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

Smartflash Hits Apple With Second Lawsuit After Winning $533 Million Verdict

NutsNGum said:
Not exclusively for shapes. Although shape was mentioned in the suit against Samsung, which is pretty ridiculous no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...

Not at all. If a patent contains measurements, is that "patenting measurements" and therefore ridiculous? No. Neither is "mentioning" a shape. Or a material. Or whatever. What matters is the full, specific combination of things--THAT is what a patent is.

People think the patent is the title, e.g. "method for powering a car." ("Wow, like cars were never powered before!") The patent is not the title, nor the summary, but the full complexity of its contents.

Look at the full details of the often-misreported patent. And also look at what Samsung has actually copied--indefensible and repeated. Far more specific and intentional than just an unavoidable "shape."

spectrumfox said:
You're right. It wasn't shapes. It was rounded corners.

Apple totally invented rounded corners.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. That was not the patent. That was a detail within a full patent.
 
No one ever said all jurors were intelligent. Luckily there are courts that can overthrow verdicts made by the dumb ones.
 
wxman2003 said:
No one ever said all jurors were intelligent. Luckily there are courts that can overthrow verdicts made by the dumb ones.
Click to expand...

Be careful who you regard as unintelligent. Jurors aren't educated in patent law and may not have any expertise in the aforementioned patents. You are confusing intelligence with subject specific knowledge, yet you question their intelligence.


Number 41 said:
The simple solution would be to limit enforceability of patents once they are sold.
Click to expand...

That isn't a solution, because those that come up with an invention may not have the means to produce it. There are probably many that should never have been granted. Essentially if it is a good patent, it will tell anyone who reads it how to construct the described invention. If this was known to others prior to that point, it shouldn't have been granted. Otherwise they have a temporary monopoly, but others are able to implement the same thing using those instructions after the expiration of that patent. The things I find absurd are design patents describing ornamental details (should be tied to something such as trademarks) and those relating to algorithms.
 
kingtj said:
The fact is, patent law SHOULD be revised to require you actually create a marketable product with your concept or else the patent expires/gets revoked. Anything else just encourages these stupid lawsuits -- because, "If you can't innovate? Litigate!"
Click to expand...

So, basically what you're saying is that if you invent something and are granted a patent, but you don't have the funding to create a marketable product out of it, you should have that patent taken away from you so someone else with more money who came up with the idea after you can profit from it.

And you would totally be okay with that if it were you who was originally granted the patent?

I highly doubt it.
 
jayducharme said:
The problem IMO is that the patent trolls come off as little more than a collection agency. They seem more predatory than anything else. How much of the money "recovered" actually goes to the original inventor?
Click to expand...
Litigation is very risky and expensive. Inventors have a huge up-side benefit to receiving compensation for their invention from "patent trolls" who then have to actually take the violating companies to court, something that the original inventors would not have the resources to do.
 
I think that if this company bought a legitimate patent from an inventor, they should be allowed to leverage that patent by licensing it to other companies that want to use it. It is a business after all.

If the patent is not in dispute, then it comes down to whether apple is infringing or not. And the court agreed that they are infringing.

They are still a troll company only because, as i understand it, they never went to apple to negotiate a license agreement. Instead they went straight to court.

Let me tell you that if I ever get a patent for any of hair-brained ideas, you bet I will try to get someone to pay for it. Again, this is business.
 
thekev said:
That isn't a solution, because those that come up with an invention may not have the means to produce it. There are probably many that should never have been granted. Essentially if it is a good patent, it will tell anyone who reads it how to construct the described invention. If this was known to others prior to that point, it shouldn't have been granted. Otherwise they have a temporary monopoly, but others are able to implement the same thing using those instructions after the expiration of that patent. The things I find absurd are design patents describing ornamental details (should be tied to something such as trademarks) and those relating to algorithms.
Click to expand...

If you sell a patent, the buying company would be responsible for producing a product utilizing the patent or the patent is invalid.

Use it or lose it for the buying company. This protects the original innovator who needs time to come up with an implementation strategy but also prevents companies who buy patents from turning into strictly litigation and collection agencies.
 
