Apple's Legal Fees Rumored to Top $100M on HTC Patent Dispute Alone

[pacman7331]

I think it's pretty disturbing how regularly Apple's ideas get ripped off. It doesn't do anyone any good, because it makes the whole idea of patenting utterly trivial. It's pretty sad that so many of Apple's ideas have been shamelessly ripped of by companies like Microsoft and others. The more this happens the worse it gets for people who actually come up with creative ideas and want to start companies. Thus ripping patents off not only harms Apple but the entire economy itself, by centralizing market control by major corporations that cannot be competed with unless the government does it's job. The worse a job the government does in this way the more it will hurt entrepreneurs and free market capatilism itself. Turning the government into a Corporatocracy and fascist oppressive regime that exhausts the people. So while people like Michel Moore are happy to see capitalism be destroyed and are probably pro ripping Apple's and other companies or creative people with patents off by bulldog bullying tactics. I for one see it as a total failure, and a track record of how much Apple has spent and has so little to show for it, when everyone knows Apple created the iPhone and iOs before anyone else, makes it clear that corruption in the justice system is all-pervasive. And it's amazing the hipocracy of the government to then try to go behind everyone's back and pass SOPA and PIPA in a "attempt to thwart internet piracy" when it's not even upholding the patents it's supposed to as it is.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Nothing to show for it??

It's a powerful deterrent to others. Message: screw with Apple and get tied up in litigation for god knows how long, and possibly deal with an injunction in a key market, to which Apple is practically indifferent.

Apple is using Samsung and Moto and HTC to mark their territory. Motorola for instance, already cited ongoing litigation with Apple as something that is causing them serious cash flow problems.

There is an ocean of other OEMs that are kept at bay by this. And if Apple successively does nothing, they can have no argument later. A show of half-hearted intention today results in a watering down of Apple's claims later.

Except Apple is the one infringing on Motorola patents. But I know you think that's ok since it's Apple doing it.

 

[jazzkids]

I was curious what 100-mil could actually due in charity. The Red Cross 2009 Annual Report states under "International Relief & Development Services" that "Financial and material assistance" costs were 99,100,000.

So, if I am reading this right, it seems a 100 million can:

1) help those in the world suffering from disaster for a year, or
2) protect a phone's Intellectual property that is already wildly popular and people (myself included) upgrade year-over-year to the tune of $200+

I realize that Apple needs to protect its IP, but, after reading his bio, seems like this is another case of Steve thinking that he should always get his way.

Apple started in a garage and has made some really cool stuff that i appreciate. But, why does it seem more and more like Apple really is "Big Brother" and thinks the would should bow to them?

 

[children]

This money could have been donated to charity. Totally lame.

Because Apple is a charity business?
Seriously, donate however much money you want, but don't tell others what to do with theirs.
Comments like yours are
Totally lame.

 

[pmz]

Does anyone else think that these excessive legal fees and almost silly legal battles could possibly be a sham, and a way to lauder "small" amounts of money?

 

[rickdollar]

How much did HTC spend defending their product? How much extra time did their engineers (and Samsung's, and Google's) spend working on code so as not to come too close to Apple's designs?

Thats what I was wondering, too. How much money can HTC afford to keep paying out for legal expenses? That, alone, has to be gratifying for Apple that HTC is blowing it's cash on these lawsuits.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Motorola for instance, already cited ongoing litigation with Apple as something that is causing them serious cash flow problems.

Don't worry Moto will be just fine. They will have a new owner soon who has plenty of money to do battle. That's when things will really heat up.

Seriously though if taken too far and for too long Apple will soon be known more for their litigation then their innovation. That's not what they want to be known for in my opinion.

 

[thekev]

I think it's pretty disturbing how regularly Apple's ideas get ripped off. It doesn't do anyone any good, because it makes the whole idea of patenting utterly trivial. It's pretty sad that so many of Apple's ideas have been shamelessly ripped of by companies like Microsoft and others.

The problem I have with this statement is the sentiment that Apple never does the same. It happens both ways. Arguing which is more prevalent is basically pointless. What you'll notice with Apple is they don't really patent specific methods of achieving something (which is quite typical). They apply for broad fuzzy patents en masse to attempt to push away competition. Do you recall the case with the Spanish tablet company? Apple is just trying to bully everyone else out of the market here under the guise of protecting their IP. It's not really the same thing.

 

[KingJosh]

This goes to show that Apple does care about their products before money. If only the other companies were like this then they would develop their own look and style instead of imitating Apples.

 

[kdarling]

Lyon's is full of it that Apple lost a significant case to Nokia. They settled and cross-licensed with each other.

Nokia was always looking to license their patents to Apple.

Apple has never licensed any of their mobile patents, but they reportedly did so as partial payment to Nokia.

That's why Nokia is considered the "winner". They obtained both royalties and some Apple IP, even though Apple had claimed any IP request was "unfair". Apparently Apple changed their mind when faced with a jury's sense of fairness.

