Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,473
16,514


Apple today scored a victory in an ongoing patent dispute with Personalized Media Communications (PMC), with the judge overseeing the case tossing out the $308.5 million verdict that Personalized Media Communications won in March, reports Bloomberg.

PMClogonewer.jpg

Apple was a victim of PMC's plan to milk the tech industry for high royalties on old ideas, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said when delivering the verdict. The judge decided that PMC's patent for digital rights management is unenforceable because the company delayed its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in an attempt to get more money.

PMC filed hundreds patent applications in the 1980s and 1990s, but no patents were awarded until 2010. The company took advantage of a loophole that allowed for an indefinite application process and then a patent valid for 17 years. This was addressed in 1995, but didn't apply to the patents used against Apple because they were filed earlier.

PMC delayed receiving its patents until after the technology in the patent had already been adopted, letting it make more money from tech companies.

Internal documentation from PMC suggested the company had thought that Apple would be a "natural candidate" to target with delayed patents, along with Intel, IBM, and Microsoft.

PMC won a $308.5 million verdict against Apple in March after a jury said that Apple infringed on DRM patents with its FairPlay technology that is used to distribute encrypted content through iTunes, the App Store, and Apple Music.

Article Link: Apple Won't Have to Pay $309M After Judge Accuses Patent Troll of Abusing System to Fleece Tech Companies
 

Mousse

macrumors 68020
Apr 7, 2008
2,475
4,975
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
Saying “patent troll” exposes those who don't know ****.
According to the article, they're spot on. PMC is a patent troll.

PMC filed hundreds patent applications in the 1980s and 1990s, but no patents were awarded until 2010. The company took advantage of a loophole that allowed for an indefinite application process and then a patent valid for 17 years.
Those patents would have expired by the time tech companies began using DRM on a grand scale. Justice prevailed.
 

CarlJ

Contributor
Feb 23, 2004
5,599
9,834
San Diego, CA, USA
I used to read your username as "the yaya realiving" and it never made sense to me until you capitalized the first letter of the words LOL #CapitalizationMatters
I used to read it as “they are a living” (yes, even though those aren’t the exact letters present). Agreed that the capitalization helps considerably. @TheYayAreaLiving
 

Makosuke

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2001
6,381
681
The Cool Part of CA, USA
Put on your thinking cap... where do you think the "patent troll" acquired the patent?
Put on your basic math skills: They came up with these ideas and filed for patents in the late '80s. In the intent of the patent system, and any reasonable fair world, they would have 17 years to use or otherwise monetize their idea and profit from it, so until around 2005.

Instead, they intentionally delayed actually getting the patents until at least 2010, well over 17 years after they publicized the idea in the first place and only once the ideas were in widespread use. At no point between whenever they applied and when the patent was granted two decades later did they actually attempt to develop, market, or otherwise use these ideas for the benefit of society, or themselves. In fact, their entire strategy was to lie low and hope nobody even noticed, eventually developed the same thing independently, and it became widespread.

They did this with the express purpose of extending the patent profit window well past the 17-year limit. Worse, they abused how it worked to patent something that had been developed decades ago, re-developed since, and was already in common use and maybe had been for years. And then they didn't defend it, they waited even longer until a big target started using it so they had someone to cash in on.

They didn't create anything, they gamed the system.

As noted in the article, the USPTO actually closed this loophole 26 years ago, way back in 1995, because they realized it was stupid and open to abuse. But this company started the long con before then so got the con grandfathered in.

All of this is exacerbated by how vague the patent office will allow tech patents to be, so you can patent just about anything, and the only defense for society is that at least it can't extend past 17 years.

It's pretty much a guaranteed recipe for profit: Come up with some either vague or extremely specific tech ideas that aren't currently being used but seem like they might be some day. File for patents on them, then wait however long it takes for them to actually be used. Then wait some more until they're in use by a big, rich company. Finish the patent application process, and sue.

You never built anything, your idea has been public for decades, and you get a huge-money payout for doing nothing but applying for patents on a bunch of ideas that aren't yet usable and playing the waiting game.
 

4jasontv

macrumors 601
Jul 31, 2011
4,965
5,883
Put on your basic math skills: They came up with these ideas and filed for patents in the late '80s. In the intent of the patent system, and any reasonable fair world, they would have 17 years to use or otherwise monetize their idea and profit from it, so until around 2005.

Instead, they intentionally delayed actually getting the patents until at least 2010, well over 17 years after they publicized the idea in the first place and only once the ideas were in widespread use. At no point between whenever they applied and when the patent was granted two decades later did they actually attempt to develop, market, or otherwise use these ideas for the benefit of society, or themselves. In fact, their entire strategy was to lie low and hope nobody even noticed, eventually developed the same thing independently, and it became widespread.

They did this with the express purpose of extending the patent profit window well past the 17-year limit. Worse, they abused how it worked to patent something that had been developed decades ago, re-developed since, and was already in common use and maybe had been for years. And then they didn't defend it, they waited even longer until a big target started using it so they had someone to cash in on.

They didn't create anything, they gamed the system.

As noted in the article, the USPTO actually closed this loophole 26 years ago, way back in 1995, because they realized it was stupid and open to abuse. But this company started the long con before then so got the con grandfathered in.

All of this is exacerbated by how vague the patent office will allow tech patents to be, so you can patent just about anything, and the only defense for society is that at least it can't extend past 17 years.

It's pretty much a guaranteed recipe for profit: Come up with some either vague or extremely specific tech ideas that aren't currently being used but seem like they might be some day. File for patents on them, then wait however long it takes for them to actually be used. Then wait some more until they're in use by a big, rich company. Finish the patent application process, and sue.

You never built anything, your idea has been public for decades, and you get a huge-money payout for doing nothing but applying for patents on a bunch of ideas that aren't yet usable and playing the waiting game.
I am not disagreeing with the ruling, but the way you say this makes me think, albeit briefly, that they should be paid for their patent. Taking advantage of the law as it is written is what most companies do, and the way you phrase it, it sounds like all that they are guilty of is violating the spirit of the law. Last I heard that's not really a crime.

If it is that the telecom industry needs to grab a mop.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.