Good for smart fish, for all the baseless suing from Apple I have zero sympathy for them
 
Cuban Missles said:
They are still a troll company only because, as i understand it, they never went to apple to negotiate a license agreement. Instead they went straight to court.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Can you cite that, because I'm pretty sure these companies try to get license agreements first, but I might be wrong.
 
Great, now the patent trolls will have more money to stuff into the pockets of senators like Harry Reid to block patent reform
 
Number 41 said:
or selling it to a company that puts the patent to use in an actual product.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't buy them.. there's no risk in copying it.

There's nothing wrong with patents. It's the judges that are way too literal, and who live outside of reality. .
 
Number 41 said:
If you sell a patent, the buying company would be responsible for producing a product utilizing the patent or the patent is invalid.

Use it or lose it for the buying company. This protects the original innovator who needs time to come up with an implementation strategy but also prevents companies who buy patents from turning into strictly litigation and collection agencies.
Click to expand...
If the rules were made more strict like that, then the price of buying out a patent from a small time inventor would plummet. The small time inventor/startup gets hurt (as does the patent troll business, but they are a bunch of lawyers who will do just fine), while big corporations who are sued less often benefit more. Think through what you are arguing.
 
Cuban Missles said:
Let me tell you that if I ever get a patent for any of hair-brained ideas, you bet I will try to get someone to pay for it. Again, this is business.
Click to expand...

Yes, fair enough, but the bigger picture is that such businesses do _nothing_ to move the world forward. Zero. Zilch. I'd call them maggots, but at least maggots have a useful purpose.
 
Aluminum213 said:
Good for smart fish, for all the baseless suing from Apple I have zero sympathy for them
Click to expand...

You make a claim. Now back it up. What baseless suing? And please don't reference the "rounded corners" lawsuit. You know it was a bigger deal than that. They were going after a company, not rounded corners.
 
dannyyankou said:
I hate patent trolls.
Click to expand...

The plaintiff here is the actual inventor of the patents. In fact, he has been involved in the litigation process the entire time, and actually sat the plaintiff's table next to the lawyers for the entire trial.

This is about as far from a patent troll as you can get. This guy is the poster child for small-time garage inventor entrepreneur whose ideas were ripped off by the mega corporation - the kind of person everyone is always worrying about protecting.
 
macintologist said:
If the rules were made more strict like that, then the price of buying out a patent from a small time inventor would plummet. The small time inventor/startup gets hurt (as does the patent troll business, but they are a bunch of lawyers who will do just fine), while big corporations who are sued less often benefit more. Think through what you are arguing.
Click to expand...

Why would the price plummet? The value of an idea remains what the idea is worth on the open market to interested corporations. Unless you're arguing that patent trolls artificially bid up the value of patents on the open market -- which would absolutely be another reason to end their existence.
 
Number 41 said:
If you sell a patent, the buying company would be responsible for producing a product utilizing the patent or the patent is invalid.

Use it or lose it for the buying company. This protects the original innovator who needs time to come up with an implementation strategy but also prevents companies who buy patents from turning into strictly litigation and collection agencies.
Click to expand...

So if a company sues your company for infringement, your company can't defend itself with a counter-suit until they start making a product that is definitely covered by the patent? That's totally unfair.

And if so, how much of that thing would the company need to make before becoming elegible to sue? Is one example enough? Does anyone have to have actually bought it? What if the patented product is a very expensive thing that we only sell one of per year? What if the company only makes custom products made to order? Who decides this?
 
oneMadRssn said:
The plaintiff here is the actual inventor of the patents. In fact, he has been involved in the litigation process the entire time, and actually sat the plaintiff's table next to the lawyers for the entire trial.

This is about as far from a patent troll as you can get. This guy is the poster child for small-time garage inventor entrepreneur whose ideas were ripped off by the mega corporation - the kind of person everyone is always worrying about protecting.
Click to expand...

But... but...

I'm so confused... he's suing Apple, so we should all hate him and call him a patent troll... but he's also protecting his own idea against a mega corporation who is trying to profit off of it... But....

I'm so confused... Someone tell me what to think. :apple:
 
TWSS37 said:
Nah. Just more at a dig of people on this site who say "Good for Apple!" when they sue for anything, regardless of merit (like say, shapes).
Click to expand...
Spoken as someone who has no idea what a design patent is.
You know how they say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?
You have a little knowledge.
 
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