If Nokia felt their case was worth significant damage they would have not offered any terms of agreement to settle, never mind accept them.

That works both ways. If Apple thought their claim of unfairness was valid, they wouldn't have settled before a jury could decide on what they should pay Nokia.

Unlike with Apple's countersuit, Nokia wasn't after damages. They simply wanted what was coming to them.

Nokia's patents were FRAND types. That means they had to offer terms, and grant them if Apple accepted them.

Not to mention Apple stipulated in that case that they were already willing to pay standard licensing terms to Nokia anyway - the same amount that other vendors would. The case was over unfair licensing terms.

Yep, Apple claimed they were not offered fair terms, and fansites ate that up. However...

1) FRAND does NOT mean that everyone has to get the exact same terms. Cross licensing, quantity and how long you've been paying, are all acceptable differentiating factors. Apple was late to the market, had no cell patents to trade, and had been selling tens of millions of phones without paying.

2) In their suit, Nokia did the fairest thing possible: they offered to let an American jury decide what the royalties should be.

 

[AidenShaw]

Nokia was always looking to license their patents to Apple.

Apple has never licensed any of their mobile patents, but they reportedly did so as partial payment to Nokia.

That's why Nokia is considered the "winner". They obtained both royalties and some Apple IP, even though Apple had claimed any IP request was "unfair". Apparently Apple changed their mind when faced with a jury's sense of fairness.

That works both ways. If Apple thought their claim of unfairness was valid, they wouldn't have settled before a jury could decide on what they should pay Nokia.

Unlike with Apple's countersuit, Nokia wasn't after damages. They simply wanted what was coming to them.

Nokia's patents were FRAND types. That means they had to offer terms, and grant them if Apple accepted them.

Yep, Apple claimed they were not offered fair terms, and fansites ate that up. However...

1) FRAND does NOT mean that everyone has to get the exact same terms. Cross licensing, quantity and how long you've been paying, are all acceptable differentiating factors. Apple was late to the market, had no cell patents to trade, and had been selling tens of millions of phones without paying.

2) In their suit, Nokia did the fairest thing possible: they offered to let an American jury decide what the royalties should be.

Thank you for another FRANB (Fair, Reasonable And Non-Biased) response.

It's always nice to hear a balanced, knowledgeable post here....

 

[inkswamp]

Half the stuff that ends up on the front page wouldn't have made page 2, when I started reading the site.

Cranky. You forgot the whole "get offa my lawn" bit. That always kills.

I agree.

It's more GarbageRumors these days.

Says the guy who's almost been here a whole year. Gees, pining for the good old' days of April 2011, are you?

As someone who has been on MR longer than the two of you combined, I'm happy to disagree. I'd say the quality of the site has improved greatly over the years. But whatever. If you don't like it, start your own Mac rumors site.

 

[MacLawyer]

My thoughts entirely

I think it's pretty disturbing how regularly Apple's ideas get ripped off. It doesn't do anyone any good, because it makes the whole idea of patenting utterly trivial. It's pretty sad that so many of Apple's ideas have been shamelessly ripped of by companies like Microsoft and others.
........

Pacman has commented on the same thing I've been wondering: Apple has patented and copyrighted all these innovations that are clearly groundbreaking, yet the legal system is not enforcing. Worse, foreign (sorry, non U.S. readers) companies are profiting from non-enforcement by creating knock-offs.

 

[DakotaGuy]

This goes to show that Apple does care about their products before money. If only the other companies were like this then they would develop their own look and style instead of imitating Apples.

No it's certainly all about money. I promise. All Corporations exist to add value to their shareholders. Corporations (including our beloved Apple) could care less about your personal emotions as long as they are driving profits.

 

[kas23]

Thank you for another FRANB (Fair, Reasonable And Non-Biased) response.

It's always nice to hear a balanced, knowledgeable post here....

Yeah, we don't get too many of these.

As for what Apple has to show for this? I'm not really sure. The only injunction they were granted was in Australia and that was only for a couple of months. Have they slowed the influx of Android-based cellphones to the market? The answer is a resounding "no". A new Android phone is introduced everyday. Sure, Apple is likely burying these corporations' legal departments, but they certainly are not retarding their product marketing, release, and subsequent sales. It's not like these companies are too busy in court to research/develop new products.

In the end, there will be only one winner. And it won't be the consumers, Apple, or the Android cellphone manufacturers....

No it's certainly all about money. I promise. All Corporations exist to add value to their shareholders. Corporations (including our beloved Apple) could care less about your personal emotions as long as they are driving profits.

Bingo.

 

[smoledman]

Doesn't matter how much Apple spends.

The point is to make it harder on Android OEMs.

Every dollar Apple spends on legal fees ~= a dollar an OEM has to spend.

If I developed a technology that would eventually change the world, you bet your ass I will fight to the death to defend my IP.

Talk about megolomania. Did Steve Jobs find a cure for cancer. No, he brought forth a freakin' toy.

