On a patent troll's patent.
Who cares? It's the law. Is Apple above the law?
On a patent troll's patent.
Since you know nothing about the company (you admitted yourself) - nor the time, resources and expense of their R&D from the past - you can't possibly determine if they are a patent "troll" or not.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/playlist-troll-who-was-awarded-8.html
The week before last I blogged about a $8 million jury verdict in favor of a non-practicing entity named Personal Audio LLC against Apple for the infringement of some downloadable playlist patents.
Obviously the purpose of the second lawsuit is to expand upon the success of the first trial and squeeze even more money out of Apple.
PATENT TROLLS
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/playlist-troll-who-was-awarded-8.html
The week before last I blogged about a $8 million jury verdict in favor of a non-practicing entity named Personal Audio LLC against Apple for the infringement of some downloadable playlist patents.
Obviously the purpose of the second lawsuit is to expand upon the success of the first trial and squeeze even more money out of Apple.
PATENT TROLLS
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/apple-loses-out-in-east-texas-jury.html
I recently wrote that the trolls' business model works very well and provided some examples. Here's the latest one: according to Bloomberg, which cites a lawyer who represents a non-practicing entity in East Texas (same district in which Lodsys filed all of its lawsuits), a jury yesterday handed down a verdict that finds Apple liable for infringement of two valid patents and awards the patent holder, Personal Audio LLC, damages of $8 million.
Originally the plaintiff wanted more than ten times as much. With the $8m verdict, Apple only has a limited incentive to appeal the decision. They might indicate an intent to appeal in order to get a "discount" from the patent holder in exchange for a definitive settlement. That's what Google did in the Bedrock case (after a $5 million verdict).
Personal Audio LLC's lawsuit against Apple and three others -- Sirius XM Radio, Coby Electronics and Archos, all of whom settled in May and July 2010 -- is a typical NPE (non-practicing entity) case. Any Google search results for "Personal Audio LLC" relate to patent infringement lawsuits.
PATENT TROLLS. Nothing but a cancer on the patent system.
So your relying on a BLOG and that sole viewpoint. Gotcha. No further explanation needed.
And Apple aren't?![]()
No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.
Not the majority of them.
No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.
That's the difference. Do you even know what a "patent troll" is?
They are a major reason for most of your complaining that the patent system is "broken."
No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.
That's the difference. Do you even know what a "patent troll" is?
They are a major reason for most of your complaining that the patent system is "broken."
If you were an inventor and patented something... but could never find funding or that the patent on its own didn't seem like much "at the time"... but YEARS later it was required/needed - are you telling me that you wouldn't litigate? You would just suck it up?
Yeah. Right.
Enter the Patent Troll.
No. They make stuff. They USE their patents.
That's the difference. Do you even know what a "patent troll" is?
They are a major reason for most of your complaining that the patent system is "broken."
Enter the Patent Troll.
You sir, are a fanboy of the highest degree.
I don't think any of these posters have complained. But yeah, okay, whatever.Then don't complain about the patent system being "broken."
You have NO cause for complaint whenever any litigation takes place for any reason regarding patents.
Fair?
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/
On Tuesday when I spoke with Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.s Sloan School of Management. He pointed out that patent lawsuits had turned particularly unpleasant lately as a result of companies that only buy and sell patents.
In the past, Mr. Von Hippel said, if companies entered a litigious dispute they would usually come to an agreement to simply share each others patents. But he said a new genre of patent lawsuits, brought on by what he calls patent trolls, had changed the nature of the disputes. These companies have no interest in using the patents, Mr. Von Hippel said, but instead hope to reap large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves.
Then don't complain about the patent system being "broken."
You have NO cause for complaint whenever any litigation takes place for any reason regarding patents.
Fair?
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/
On Tuesday when I spoke with Eric Von Hippel, a professor of technological innovation at M.I.T.s Sloan School of Management. He pointed out that patent lawsuits had turned particularly unpleasant lately as a result of companies that only buy and sell patents.
In the past, Mr. Von Hippel said, if companies entered a litigious dispute they would usually come to an agreement to simply share each others patents. But he said a new genre of patent lawsuits, brought on by what he calls patent trolls, had changed the nature of the disputes. These companies have no interest in using the patents, Mr. Von Hippel said, but instead hope to reap large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves.
Then don't complain about the patent system being "broken."
You have NO cause for complaint whenever any litigation takes place for any reason regarding patents.
Fair?