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

[nooaah]

You think Apple wasn't trolling over rounded corners?

Not sure you know what patent trolling is. And defending Samsung? Stupid patent or not, they were blatantly ripping off not only the look of the iPhone but of iOS itself. It was indefensible what they were doing.

 

[Robert.Walter]

When? Please tell me when.

IIRQ, it was the "Rockstar" consortium that purchased the "patent" assets from the corpse of "Nortel". I'm sure if you Google these with "..." you will find smth.
[doublepost=1470499553][/doublepost]

You can spend your whole afternoon writing pithy little responses back to everyones' posts if you like, but it won't change the fact that this company is a patent troll.

They're at least three entities removed from the original patent creator, and it's quite obvious that they are in business to scoop up patents that look like they might have a payday against a product producing company who has a working technology on the market, and then venue shop in a court that will give them "home court advantage."

Apple (and other technology companies) licenses patents from legitimate IP developers who do not manufacture products quite often. And they should. But this company is not one of those entities.

So by your arbitrary rules, IP stops being valuable after it transfers hands a few times?

Such thinking causes a patent to be devalued from the start.

What's next, patents having only limited enforcement rights if they are owned by a small company?

Don't you see that if you try to impose rules like this, it takes away the incentive for anybody but a big company to invest time and money in developing a patent idea?

Then you end up with the mess that is Respect for IP rights in China.

 

[Lancer]

Why do they always call for the iPhone to be banned from sale, wouldn't they want Apple to keep making them if they won it would mean more money for them.

But I agree this is a scam and if they won it would hurt every one, no winners.

 

[kdarling]

Why do they always call for the iPhone to be banned from sale, wouldn't they want Apple to keep making them if they won it would mean more money for them.

Apple's lawyers usually request the same thing when they sue; it's all about putting pressure on the defendant to settle.

You see, it doesn't matter which company is on what side, the legal dance is always the same:

- The plaintiff files in a district they think will be friendliest to them (e.g. Northern California for Apple, their home state or Texas or Delaware for others).

- The plaintiff claims the defendant intentionally infringed on their highly valuable patent, and should pay royalties, back fees and a penalty. And the product should get banned.

- The defendant always claims that 1) the patent is invalid, 2) if it is valid, they didn't infringe it, and 3) if they did infringe, the patent isn't worth much.

Doesn't matter if Apple is the plaintiff or the defendant, the process is the same. It's like watching any sports game with standard plays

The same constant repetition goes for many an onlooker's reaction. If the side they favor sues someone, then often the view is that the defendant is an evil infringer and the patents, no matter how generic or full of prior art, are worth the entire price of a device and more. But if their favored side is sued, then the plaintiff is a troll, the patents are too simple, and suddenly a patent should be worth only as much as its minor contribution to the whole.. or even maybe just its tiny implementation cost in silicon, forget the IP value.

With software patents especially, the verdict can hinge on the placement of a comma a decade before. And quite often, the infringement was accidental, but that doesn't matter.

The only guaranteed winners are the law teams on each side.

 

[SeaFox]

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.

One important distinction should be whether the company themselves developed the technology, and if they have ever made any products, or if they just bought somebody else's patent so they could sue people.

 

[kd5jos]

Doesn't matter, you are completely out of touch and apparently don't understand the patent system.

Or, I DO understand it and the patent system is completely out of touch with what we need from it.

The patent system is there to give inventors specific rights for a fixed period of time to an invention.

Really? Obviously Captain Obvious has Obviously arrived. Thanks for that. I addressed that you get a period of time to DO SOMETHING with a patent, or you don't get to keep it.

Inventions commonly being called IP these days. The right is to the invention not the freedom to manufacture or not.

Actually, the right as you describe is limited. If I had the same idea and built it, and used it, and never sold it, you can't do anything to me. So REALLY we ARE talking about the right to sell the product and make money. THAT IS THE PROBLEM! FIX THAT! Yes, you created something. Congrats. That does not mean that you get to prevent society from benefitting from it. That does not mean that your good is the only thing to consider. No, I'm sorry. If you are going to invent something it ONLY HAS VALUE IF IT IS USED. There is NO DIFFERENCE between an idea that is unused, and an idea that does not exist.

