Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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/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.
 
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

This reminds me of a 4 year old child who, having lost an argument and unwilling to listen to rational thoughts, puts his/her fingers in his/her ears and calls people names.
 
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? :rolleyes:

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."

Yes. They make stuff. And use not even 1% of their patents if I had to guess. And 99 percent will probably go unused but will be litigated against because they own them.

Most tech companies have thousands of patents as they create their products. Every minutia is patented. Having worked in the industry - I can assure you that EVERY company is sitting on a bunch of "crap" that will never be used. But they DID "invent" it.

Point is - and something I stated earlier - you have NO idea how much time, money, research, etc went into the patents under scrutiny since you weren't there.

The company that owns the patents are entitled to test the validity of their patents when they are infringed. Just because they don't exist now - or don't create products doesn't mean they are not entitled to litigate.

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.
 
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."

Part of the reason the patent system exists is exactly for that reason: you shouldn't have to make products to own intellectual property. Many people have great ideas, and patent them, but are unable to market those ideas. Should they be screwed because they aren't a multi-billion dollar corporation and can't produce?

Personal Audio LLC thought of an idea before Apple, patented it, and now you're screaming bloody murder that they are "patent trolls," an educated and formal term, to say the least. The patent system has prevailed in favor of he who innovated, which in this case, was not Apple, much to your obvious dismay.
 
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."

This line made me actually laugh out loud. You toss the words "patent troll" around like its a legal term and he is inferior for not knowing your inarticulate internet lingo.

"OMG guys, u dont even no wut a patent troll is??!? LMFAO, i dont think i can talk 2 u ne more... lol."
 
You sir, are a fanboy of the highest degree.

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 other’s 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?
I don't think any of these posters have complained. But yeah, okay, whatever.

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 other’s 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.

And in other news the sky is blue. Just because Apple are currently on the loosing side of a patent, doesn't mean the system 'isn't fair' or is corrupt.

Media industries are not about media, they are about copyright. The music, movie, etc industries all fight and argue about copyright ownership and there are many media based companies who exists simply just to buy and sell copyright ownership.

What makes you think any industry that involves some sort of product going to be any different?
 
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 other’s 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.

Can you point to the emails, phone conversations, etc where there was a discussion on trying to reach an agreement between Apple and Personal Audio in regards to the patent. Do you know if any such discussions took place? Is it possible that Apple never engaged in such discussions and therefor were sued?
 
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?

I don't believe I've ever complained that the system is broken. And I doubt most of the others arguing with you over "patent trolling" have either. You are assuming that anyone who dislikes Apples business practices automatically complains of a broken patent system when Apple sues. This, my friend, is incorrect and a logical fallacy on your part.
 
Coming up with an idea and filing a patent is a right.
You'd be stuoid not too.

And as someone else already pointed out, appe files a gazillion patents every year, of which most never get used.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.