Judge Cuts Patent Licensing Company WiLan's $145.1M Award From Apple to $10M

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
48,663
10,082



Back in August, a California jury awarded Canadian patent holding company WiLan $145.1 million in an ongoing dispute with Apple after the iPhone was found to have infringed on two WiLan patents related to wireless communications technology.

Apple won't be paying WiLan $145.1 million, though, as the court recently decided that WiLAN must accept reduced damages of $10 million or prepare for a new trial to figure out how much Apple needs to pay.


The court did agree, however, that Apple infringed on the two patents, so the company will need to pay WiLan some amount in damages.

WiLan and Apple have been ordered to enter into discussions to attempt to find a resolution, and WiLan says that it remains open to a "fair and reasonable" settlement with Apple.

WiLan describes itself as "one of the most successful patent licensing companies in the world." Apple's legal dispute with WiLan started back in 2010, when WiLan claimed Apple violated one of its Bluetooth related products.

Article Link: Judge Cuts Patent Licensing Company WiLan's $145.1M Award From Apple to $10M
 

Goldfrapp

macrumors 601
Jul 31, 2005
4,952
5,913
I think it's fair. Apple is already losing too much money because people don't wanna upgrade their iPhones yearly. Gotta support your favorite company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvisDeene

Kabeyun

macrumors 68030
Mar 27, 2004
2,602
4,852
Eastern USA
I dream of a day when the awards for these suits are less than the cost of the patents they bought.

I’ll keep dreaming. But it’s a nice dream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaren

gigapocket1

macrumors 68000
Mar 15, 2009
1,712
1,026
That’s a substantial drop lol... just take the 10 mil and call it a day... it’s only going to go down from there lol
 

Kabeyun

macrumors 68030
Mar 27, 2004
2,602
4,852
Eastern USA
Apple should have bought the patents first if they wanted to use them.
Communications technology patents have become so obscure, such minutiae, that even with a multimillion dollar legal team on the payroll its hard to even know you could’ve infringed on one until a portfolio owner’s lawyer sends you a gotcha letter. “Wanting” to use them probably has nothing to do with it. That’s why there’s a clamor for patent reform legislation.
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,454
5,959
US Eastern time zone
When companies buy patents and then sue they should get nothing. Only the actual inventor and original patent holder should have any standing to sue.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,641
451
Redondo Beach, California
When companies buy patents and then sue they should get nothing. Only the actual inventor and original patent holder should have any standing to sue.
So an inventor like me who is too poor to actually make his idea into a product would never make a dime for his work.

Quite a few people only think of new things then sell their ideas.

Even if your idea was made into law, then rather then "sell" we all would simply offer an "exclusive, non-expiring license" with a license clause saying the licensee must defend the patent.
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,454
5,959
US Eastern time zone
And that should be because .. .?
The company did not invent anything other than litigation. Change laws such that actual inventor has standing in court based on facts and proof of patent not on how much they spend on lawyers. The true crime here is the lawyer and the company that builds nothing, makes nothing, just buys patents in order to sue. Further their are companies that file patents with express purpose to sue supposed infringers. The law needs revision, period. File patent on breathing. Then everyone can be sued for infringing. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it. That’s almost how bad it’s gotten.
 
Last edited:

macfacts

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2012
3,744
4,460
Cybertron
The company did not invent anything other than litigation. Change laws such that actual inventor has standing in court based on facts and proof of patent not on how much they spend on lawyers. The true crime here is the lawyer and the company that builds nothing, makes nothing, just buys patents in order to sue. Further their are companies that file patents with express purpose to sue supposed infringers. The law needs revision, period. File patent on breathing. Then everyone can be sued for infringing. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it. That’s almost how bad it’s gotten.
The actual inventor sold the patent(s) and the "troll" paid cold hard cash and now owns that property. Apple did nothing but use someone else's tech without permission.

How would you like it if someone destroyed your car, just cause you didn't invent it. Only thing you did was buy the car.
 

HEK

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2013
3,454
5,959
US Eastern time zone
The actual inventor sold the patent(s) and the "troll" paid cold hard cash and now owns that property. Apple did nothing but use someone else's tech without permission.

How would you like it if someone destroyed your car, just cause you didn't invent it. Only thing you did was buy the car.
Bottom feeding troll company. Bought patent only to litigate. Made nothing, wasn’t ever going to use invention other then to sue. Keep trying, but you never convince me buying up ideas and burying them is good thing.
 

macfacts

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2012
3,744
4,460
Cybertron
Bottom feeding troll company. Bought patent only to litigate. Made nothing, wasn’t ever going to use invention other then to sue. Keep trying, but you never convince me buying up ideas and burying them is good thing.
They bought the patents so they can license them. Suing means hiring lawyers. They would rather license than sue. Not their fault apple won't license them.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.