Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OpenTV Files Lawsuit Against Apple Over Allegations iTunes Violates Five Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem is that although your rule covers patent trolls just nicely, it covers others as well. Imagine I invent a really new and innovative method to make running a media store like Apple's App Store ten times more efficient, a method that nobody else but a genius like me would have ever figured out, but it is a method that only works for really big stores. So Apple, Google, Amazon can use it effectively and nobody else. It's impossible for me to create a service where my invention is used because it doesn't work with stores with less than $1bn revenue. Should that give Apple, Google, and Amazon the right to rip off my invention?
Or if I invent a much improved method for giving turn-by-turn instructions to motorists. It would cost many, many millions to turn this into something that makes money. It's an invention that can only be sold to the big players. Should that be free for everyone?
The real problem is that the patent system was invented so that inventors didn't have to keep their inventions secret to avoid being ripped off, so that other inventors could build on the published invention; but nowadays the mark is so low that a normal software developers can stumble over a patent on every step. Patents were intended for the situations where I couldn't figure out something myself and instead had to use someone else's invention (and either pay or rip them off), but that doesn't happen anymore.
----------
Since the patent office makes money by issuing patents, it's more likely that examiners face disciplinary action for not awarding enough junk patents.
The Supreme Court case, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, has done a great deal at reining in junk software patents. It has had a measurable effect already, in the short time it has been in place. I'm not saying more can't be done, but I think we should see what we can learn from Alice and see how it plays out before any more hasty legislation.
These people are hard workers and do the best they can with the massive amount of work they're expected to do. They don't deserve to be punished. Is it really fair to punish a single examiner working under time pressure who missed a prior-art reference that is found 10 years later by a team of a dozen attorneys with a nearly unlimited budget?
While that would be a massive and expensive undertaking, I think the real question is what is a "tighter standard"? Remember also that Patents are provided for in the US Constitution, so the standard cannot be so easily redefined. One might argue that if the government changes the standard after the patent has issued, and retroactively applies that standard to take away patents, that would be a constitutional taking of property under the Fifth Amendment that would require just compensation. Finally, I would argue that the new AIA Inter Partes Review procedure is a great tool for getting rid of junk patents. It's far cheaper than litigation, the standards for cancelling a patent are much lower than in district court, the rate of success is very high. It's working to cull out the junk patents already.
You say clearly, but I think all the data actually shows that the 2011 reforms are clearly making a huge impact in the right direction.
Are they just figuring this out now? Were they waiting for the right time? Just late to the party?
Exactly. They have legitimate patents, that other companies have licensed. Apple is just so arrogant as they think they dont need to license other entity's technology. They invent everything.....
Apple's always been this way. They steal and copy anything they want.
----------
Because they sued Apple...
----------
Exactly...the rectangle with rounded corners patent....UGH. How can you even patent that? And what idiot in the patent office issued it?
I think the patent office basically approves almost any patent application it receives out of fear of litigation for anything it denies. Then federal courts down the road have to settle the issue of it being a valid patent or not.
From what I can see, OpenTV do that. You may not know of them, but if you have Cable TV, it is likely that OpenTV have some involvement in the software on the set top box.
It is a subsidiary of a Swiss company Apple could simply buy outright to mitigate risk:
Kudelski SA SWX KUD 13.85 +0.25 (1.84%) 684.94M
Market cap: $685m
I am sure their top 20 shareholders would cheerfully exchange for Apple stock or bonds.
Then they would have several big name companies paying royalties to them instead with zero court risk.
The Swiss owners would cheerfully accept Swiss bonds with a 1500 basis point premium (2% net to us mortals).
Last edited:
Why have they suddenly realised iTunes is infringing their patents? Nothing's changed in iTunes with regard to streaming for years.
It should be a case of defending it within a timely manner or losing it IMO. The patent system is so screwed up it's unreal.
It should be a case of defending it within a timely manner or losing it IMO. The patent system is so screwed up it's unreal.
Did you even read the article? This company has been involved in video far longer than Apple has.
We need a patent reform to stop patent trolls and having companies waste money on lawsuits that continue to keep the prices of products high.
I don't know if this company is a troll or not, and my comment above is a general comment to the patent system overall. But there needs to be a clear line of patent infringement. If someone has a patent on an idea, and there is no money spent on actively trying to get the patent to fruition then after 18 months, that patent holder can not sue for infringement.
18 months is enough time to decide I'm going to make this product come to life, raise funds for this patent, license or auction it for sale, or forced to surrender it.
I don't know if this company is a troll or not, and my comment above is a general comment to the patent system overall. But there needs to be a clear line of patent infringement. If someone has a patent on an idea, and there is no money spent on actively trying to get the patent to fruition then after 18 months, that patent holder can not sue for infringement.
18 months is enough time to decide I'm going to make this product come to life, raise funds for this patent, license or auction it for sale, or forced to surrender it.
By the same token would Apple not have carried out due diligence with all the resources available to them? It is very rare that companies with the size and reach of Apple remain unaware that they may be infringing on patents. They very likely make a conscious decision to go ahead and infringe anyway.
If that’s the case they deserve what they get.
[doublepost=1458191617][/doublepost]
Then a lot of, (and I believe it is thousands), of patents Apple have are worthless. What about designs that they have chosen not to go with, or tech they have abandoned - they’re fair game too right?
Patents are there to assist in making money from an invention. If you're not making money from the distribution of technology based on your invention, then the patent should be cleared so someone else can make money from it. Otherwise it just serves to block the public from benefitting from said technology.
Patent trolls don't distribute technology, they just sue people who use their patents. The indirect consequence of this behavior is that the public suffers because no one can distribute technology based on that patent.
Last edited:
Patent trolls are no different from a regular company that works on something for a few seconds and then shelves it. Or works so slowly on something that it may as well not have it.
Like a winning team dragging extra time out deliberately in a manner to be unsporting all the while stopping the others from scoring.
I'll have to disagree, the difference is gargantuan: intent. The intent of a patent troll is much different than the intent of a company which works in something for a few seconds and then shelves it.
Oh, and no company would actually work on something for less than a day and then shelve it, this is why meetings are held, to suss out the details and avoid wasting precious work hours.
