joint venture with Siemens with no day-to-day ties to Nokia (or Siemens).

Soo.... Nokia haven't any involvement in Nokia / Siemens? Its a completely separate entity - as separate as "Nokia" and "Apple"?

 

[DCJ001]

I don't think you ought to be able to buy patents just to use them against other companies in lawsuits. A patent should come organically from within the organization. I say if your company fails, the patents go down with it , but they remain stored so no one can re-patent the same thing.

"The way that you'd like things to be" v. "The way that things are."

Quite often, those two things are not the same.

 

[blahblah100]

More likely a judge will decide it in response to an MSJ as a matter of law.

And your referenced forum poster was wrong. He is not qualified to decide anything. He is qualified to be one ninth (more or less) of a pool of people who decide what facts are true, after education and instruction from a judge, which your forum poster did not have. A judge would then apply the law, as he interprets it based primarily on precedent, to those facts.

Actually, the fact that he is posting about such topics on internet forums would very likely invalidate him from even serving on the jury due to the potential bias, thus he would would not be qualified at all.

This is aside from the fact that a very high number of patent cases are decided by judges considering the complexity of the cases, not many attorneys want someone stocking shelves at Target to decide their client's multi-million dollar case.

 

[mex4eric]

As an Ex-Nortel employee, I can assure you, you have this completely wrong.

That was RIMs spin. The real Truth is Rim walked away from the deal over common bankruptcy sell off provisions, that all other bidding parties accepted, but RIM would not.

I wouldn't be surprised if RIM is bidding on these patents as well, but I hope Apple gets them.

As another ex-Nortel employee, and a Canadian, and a patent generator, I agree with you fully. I'll bet RIM is bidding, as well as Apple, but I am hoping the highest bidder gets them and uses them beneficially.

 

[MadIvan]

Patents aren't just designed to serve as ammunition for suing other companies. Their primary purpose is to encourage innovation by rewarding people for their inventions by providing them with a period of exclusivity for taking advantage of the invention. (Which yes, sometimes requires lawsuits when those patents are believed to have been infringed.)

If patents couldn't be bought and sold, you'd have a whole lot of intellectual property going to waste and a whole lot more inventors and small companies whose ideas would languish for lack of resources/ability to bring their products to market as potential partners/acquirers see little benefit in working with them without IP protection to make it worth their while.

I don't disagree with your overall sentiment here, but, like many people on these endless patent threads, you misunderstand the purpose of patents. Patents are not intended to encourage innovation by granting a period of exclusivity. It is true that the exclusivity aspect of patents are what get the most attention because of dramatic lawsuit headlines, but that isn't quite the point of patents. Secrecy can achieve the same reward for the inventor. Companies would innovate whether they had patent protections or not because they need new products and product improvements in order to compete and be successful.

The purpose of patents is to further the development of human knowledge and technology by encouraging the sharing of discoveries in exchange for legal protections on the use of said discovery for some period of time. The key element of patents is the sharing. Patents are published. Anyone can read them. This sharing of knowledge is what accellerates innovation and discovery, not the greed factor.

 

[aristotle]

Soo.... Nokia haven't any involvement in Nokia / Siemens? Its a completely separate entity - as separate as "Nokia" and "Apple"?

Competition law would prevent a "hands on" involvement by either Nokia or Siemens since that would violate competition laws. INAL but that is my understanding from the training we have received concerning competition.

 

[dizastor]

The end of the article felt like it trailed off into some sort of mafia turf discussion...

"Tony Soprano controls 6 of the families in north Jersey..."

Maybe I just need more coffee.

 

[-AG-]

I don't think you ought to be able to buy patents just to use them against other companies in lawsuits. A patent should come organically from within the organization. I say if your company fails, the patents go down with it , but they remain stored so no one can re-patent the same thing.

I have to agree and (as much as this is going to get me flamed) think that this is one of the key reasons why we have so many BS patent law suits happening nowadays.

A company SHOULD gain a patent from its IP/Invention, this is a given. But if that company fails to use said patents correctly then they should go into public domain at the time of insolvency.

The idea that they can sell off these patents to pay off creditors and share holders is ridiculous.
This is where the patent law needs to be re written.

Patents are created for a single purpose—as an incentive to encourage innovation and, through such innovation, to increase the general economic well-being and prosperity of the nation. In recent years, however, much in the practice of intellectual property management has changed in ways that are inconsistent with the public policy objectives that were the foundation for the patent system. Left unchecked, some of these new approaches threaten to undermine this patent system and our prospects for renewed economic growth.

Otherwise we are going to get a tech industry that refuses to innovate. Just incase it gets sued by some Non Practising Entity (readatent troll) who builds nothing, but has billions of dollars worth of ideas that someone smarter came up with, sitting in a lawyers office somewhere, just rolling in the cash.