 

[DakotaGuy]

If I developed a technology that would eventually change the world, you bet your ass I will fight to the death to defend my IP.

The funny thing is without Motorola technology there would be no iPhone today. Motorola made the first cellular phone call 3 years before Apple was even a company.

 

[ixodes]

This money could have been donated to charity. Totally lame.

Donating money to good causes was a concept that Jobs abhorred.

He feared being nice to others. Dominance, control, and boasting were his comfort zones.

Everyone is entitled to behave in ways they believe in. His rock star status made it all OK.

 

[mmcc]

Seems like the patents are functioning exactly as all are designed, namely making money for lawyers.

 

[alephnull12]

The patent lawsuits sound like a good strategy to me. Even if Apple doesn't prevail outright in these cases (settlements resulting instead), Apple appears to be getting cross-licensing concessions to non-Apple technologies as part of the process in many of these deals.

At least, without knowing exact details, that seems to be the case to me.

I think it's better for Apple to press these issues now, getting their best terms possible, when Apple is in a strong position (both financially and from the intellectual property perspective) than to allow underlying conflicts to lie dormant and to fester. Otherwise, Apple might have to negotiate with other companies to get access to these same non-Apple technologies they are getting now, later, when Apple might be negotiating from a weaker perspective.

The alternative is to let these current day patent tensions fester without litigation or settlement for years or decades, which could prove to be a disaster for Apple in the future, if other companies buttress their current patent portfolios with other patents and use them to hang the proverbial sword over Apple.

IMHO (as a shareholder), Apple should try to negotiate as many deals as possible now, on the most favorable terms possible.

 

[AidenShaw]

The patent lawsuits sound like a good strategy to me. Even if Apple doesn't prevail outright in these cases (settlements resulting instead), Apple appears to be getting cross-licensing concessions to non-Apple technologies as part of the process in many of these deals.

At least, without knowing exact details, that seems to be the case to me.

I think it's better for Apple to press these issues now, getting their best terms possible, when Apple is in a strong position (both financially and from the intellectual property perspective) than to allow underlying conflicts to lie dormant and to fester. Otherwise, Apple might have to negotiate with other companies to get access to these same non-Apple technologies they are getting now, later, when Apple might be negotiating from a weaker perspective.

The alternative is to let these current day patent tensions fester without litigation or settlement for years or decades, which could prove to be a disaster for Apple in the future, if other companies buttress their current patent portfolios with other patents and use them to hang the proverbial sword over Apple.

IMHO (as a shareholder), Apple should try to negotiate as many deals as possible now, on the most favorable terms possible.

Note that there is the risk that Apple's patents could be (and some have been) invalidated by the courts, leaving Apple with nothing (except perhaps paying damages).

 

[Oletros]

Pacman has commented on the same thing I've been wondering: Apple has patented and copyrighted all these innovations that are clearly groundbreaking, yet the legal system is not enforcing. Worse, foreign (sorry, non U.S. readers) companies are profiting from non-enforcement by creating knock-offs.

And exactly why and how the legal system is not enforcing it? What would have to do to enforce it?

 

[lilo777]

Nothing to show for it??

It's a powerful deterrent to others. Message: screw with Apple and get tied up in litigation for god knows how long, and possibly deal with an injunction in a key market, to which Apple is practically indifferent.

Apple is using Samsung and Moto and HTC to mark their territory. Motorola for instance, already cited ongoing litigation with Apple as something that is causing them serious cash flow problems.

There is an ocean of other OEMs that are kept at bay by this. And if Apple successively does nothing, they can have no argument later. A show of half-hearted intention today results in a watering down of Apple's claims later.

There are no "others". Apple have sued almost every phone manufacturer out there and they deterred none of them. It looks like the only party deferred in the process will be Apple for they lost a case brought up by Motorola.

 

[Winni]

If Apple fails to protect their intellectual property in court, they in effect lose the right to do so. If you invented something that enriched your company, how would you feel if someone ripped you off?

What Apple spends on legal fees is likely chump change compared to the rest of their operating expenses. It won't materially impact their cash on hand.

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Host/Executive Producer,
The Tech Night Owl LIVE

You should ask that question all the small companies whose ideas were stolen by Apple and who did not have the financial resources to fight against that big corporation in court.

And Steve Jobs said so himself that they "were always shameless about stealing".

The Apple cryboys in Cupertino should just suck it up and move on. They steal A LOT from others, so in my book it's completely ok when others recycle some of Apple's concepts and ideas. After all, nobody "steals" their implementations. We're talking mostly about graphics design and user interfaces here.

 

[Nostromo]

It's OK to sue infringers.

But Apple seems to see lawsuits as a business model now.

Apple even sues private people who didn't steal anything from Apple - just because their small business has an Apple in the logo. (Happened to a small cafe somewhere in Germany, who had a laughing kid and an apple in the logo. Apple demanded that the apple has to disappear and that all dishes had to be destroyed as they had the apple on them).

Once a company starts with this kind of BS, it has overstepped and is developing a hubris.