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

spectrumfox said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're missing a real problem here...
This company didn't invent ANY of this patent!
They simply are in business to buy patents from people that have abandoned them. Do you really believe in your pollyanna world that the original owner of this patent will really get much if any of this money? He probably gave up and sold it for pennies on the dollar.

If you abandon a patent without using it, it should be lost. That's the change I'd make to current law. In other words,
USE IT OR LOSE IT!
 
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...
Oh really?
Have you actually read these patents? Go read them. You can start with this one, filed in mid 2012 and granted in summer of last year.
There is absolutely no invention there. At all. He described broad systems for purchasing and downloading assets online. There is nothing novel, nothing not obvious. He doesn't even build these systems. He describes generic systems, pays a fine, and then years later the overloaded staff members in the patent office rubber stamp it.

He is a hardcore patent troll. If you think otherwise, tell us one thing -- one! -- in that patent that is not obvious to anyone working in the field.

I even speak of this as a patent holder myself.
 
HyperZboy said:
You're missing a real problem here...
This company didn't invent ANY of this patent!
They simply are in business to buy patents from people that have abandoned them. Do you really believe in your pollyanna world that the original owner of this patent will really get much if any of this money? He probably gave up and sold it for pennies on the dollar.

If you abandon a patent without using it, it should be lost. That's the change I'd make to current law. In other words,
USE IT OR LOSE IT!
Click to expand...

You sure are making a lot of assumptions here. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you have no idea what you're talking about.

All I can say is I thank my lucky stars you don't actually have anything to do with practicing law in any capacity.
 
hmm... "diligent jury" is lawyer speak for a jury paid for a favorable verdict. Do the juries there get a percentage or are they just paid quietly? And the judges? How much do they get?
 
old-wiz said:
hmm... "diligent jury" is lawyer speak for a jury paid for a favorable verdict. Do the juries there get a percentage or are they just paid quietly? And the judges? How much do they get?
Click to expand...

You're right, it must be a conspiracy.

There is no way on God's green Earth that a mere mortal would have come up with an idea before the almighty Apple did.

Everyone must have been paid off. The jury, the judge, everyone. That's the only thing that makes sense. :apple:
 
Looking at patents.google.com, it appears that SmartFlash pretty much owns patents for a device with a UI and SIM or memory card. We're all screwed. :eek:
 
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...

None. They own the patents now and are trying to get what they can for them.
 
spectrumfox said:
You're right, it must be a conspiracy.

There is no way on God's green Earth that a mere mortal would have come up with an idea before the almighty Apple did.

Everyone must have been paid off. The jury, the judge, everyone. That's the only thing that makes sense. :apple:
Click to expand...

No. But there is a reason these lawsuits where filed in a certain district in Texas.
 
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...

The issue is that sometimes people have fantastic ideas but do not have the capital to execute on it or the technology required for execution (manufacturing) is years away.
 
"Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented"

I don't see why any of that is relevant except for the last part, "technology Apple invented."
 
AlecZ said:
"Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented"

I don't see why any of that is relevant except for the last part, "technology Apple invented."
Click to expand...

It's not at all relevant. It's just Apple muddying the waters to discredit their competitor.

Same things politicians do when they're trying to discredit their opponents when running for election.

Otherwise known as propaganda.
 
HyperZboy said:
You're missing a real problem here...
This company didn't invent ANY of this patent!
They simply are in business to buy patents from people that have abandoned them. Do you really believe in your pollyanna world that the original owner of this patent will really get much if any of this money? He probably gave up and sold it for pennies on the dollar.

If you abandon a patent without using it, it should be lost. That's the change I'd make to current law. In other words,
USE IT OR LOSE IT!
Click to expand...

What, make patents non-transferrable? Why, exactly? What you should be concerned about is that the patents this company holds probably cover something really vague that nobody actually copied, rather they accidentally "infringed" upon them.
 