Other than the trolls and the lawyers who is the winner?

Definitely not the tech industry.

http://news.cnet.com/Rise-of-the-patent-trolls/2010-1071_3-5892996.html
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/01/patent-trolls-erode-patent-system/

On the other hand this is different to buying a company FOR its patents.

At least in that case it encourages smaller companies to try so they CAN get bought by larger companies and make money.
The company is not bankrupted, its just being merged.

buying patents after the fact is just malicious....were these patents not good enough when the company was running and it was going to cost you more?

 

[cmaier]

I have to agree and (as much as this is going to get me flamed) think that this is one of the key reasons why we have so many BS patent law suits happening nowadays.

A company SHOULD gain a patent from its IP/Invention, this is a given. But if that company fails to use said patents correctly then they should go into public domain at the time of insolvency.

The idea that they can sell off these patents to pay off creditors and share holders is ridiculous.
This is where the patent law needs to be re written.
[/URL]

That's a ridiculous idea. No one would invest capital for basic research if there is no way to recoup some of that capital if things go awry. Stockholders and bondholders invest in companies doing such research because they know that the IP portfolio has value even in the event of liquidation or in the event of shedding of a product line.

Not to mention what your idea would mean for individual inventors, non-profits such as universities, etc.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I love it

Go get Nortel's IP Apple. Brilliant move.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Eww. I hope not. We use Nortel phone systems at my office and they are the biggest pieces of crap, ever. I cannot mix Apple and Nortel in my mind. Seems like a yucky match up. I sure as hell hope Nortel has something truly amazing if Apple's gonna go after it.

LOL

Swing and a miss.

 

[-AG-]

That's a ridiculous idea. No one would invest capital for basic research if there is no way to recoup some of that capital if things go awry. Stockholders and bondholders invest in companies doing such research because they know that the IP portfolio has value even in the event of liquidation or in the event of shedding of a product line.

Not to mention what your idea would mean for individual inventors, non-profits such as universities, etc.

Not-for-profit
We define ourselves as a not-for-profit organisation. That isn't to say that we think our work won't turn a profit. Just the opposite is true. We believe strongly that successful research and its commercialization that results in innovative products and processes will generate a high yield from patents and licenses. The term not-for-profit stands for our commitment to reinvest 100% of our profits again into research and development.
Consequently our shareholders do not take a financial interest in the company. As a rule each shareholder is alloted one single share only that provides for a single vote and a seat in our research council. This assembly directs our research focus, determines the projects we will undertake, and has a general controlling function. Membership in the company and research council is by invitation, normally in recognition of personal achievements in research and its promotion.

http://simsysresearch.com/bona_fide.htm

Think that covers universities pretty well don't you?

and if still not 100% convinced.

Research cannot be done without financial backing. Our business model is comprised of three stages: first, research required as a prerequisite for a new product or process; second, prototype development and patenting; and third, commercial product development and licensing. Depending on the stage of a given project, we rely on two different sources of investment. For initial development we issue income debentures; this capital is used to complete research until proof of concept and for initial prototyping; capital raised by debentures is not allocated to a specific project but managed as a fund for financing initial development in general. Debenture holders will receive interest plus a share of royalties from patenting and licensing successful products and processes; given our portfolio of technologies that will emerge from our current research, we expect that the return on investment will outperform any commercial investment fund.
The commercialization of research, including commercial product development and licensing, relies on financing by venture capital. Generally, each research project that enters the commercialization phase will result in a joint-venture or an independent business, in which all project partners receive respective shares.

Same guys but same idea used all over the world.

Remember stock holders and bond holders invest in a company for one thing and one thing only..... to make money.

If you went to the roulette table and bet on 32 red and 26 black came up would you then sue the casino to get your money back?

This is the basis for investment and innovation.
Its a gamble.

But these patent trolls are playing russian roulette with a fully automatic pistol and asking you to have first go.
They always come out the victor.

This is why we need the change.

 

[firewood]

A company SHOULD gain a patent from its IP/Invention, this is a given. But if that company fails to use said patents correctly then they should go into public domain at the time of insolvency.

The odds that any one company has all the inventor(s), financial capitol, manufacturing capability, marketing, sales channels, and management with foresight (etc.) required to bring any hi-tech invention to market is roughly zero percent.

The odds that any one company made the complete set of all the inventions required for some new hi-tech product is also roughly zero.

So what you are essentially saying is that all patents should go into the public domain. Which would essentially cause all inventors to be fired, since their skills would be useless to most corporations (except maybe a few non-profits).

Why do you want to bankrupt all inventors? Do you have something against them?

