Apple Sued Over iPhone's Proximity Sensor in New Patent Troll Lawsuit

Like IR sensors have not been in use for decades? The prior art should readily exclude their patent claim.
 
69Mustang said:
Specificity helps your argument. Ask that question without it relating to car patents. Because Apple has:
1. Acquired a dying company's patent portfolio
2. Not introduced a product based on that portfolio
3. Shortly after the acquisition of the patent portfolio they initiated multiple lawsuits.

Is this not the exact behavior people are deriding in this thread? Does this not fit the definition of patent troll per some members of this forum?

Fortunately, they came to their senses and divested themselves of that debacle. But not before they took a choice number of patents as their own. Seem some MR members have selective amnesia.

Apple is no different than any other business. Not sure why some people here think they are somehow above the fray. Companies sue Apple. Apple sues companies.
Click to expand...
Specificity helps your argument. Provide sources.
 
oneMadRssn said:
While I agree in this case, this sounds like a trolly troll, that definition is just plain wrong and unworkable. Not all companies that assert their patents and do not make a product that practices the patent technology is a troll.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking...if they are gonna sue....at the very least they have products with sensors....if they are suing because they have in drawing.....wth..
 
I don't get the whole patent troll thing.

I even get less the, "NPE, must be a patent troll!" thing.

Under this concept, any individual or company engaged in pure invention or research with the goal of developing a commercial concept for licensing is deemed second-class to a manufacturer and is branded a troll.

It is also ridiculous to contend that such a person's or company's IP is unworthy of protection against infringement or ineligible to be sold or assigned to another party like any other kind of property.

I really don't get the emotional investment that commenters on tech sites have in branding everyone, who thinks their IP is infringed and need turn to the courts, patent trolls.
 
ArtOfWarfare said:
Maybe the issue with patent trolls could be resolved by saying that patents can't be sold to non-practicing entities...
Click to expand...

Meh. I would rather patent only be granted if there is a working proof of concept model. It's ridiculous people receiving patents an idea that's barely pass the brainstorming stage.:mad::mad::mad:

I want to patent my idea for an Anywhere Door. I've got the door frame and door part of it working.:p Now I need to get the transport you anywhere you want part working.:eek::oops::oops: If anyone manages to get that part of it working, I'm gonna sue for infringing upon my Anywhere Door patent.o_Oo_Oo_O
 
69Mustang said:
Specificity helps your argument. Ask that question without it relating to car patents. Because Apple has:
1. Acquired a dying company's patent portfolio
2. Not introduced a product based on that portfolio
3. Shortly after the acquisition of the patent portfolio they initiated multiple lawsuits.

Is this not the exact behavior people are deriding in this thread? Does this not fit the definition of patent troll per some members of this forum?

Fortunately, they came to their senses and divested themselves of that debacle. But not before they took a choice number of patents as their own. Seem some MR members have selective amnesia.

Apple is no different than any other business. Not sure why some people here think they are somehow above the fray. Companies sue Apple. Apple sues companies.
Click to expand...

When? Please tell me when.
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
But the downside potential for investing in patent trolls is huge. All they need is one case to invalidate their 'patent', and licensees can start suing for return of their (usually exorbitant) fees.

Invalidations do happen, and if Congress ever gets their head out of their butts, they might actually pass legislation (GASP!) that could end this scourge...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't say is was a wise investment, just that it exists. In fact you have to be at least "bare bones" wealthy to be eligible to invest -- either a hedge fund or have a decent 6 figure income or 7 figure bank account.
[doublepost=1470413313][/doublepost]
kdarling said:
Ideally a patent holder's revenue is from patent licenses.

Like the way LiquidMetal makes most of their money, or university think tanks.

The lawsuits come when someone refuses to license, which will almost always happen in Apple's case.
Click to expand...

Right but they still don't usually produce anything real. They own an assortment of patents they culled from other companies and the real hope is a company like Apple will refuse to pay up so they can sue. Patent trolls rarely buy patents that a large company doesn't use b/c there isn't any real big payday there.
 
If 511 Innovations, Inc. bought a valid patent then they may, and should, sue anyone who tries to escape payment. After all. Patents are there to protect intellectual properties. The fact that they do not produce products is not important. The fact that they own a patent does.

I myself sold several ideas that are now patented by someone else, and I don't have to bother about any legal stuff. Works perfectly fine for me.
 
As others have indicated, the OP is editorializing and acts as if only small companies troll when making lawsuits, ignoring all the times the big companies buy out other companies just for patents so they can sue everybody else, and so on.
 
macfacts said:
Patents can't be renewed. I believe they only last 20 years in USA. It can be less if maintenance fees are not paid.
Click to expand...
You asked for how to change things, I've provided an answer. I wasn't explaining how thing work now, I was explains how things could work to eliminate patent trolling.
 