BrerBear said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spoken as someone who somehow interpreted what I wrote as my own thoughts as opposed to the obvious parody of what OTHERS say in these threads?
 
BrerBear said:
Oh really?
Have you actually read these patents? Go read them. You can start with this one, filed in mid 2012 and granted in summer of last year.
There is absolutely no invention there. At all. He described broad systems for purchasing and downloading assets online. There is nothing novel, nothing not obvious. He doesn't even build these systems. He describes generic systems, pays a fine, and then years later the overloaded staff members in the patent office rubber stamp it.

He is a hardcore patent troll. If you think otherwise, tell us one thing -- one! -- in that patent that is not obvious to anyone working in the field.

I even speak of this as a patent holder myself.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to engage in an arguing of patent validity here. I trust that after dozens of filing, expert reports, a trial, and even some aspects appealed, the patents are valid.

I'm pointing out that the term patent troll has lost all meaning. I cannot imagine a single company that wouldn't be called a patent troll. If a company sues for infringement, they are a troll. Talk about victim-shaming. If an inventor of a patent asserting that patent is a troll, if a university asserting patents from research it funded is a troll, then what isn't a troll?
 
coolfactor said:
Look at that poster's signature:



Anti-Apple. Just here to make noise.
Click to expand...

So just because I *currently* do not own anything Apple makes me anti-Apple? Or would you prefer I laundry list every device I've ever owned (which includes many Apple products) as a way to somehow define myself to your liking?
 
nad8e said:
Does anyone know the specific patent numbers in question?
Click to expand...
U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772
U.S. Patent No. 8,794,516

For the new suit.

For those of you defending this troll, I challenge you to read one of them. They are essentially just extensions of his original idea, which -- brace yourself, this will blow your mind -- is that someone could stick payment info, DRM info, and media storage on a device like a card and then it could all be portable together. He didn't actually describe novel ways to build such a card, just the idea of making a card with these things together on it.

Then he extended his brilliant idea with subsequent patent filings. To optical drives. And hard drives. And set-top boxes. And anything else he could think of. Now, because he was so brilliant, the world needs to pay him billions of dollars so that they can use his idea that was totally, totally non-obvious, amirite?

Hardcore patent troll. And shame on those of you defending him.
 
TWSS37 said:
Again. No. I am merely satirically stating common posts in and around patent threads.
Click to expand...

If "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)," is satire on top of satire and actually is meant to make fun of people who say that Apple sues over shapes, then sorry for not seeing that, but I don't think anyone else will understand it either.
 
oneMadRssn said:
I'm not going to engage in an arguing of patent validity here. I trust that after dozens of filing, expert reports, a trial, and even some aspects appealed, the patents are valid.
Click to expand...
No, overturning a patent is very difficult. Go read up on the famous podcasting patent scandal and educate yourself.

oneMadRssn said:
I'm pointing out that the term patent troll has lost all meaning. I cannot imagine a single company that wouldn't be called a patent troll. If a company sues for infringement, they are a troll. Talk about victim-shaming. If an inventor of a patent asserting that patent is a troll, if a university asserting patents from research it funded is a troll, then what isn't a troll?
Click to expand...
The term has not lost all meaning, you just don't understand the term. Trolls are non-practicing entities that sue over patents they aren't actually using in industry. This includes entities that couldn't make a profitable business on the invention and instead try to sue others who do.
 
BrerBear said:
Hardcore patent troll. And shame on those of you defending him.
Click to expand...

BrerBear said:
The term has not lost all meaning, you just don't understand the term. Trolls are non-practicing entities that sue over patents they aren't actually using in industry. This includes entities that couldn't make a profitable business on the invention and instead try to sue others who do.
Click to expand...

You grab the pitchforks, I'll start lighting the torches.

We can't let these non-believers get away with this.

How dare someone come up with an idea with no resources to create an actual product out of it.

They should just go back to churning butter and tending to the livestock and stop trying to think so much. :apple:
 
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