As such you are free to do with your invention what you want including getting any economic gain you might want from it. If you want to sell that patent you can, if you want to licensing you can,

Completely agree with you up to this point.

if you want to sit on it you can; you after all are the owner of the patent.

As EVEN YOU said... owner for a period of time. We just need to adjust the period of time, and add a few conditions, and "POOF" trolls be gone.

For many inventors the best way for them to realize a gain is to sell the patent to somebody else to do with as they want.

And they can still do that with the plan I offered that you haven't provided a single reasonable response to why it wouldn't work. You've said a lot of things and made a lot of claims, but not one shred of evidence to explain why it's a bad idea.

Owning a patent is something like being a farmer growing corn. Some of that corn can be edible, some can be cattle feed, some processed into other commodities like Oil, and some can be used to feed the stile out behind the barn. Basically you make the choice as to what to do with the capability provided by your farm. Likewise the owner of the patent makes a choice as to what he will do with that patent.

Except that it's nothing like being a farmer. First you're comparing an Intellectual property to a physical property. Not the same and we know that, because IP will revert to public holding, and physical property doesn't have that happen.

Can a farmer suddenly discover he has 20 more acres of land just because he worked his land?

Can more than one entity use all of his land? Nope, didn't think so.

If there were a famine, how likely would a farmer be allowed to let his fields sit fallow (there's legal precedent for this answer)?

So no, not really close enough to the same for you to be considered "in touch" with what you are talking about.

Are we done here?

 

[DJ Dilbert]

Thanks for that quality post, Derekuda. /s

Derekuda probably works for a patent troll

 

[oneMadRssn]

One important distinction should be whether the company themselves developed the technology, and if they have ever made any products, or if they just bought somebody else's patent so they could sue people.

Why is that an important distinction? Patents are property that encompass a bundle or rights, that can be bought and sold just like any other property. The courts do not, and should not, consider whether the company asserting those rights is the original owner and whether they have ever practiced that technology themselves.

I argue the opposite, that it is very important that there remains a healthy marketplace for buying and selling patents, in order for patents to remain valuable, which enables researchers and small companies to built assets and secure financing for growth.

 

[kdarling]

Or, I DO understand it and the patent system is completely out of touch with what we need from it.

It is out of touch, but I do not think you understand the patent system as it is now.

Actually, the right as you describe is limited. If I had the same idea and built it, and used it, and never sold it, you can't do anything to me.

That's incorrect. See law quote below.

So REALLY we ARE talking about the right to sell the product and make money.

Well, no. A patent is most definitely NOT about the right to make or sell a product.

You see, a patent cannot confer the right to make or sell a product, because whether the product is legal or not, is up to other laws. E.g. it might be illegal for you yourself to make a weapon that you've patented.

There's also the fact that many patents depend on other patents to work, which means you cannot produce anything using your patent unless you license those other patents. Hint: that't sometimes why patent holding companies cannot produce anything themselves. They're just one of many patent holders selling a piece of the whole puzzle.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM! FIX THAT! Yes, you created something. Congrats. That does not mean that you get to prevent society from benefitting from it.

Legally, that's exactly what a patent means. Here is the definition from 35 USC § 154:

"Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof."

So your idea of a patent, is exactly opposite of what a patent actually is. It is NOT a right to make. It IS a right to prevent anyone else from using or selling your invention, whether you use it yourself or not, unless they license it from you. Courts have upheld this time and again.

--

This was just FYI. Continue with your ideas for improving the system. It's just better that one should start from the current legal basis.

There are many who agree with some of what you say. For example, the noted IP jurist Judge Posner once said in an Apple trial, that it would be mistaken to think that "just because someone has a patent, he has a deep moral right to exclude everyone else (from using it)". Legal right, yes. But with benefits for society? Not necessarily.

Side note: the moment that anyone tries to propose that patents are not a property right that can be sold and licensed without having to use it yourself, is when your proposal is going to fall on deaf legal ears. People need to drop this whole unworkable / unsalable idea that a patent holder must produce something themselves. It's sometimes not even feasible (see examples above).

The idea that society benefits if a patent is used, is good though. Thus my own opinion is that a non-practicing patent holder who is willing to license to practicers at a reasonable price, is far better for society than a patent holder who exercises their right to refuse to license their IP at all. Think about it.