HiVolt said:
Every time cases like this come up, where a company with no product, sues for it's "intellectual property" being violated, we talk about the patent system needing a reform...

Well, when the hell is that gonna happen eventually?

When is it gonna be some kind of requirement that if you legitimately invent something, that you have to put a product to market within some time frame, and if you do sell your idea, the company that buys it must put it to actual use instead of just hoard the IP and sue for infringement for an idea that they never put into real world use.

It's just insane.
Click to expand...

This just reminded me of "Flash of Genius" the story about Robert Kearns vs automakers who he demonstrated the intermittent windshield wiper for licensing for the patent he received, denied him, but went about installing them in their cars.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
Yeah, I didn't say is was a wise investment, just that it exists. In fact you have to be at least "bare bones" wealthy to be eligible to invest -- either a hedge fund or have a decent 6 figure income or 7 figure bank account.
Click to expand...

My college econ prof told us that in investing, you have to go by 'comfort level', but also figure what you want to lose. He said that not all investments are going to appreciate over time, and the ones that are insured against loss are the worst performers over time. So I've thought about that anytime I do any investing. You have to figure that the money is 'gone' when it's invested, and anything you get out of the investment should be plunged right back into it for maximal return.

But in this day and age, only a fool invests in single corporations anymore. IMO...
 
Michael Goff said:
Having patents you don't use doesn't make you a patent troll. When you sue somebody based on a no product patent, you get labeled a patent troll. So where has Apple sued somebody based on their supposed car patents? Go ahead, find a time.
Click to expand...

Imo until there is a confirmed definition of what a patent troll is in the English Oxford Dictionary, your argument is flawed.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
Right but they still don't usually produce anything real.
Click to expand...

So what?

If you invent or own a method that you cannot produce yourself, then licensing it is a natural thing to do. I'd even venture to guess that the majority of products we use each day, are using patents that the original inventor no longer owns.

Heck, Apple also has tons of patents they don't use themselves. They even sued Samsung over one last year that Apple themselves don't use.

They own an assortment of patents they culled from other companies and the real hope is a company like Apple will refuse to pay up so they can sue. Patent trolls rarely buy patents that a large company doesn't use b/c there isn't any real big payday there.
Click to expand...

Again, so what?

Many people here have zero problem with Apple taking a percentage of things they didn't invent themselves (third party apps, and the sales inside those apps, and even for media Apple doesn't have to serve).

Plus taking money for doing nothing during a customer's transaction (Apple Pay royalties).

Not to mention buying up companies for their IP, and then never making those company's products again (e.g. Fingerworks keyboards).

Last, but not least, Apple spent billions buying Nortel patents and then giving them to a patent troll company they helped create, just to go after and sue their competitors.

So I say, if anyone supports such rabid capitalism and acquisition of IP by Apple, they should support it from everyone else as well! :)
 
Last edited:
admob71 said:
What next, accusing soneone of copying round corners? Surely they would never happen...
Click to expand...

What, you mean like this one?

http://fortune.com/2015/08/19/apple-patents-rounded-corners/

In MY mind Apple is a clear patent troll as it abuses the system to be awarded patents like the one above. And whom ever awarded it should be fired for being stupid or taking a big bribe.

The company mentioned in this article seems to be a troll though.
 
Derekuda said:
Even if it is a scumy patent troll, I want to see Apple lose.
Click to expand...
The problem is it isn't a scummy patent troll. The patents originated from a real company making real products and got sold off, likely due to a need for cash, to this third party. The only real question is if the technology is actually used by Apple.

What people don't seem to understand here is that defending a patent is not being a patent troll! Rather it is protecting your property rights as provided for by the patent system. The only things that are important are the validity of the patents and does Apples approach infringe.
[doublepost=1470424474][/doublepost]
oneMadRssn said:
While I agree in this case, this sounds like a trolly troll, that definition is just plain wrong and unworkable. Not all companies that assert their patents and do not make a product that practices the patent technology is a troll.
Click to expand...


Almost none of the companies trying to enforce their rights, as provided by the patent system, are trolls. The ignorance displayed here and in other forums with respect to patents is astounding. Patents are a for of property. A property that has a time limit on it. It is a property that the owners is free to sell, license or give away at his will. Protecting your rights under the patent system is not trolling.

This is very important because people don't seem to realize that Applemhas a policy of not licensing other people's technology. They actually force these attempts to license into court. Sometimes Apple wins sometimes they loose. Unfortunately they waste a lot of money and time when the patents in question are valid and clearly correct. So Apple itself is responsible for many of these lawsuits making it it court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top