These NPEs disgust me. One of the greatest threats to innovation in the modern world. A reflection on a crumbling society.
Unfortunately you are so wrong on this one as to be insane. The so called NPE here is just trying to get an economic gain for the original developer of the patented tech. That is a very very good thing for innovation as it can protect the innovator.
The only thing that should concern you is this, are the patents valid and did Apple infringe. That is all there is to it.
[doublepost=1470428082][/doublepost]
Um. I don't think you understand what a Patent Troll is. They are basically shell companies that are set up to do nothing but sue actual productive companies.
Nope! They are companies set up to protect the patents that they own. Big difference.
I don't see any stretch of the definition of Patent Troll where Apple fits, no matter what your opinion of Apple is. That doesn't mean Apple doesn't bully companies. But that's different.
The definition of a patent roll is completely screwy in these forums to begin with. In this case the patent appears to cover real technology and defending such a patent isn't being a patent troll by any means.
As for Apple they are actually the opposite of a troll and come close to being a patent thief. They have a policy of not livening tech like this preferring to go to court. The problem is, and frankly they know this, most of the companies that have these patents simply don't have the resources to take on Apples legal team. Often they are put into a position where they don't have a choice but to sell the patent to gain some economic benefit from what was stolen.
You can actually invest in Patent Troll companies and the payoff is entirely based on lawsuit awards because the company has no other revenue.
Actually by investing in such companies you are protecting the future of America assuring that even a small time inventory can gain from his inventions. These companies actually level the playing field a bit with respect to Apple.
All I see is a lot of ignorance in these threads. People act as if the company taking legal action pulled the ideas for the patents out of thin air. Instead it is pretty clear that the patents originated elsewhere from what looks like a very small business. That business likely didn't have the resources to protect its patents from the likes of Apple and Apple most likely refused to license the tech. So now you have this third oarty involved trying to get Apple Pay up. If Apple is found to infringe it looks like the patent system is doing exactly what it is intended to do, that is to protect the inventor.
In any event I suspect Apple is starting to see the stupidity with respect to their policies as we are hearing about more and more out of court Settlements. Some times I guess it becomes obvious to even a lawyer that your technology infirnges.
[doublepost=1470429083][/doublepost]
Please provide evidence of your claim. "I'm sure that..." is NOT evidence, it is a claim.
Project Titan? Maybe you've heard of it? Look, Apple is a manufacturer, and MAKES A PRODUCT/PRODUCTS. They are not a patent holding firm. How can you not see the enormous difference?
Apple is most certainly a patent holding firm!
Not true, many have, including me.
No you haven't, all you have done is demonstrated a complete ignorance of the patent system and the protections it offers inventors.
No, add a time period for you to do something with the patent. Sell it to a company that includes in their sales contract that they will be using the technology in manufactured product.
Why the obsession with manufacturing the product. A lot of successful companies never manufacture a product on their own, this includes some really big companies. Take ARM as an example their whole business revolves around licensing IP.
Beyond that developing a technology and getting a patent doesn't mean that that technology is immediately available to he rest of the world. A lot of patented technologies sit on the shelf for a long time until the rest of the world catches up and finds a way to leverage those technologies.
If the company does not use it, you as the patent holder get to take the patent back, keep the money, and sell it again.
They patent holder is free to license or sell his patent however he wants already. I really don't think you understand the system at all.
If you "patent" something no one wants/can use... yes, it goes into the public domain. NOT UNREASONABLE.
All patented technologies eventually go into the public domain. No big deal there. The problem is you can't force a patent into the public domain because nobody wants to use it. It can literally take decades from the time a technology is developed before something salable is realized.
It is pretty obvious that you have never been privy to an ongoing development process. Beyond that even an inventor can be sometimes shocked by how others use his invention.
A patent exists for a period of time, and is renewed by use. If it isn't used, it becomes public domain.
First off the idea of renewing a patent would work against the whole idea of a limited period of exclusivity. Beyond that why would you want to be able to tell somebody else how they can use their property?
Well you are! I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
[doublepost=1470429242][/doublepost]
This is a junk lawsuit. They saw they had proximity patents and decided to sue Apple. Well just about every phone these days has a proximity sensor. The sensor is not used to identify an object but to know if the thing is in a pocket or near your face. It's more aptly a light/dark sensor.
Sheesh....
Trying to make this look simple makes you look simple. There is a lot more to this than a light dark sensor.
[doublepost=1470430328][/doublepost]
You might not like Apple for your own personal reasons, but they are most definitely NOT a patent troll by definition.
People are awfully flexible around here when it comes to a definition of a patent troll. Frankly it appears to be anybody suing Apple with a valid patent. You can't have it both ways, just as Apple defends its patents so too do these patent holders.
A patent troll has no intention of developing the patents that they own to produce products, and in most cases did not develop the patent themselves.
First off it makes no difference who developed the patents. Apple owns thousands of patents it didn't develop themselves and frankly they have every right to defend those patents just as the owner of this patent does.
In this case here we have what looks like a patent holder engaging a third company to try to generate economic benefit from technology the feel was stolen. There is nothing wrong with that and if the patent is valid and if Apple infirnges then they should have to pay up. Simple as that.
People seem to be doing their best to paint this action in a negative light but I can say with certainty that the original patent holder doesn't look at this case in the same light. The patent appears to be real and there appears to be evidence of products built off the patent so this isn't a wishy washy patent for something that might never exists. It is real technology that somebody thought was valuable enough to patent.
Apple defends their patents when they see a competitor stealing their IP and using it to damage their core business.
Which is what is happening here. I really don't get this nonsense people have with respect to companies suing Apple. The reality for small companies is vastly different than the reality for the likes of Apple. They can easily patent something, anybody can if they have an incentive mind, but it is a whole different ball game to go after people that infringe on your tech. This is why small companies often team up with or sell their patents to others as it is the only way they can reap the value in their development work. Let's face it you have to have a lot of cash on hand to hire a law firm that can take on Apple. That sort of cash just isn't available to the small business community.