 

[-AG-]

So what you are essentially saying is that all patents should go into the public domain. Which would essentially cause all inventors to be fired, since their skills would be useless to most corporations (except maybe a few non-profits).

Why do you want to bankrupt all inventors? Do you have something against them?

did you read the whole post?

On the other hand this is different to buying a company FOR its patents.

At least in that case it encourages smaller companies to try so they CAN get bought by larger companies and make money.
The company is not bankrupted, its just being merged.

buying patents after the fact is just malicious....were these patents not good enough when the company was running and it was going to cost you more?

 

[gkarris]

Northern Telecom was awesome to work for back in the early 90's - I did all their Macintosh support (they used Apple when many others were going Wintel)...

Great and fun job!

 

[vincenz]

What else would Apple do with all that cash?

 

[cmaier]

http://simsysresearch.com/bona_fide.htm

Think that covers universities pretty well don't you?

and if still not 100% convinced.


Same guys but same idea used all over the world.

Remember stock holders and bond holders invest in a company for one thing and one thing only..... to make money.

If you went to the roulette table and bet on 32 red and 26 black came up would you then sue the casino to get your money back?

This is the basis for investment and innovation.
Its a gamble.

But these patent trolls are playing russian roulette with a fully automatic pistol and asking you to have first go.
They always come out the victor.

This is why we need the change.

why is it people always feel that pointing to one trivial exception somehow invalidates the rule?

 

[theBB]

The odds that any one company made the complete set of all the inventions required for some new hi-tech product is also roughly zero.

That is why this mythical inventor or small start-up making a lot of money because of some patented great idea happens so rarely. It is very difficult to build any product without basing it on ideas that came earlier. Many of those ideas are in the hands of large companies, so they sue the small ones. Sometimes they don't even win, but they slow them down, scare away their customers or even bankrupt them through legal costs. On the other hand, if you have one good idea, it is very difficult to assert your rights unless you spend a lot of money bringing a lawsuit. A large corporation can always sue another big one if it ever becomes a target, so things usually get settled quickly through cross licensing agreements. They were the main beneficiaries and they were not complaining.

Now there is a new business model: patent trolls. You cannot sue them back, as they don't make anything. Now the large corporations are suffering, so you hear complaints about the system from the big boys. Whatever benefits accrue to society through the patent system gets drained out of it through the costs of lawsuits and reduced competition. I doubt Google or Apple would fare any worse if we did not have patents.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

When the companies in the industry each hold a portion of the patents that all need to use, then each company has to charge the customer a little bit more in order to pay the other companies to use the patents.

If all the companies did this without patents being part of the equation, well that is just price fixing.

 

[firewood]

On the other hand this is different to buying a company FOR its patents.

At least in that case it encourages smaller companies to try so they CAN get bought by larger companies and make money.
The company is not bankrupted, its just being merged.

I read this.

The percentage of companies that consist only of their patent pool is small.
So say a small company has great inventors, and thus a patent pool worth $10M, but management, manufacturing and customer service are the absolute worst, and drive the company $100M into the hole. Who's going to buy that mess (before bankruptcy)? Isn't it still worth making paying the salary of those great inventors a reasonable investment? The only way to do so it to allow a way to get some payback for what they invent no matter how badly the rest of the company does.

 

[Full of Win]

What else would Apple do with all that cash?

1. Pay a dividend to shareholders
2. Build a money bin, and allow Steve Jobs to swim in the money
3. Build a ship to fly to Mars using an nuclear powered ion engine.
4. Buy Dropbox
5. Hire some people to do live voice support for mobile me.
6. Get a better naming division (MobileMe, iPad.... wow these are bad names)
7. Build a structure so big that it could actually house Steve Jobs ego

 

[aegisdesign]

Soo.... Nokia haven't any involvement in Nokia / Siemens? Its a completely separate entity - as separate as "Nokia" and "Apple"?

Of course they do. NSN appears on Nokia's financial reports every quarter. They're the bit of Nokia that loses money.

Apart from that, as I understand it, whilst the Nortel patents are useful they largely relate to CDMA and LTE and have little bearing on the current dispute about GSM and WiFi. I would guess Apple could use them to trade for lower GSM licence fees though.

However, what happened to Nokia buying Nortel in June?

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...ts_nokia_siemens_bid_for_wireless_assets.html

That would be better for the employees of Nortel and for Nokia Siemens as they haven't done well getting infrastructure into North America. If Apple just buy the patents, then Nortel as a company is screwed.

Maybe Nokia decided buying Motorola Wireless was a better idea. They did that in July.

It's not just Apple with a big warchest.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

7. Build a structure so big that it could actually house Steve Jobs ego

I do not think it is even possible to build anything that big.