Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DRM Software Development Company Intertrust Files Lawsuit Against Apple for Patent Infringement

Apple caught again doing this crap. Jeez, think they would have paid the royalty instead of being arrogant and thumbing there nose. Seems legit but until court rolls around or a settlement is reached, we won't know the whole truth. I just shake my head as to why there arrogance lets it get this far. Gives apple a bad name in general. Reminds me of microsoft years ago.
 
SirYossi said:
Why do company's cry foul only when someone is making a profit - if the app store was a bust there would be no lawsuit. since apple is making boat loads of money others have to get there hands into it. No wonder things are so expensive. you need to pay someone to search the copyright databases to see if the idea was used if not then hey ok if so then u have to spend another billion to develop and copyright a new idea then another billion in wages and product development. Lawyers only go after things if they see $ at the other end the only winners are the lawyers who will drag it out as long as possible to get a maxim return on there money and the only looser are the people who filed the lawsuit and the people they are suing the only winners are the lawyers. Lawyers today are like the tax collectors of the times of Ancient room the most hated people out there.
Click to expand...

Same reason Willie Sutton gave when asked why he robbed banks. Because that's where the money is!
 
If you can beat them, sue them..

Apple should just buy them and be done with it.
 
Should companies be allowed to patent things that are required? Software patents should not be allowed in the first place anyway.
 
It's one thing to patent some invention like say the car, when it was new. But then later some guy patents using the car and get patents for
1) transporting products from store to home with car
2) novel use of car: commute to work
3) city imposes speed limit and fine as a way to generate revenue
4) washing cars and charging money for the service
and so on...

Most computer patents are of the type I listed, just doing normal things with but only with a computer. Really, I mean using a secret code to send a message has been around for a long time but soe how we can patent "using computer for make secret code"
 
onepremiere said:
America, we are doomed.

I work for a large Japanese Company, and the executives in Japan always ask, "Why are there so many lawsuits?".

If its legit, shame on Apple.

If its something a lawyer cooked up, then its back to lazy American's looking for easy money.
Click to expand...

From the article:

"Intertrust, which is backed by Sony Corp"
 
I'm getting really sick of hearing about all the software patent disputes these days, not just the ones related to Apple. Many of them are incredibly weak if you actually look at them as a developer, and yet they result in settlements all the time.

Not saying it's a weak patent case here, as I have no idea what they're disputing, but I'm really tired of hearing about it.


I think by now we're all well aware that Apple are a big deal now, which means they're a prime target for everybody that has a patent and believes they can make it stick to that huge cash reserve. It's now pretty much business as usual, so can we not cut the patent news down to those with something to them other than "yet another patent holder is trying to sue Apple", as it's not really news anymore; at the very least it's no longer front-page news worthy, as we don't see news posts about how Apple just made another iPhone sale!
 
camnchar said:
This sort of thing really shows the broken nature of the software patent system. If Apple stole code, then they need to pay up. Vastly more probable, though, is that Apple wrote original code that does similar things to what Intertrust claims their code does. That's kind of like inventing a new alternative to the cotton gin, which itself should be patentable, but then getting sued by Eli Whitney because he came up with the idea of a cotton gin.

And around and around we go.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's how the patent system works.
As long a the new alternative to the cotton gin is a non-obvious variation of the original, then it's a patent covering different (non-obvious variation) patentable rights. That's why, in theory, there can be hundreds of different patents over a cotton gin. All of which should "ideally" be patentably(is this even a word?) different.

For example, when someone generally says I patented a smartphone with a capacitive touch screen.....well, contrary to popular belief, 99.99% of the time that person did not get patentable rights to ALL smartphones with capacitive screens. He/she got one specific (unique) implementation of it, certainly not ALL.

Generally, whoever filed the patent first or has the idea publicly available first gets the right to said "patentable" idea.''

So, Apple can code in secret labs all it wants, but they better make sure they file a patent (normally within a year if its publicly available or file with the request for non-publication) or else, any one who had the same code (or an obvious variation) publicly available with an earlier date gets the right to said code.

In theory, "obvious variation" can mean many things. Therefore, again contrary to popular belief, getting a patent in its original filed form is a rare case, since many things can be an obvious variation. This is also why it take years (through many changes in the claim) for a patent application to actually become a patent...if it ever does.

*Btw, code per se is never patentable. However, this is a totally different issue over what is patently eligible subject matter. A broken system IMO. I could be wrong, but I hear the Patent Office is open to ideas/advice from the public over this issue.
 
Last edited:
wow... keeping the Apple lawyers busy. This one seems likely to settle out of court.
 
Patent law can get rather confusing to the average person. The thing about patents is that some companies, if they are even aware of a patent in the first place, they many times try to design around the patent to create a new patent or something that prevents them from being sued. Sometimes, it can be some rather small detail, and that's why a lot of cases go to trial is because one party may THINK they designed around the patent to not get sued. The other thing is that it takes a LONG time to do a patent search before you release a product and companies are in the process of designing products, they might not have known that a particular design has a patent because they might not have found a patent on a particular design before they released it. Or they simply tried to change the design to avoid a lawsuit. That's why a lot of these cases go to trial is because one party may honestly think they designed around a particular patent OR they might not be able to come to a resolution and they have to go to court to have some sort of legal process to determine the damages. It's unfortunate, but there are probably 100,000's of patents being issued all of the time in the high tech industry and it's just something that these companies are doing. Yes, we all don't like hearing about these cases, but sometimes there just has to be a legal process to figure out if there is a violation and what the actual damages should be.

Just because someone sues someone over a design patent doesn't always mean that party is going to win the case. There have been cases where Apple had a patent on a design, but it was dismissed for some stupid reason, even though the other party used the design, they came back and invalidated the patent for some dumb reason, so even AFTER a patent was issued, they can sometimes be retracted.

I'm not defending Apple on this one, because I honestly don't know what the actual patents are and how Apple is going to defend themselves.

I don't know how the "SYSTEM" can make it so there are less lawsuits. It's just the nature of the industry of patents in the first place.

Sometimes these patent holders want to practice unfair licensing and that's illegal as well. These articles that we read are spun by attorneys, and they always try to spin the media into their position. So, like all patent lawsuits, unless I see what the case is all about, I can only wait for the final outcome to realize if it's a valid case or not.

Don't be quick to judge. They haven't released all of the specifics of the case from both sides, so just because someone is suing doesn't always mean they have a case or it may be that Apple and this other company need to present their respective sides to see what the actual damages are because these patents laws are not specific as the resolution is done on a case by case basis.
 
Software patents are inherently stupid and illogical. As are patents in general, but software patents more so. :p
 
iamPro said:
I'm not sure that's how the patent system works.
As long a the new alternative to the cotton gin is a non-obvious variation of the original, then it's a patent covering different (non-obvious variation) patentable rights. That's why, in theory, there can be hundreds of different patents over a cotton gin. All of which should "ideally" be patentably(is this even a word?) different.

For example, when someone generally says I patented a smartphone with a capacitive touch screen.....well, contrary to popular belief, 99.99% of the time that person did not get patentable rights to ALL smartphones with capacitive screens. He/she got one specific (unique) implementation of it, certainly not ALL.

Generally, whoever filed the patent first or has the idea publicly available first gets the right to said "patentable" idea.''

So, Apple can code in secret labs all it wants, but they better make sure they file a patent (normally within a year if its publicly available or file with the request for non-publication) or else, any one who had the same code (or an obvious variation) publicly available with an earlier date gets the right to said code.

In theory, "obvious variation" can mean many things. Therefore, again contrary to popular belief, getting a patent in its original filed form is a rare case, since many things can be an obvious variation. This is also why it take years (through many changes in the claim) for a patent application to actually become a patent...if it ever does.

*Btw, code per se is never patentable. However, this is a totally different issue over what is patently eligible subject matter. A broken system IMO. I could be wrong, but I hear the Patent Office is open to ideas/advice from the public over this issue.
Click to expand...

It also depends on HOW the patent is written. Patents can also be designed around. there was a patent lawsuit between Apple and another company over "Cover Flow" and I think it ended up where Apple won the case and it's because the patent was not written properly. It was a little confusing to me because I'm not a patent attorney, but it ended up where Apple wasn't at fault. All I know is the patents are a pain in the rear.
 
drblank said:
Patent law can get rather confusing to the average person. The thing about patents is that some companies, if they are even aware of a patent in the first place, they many times try to design around the patent to create a new patent or something that prevents them from being sued. Sometimes, it can be some rather small detail, and that's why a lot of cases go to trial is because one party may THINK they designed around the patent to not get sued. The other thing is that it takes a LONG time to do a patent search before you release a product and companies are in the process of designing products, they might not have known that a particular design has a patent because they might not have found a patent on a particular design before they released it. Or they simply tried to change the design to avoid a lawsuit. That's why a lot of these cases go to trial is because one party may honestly think they designed around a particular patent OR they might not be able to come to a resolution and they have to go to court to have some sort of legal process to determine the damages. It's unfortunate, but there are probably 100,000's of patents being issued all of the time in the high tech industry and it's just something that these companies are doing. Yes, we all don't like hearing about these cases, but sometimes there just has to be a legal process to figure out if there is a violation and what the actual damages should be.

Just because someone sues someone over a design patent doesn't always mean that party is going to win the case. There have been cases where Apple had a patent on a design, but it was dismissed for some stupid reason, even though the other party used the design, they came back and invalidated the patent for some dumb reason, so even AFTER a patent was issued, they can sometimes be retracted.

I'm not defending Apple on this one, because I honestly don't know what the actual patents are and how Apple is going to defend themselves.

I don't know how the "SYSTEM" can make it so there are less lawsuits. It's just the nature of the industry of patents in the first place.

Sometimes these patent holders want to practice unfair licensing and that's illegal as well. These articles that we read are spun by attorneys, and they always try to spin the media into their position. So, like all patent lawsuits, unless I see what the case is all about, I can only wait for the final outcome to realize if it's a valid case or not.

Don't be quick to judge. They haven't released all of the specifics of the case from both sides, so just because someone is suing doesn't always mean they have a case or it may be that Apple and this other company need to present their respective sides to see what the actual damages are because these patents laws are not specific as the resolution is done on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...

Yes!

----------
drblank said:
It also depends on HOW the patent is written. Patents can also be designed around. there was a patent lawsuit between Apple and another company over "Cover Flow" and I think it ended up where Apple won the case and it's because the patent was not written properly. It was a little confusing to me because I'm not a patent attorney, but it ended up where Apple wasn't at fault. All I know is the patents are a pain in the rear.
Click to expand...

Yes it sure is a pain in the rear.
But, it's like necessary evil. (I don't think its evil personally)
In the end, the system does have its checks and balances (we all are human after all!) That's why we have the court taking a closer look at the matter whenever infringement claims are made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back