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

[BrerBear]

Well, obviously the patent system works when it benefits Apple. When it doesn't, then its time for reform.

When did Apple sue for patents it isn't using?
I get it, most of you in this discussion are completely uneducated about patents. Most tech companies (notable exception IBM) do not build patent portfolios to use them offensively. They use them as a defense against other companies, a la Mutually Assured Destruction. "If you sue me for this patent, I'll sue you for that one." It's only in the rare cases when another company blatantly copies patented tech being used to differentiate a product that the big tech giants (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Google, etc.) bring out the lawyers. That's why they aren't patent trolls.
If you aren't familiar with the distinctions in design patents or standards essential patents, you really shouldn't be in the discussion either.

 

[jasonklee]

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.

I think Jony Ive and team would prefer "tangential surface continuity" to rounded corners. Let the competition have their surface transitions full of tangency breaks.

 

[JoEw]

Good for smart fish, for all the baseless suing from Apple I have zero sympathy for them

Baseless you say? Take me back to 2006.. Or the leaked Samsung memos or the original android designs before 2007...

How soon people forget

 

[Tech198]

wow... second fine...

Keep em coming...... Just pay up Apple and get back to work. Obviously Smartfish has strong evidence here, but Apple is all but resisting..

Maybe if Apple doesn't bother if will go away ? *shrugs*

 

[BrerBear]

"A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent ... shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; ... The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity." 35 U.S. Code § 282(a).

It's extremely naive to think the best patent litigators in this country, that were hired by Google and Apple to fight this, didn't make a valiant effort to prove these patents are invalid. But no, Mr. BrerBear is smarter than them, and his baseless statements are proof enough.

You know you're proving my point, right?
Once a bad patent is issued, it is extremely hard (and rare) to invalidate, which is what I said above. The patents should never have been issued to Smartflash in the first place, but that's what happens when overworked lawyers in the patent office who aren't trained in technical matters are forced to make the judgment call on them.

The parties claiming the patents are invalid have to provide proof that the patents were not novel or were obvious to someone well versed in the art. The most common way to do this is via prior art, literally proving that the invention existed before it was patented.

The problem with broad, vague patents like the ones issued to Smartflash are that they aren't viable businesses when issued, as evidenced by Smartflash's inability to make them into one. So finding prior art on an idea that wasn't viable at the time of filing is nearly impossible.

It would be like me filing a patent on using smartphones to control cars today. Viable business today? Nope. Viable business in the future? Yep. Obvious development to anyone working in the fields of self-driving cars? Yep. But I'll wait ten years until someone makes it work, and then sue them for a billion dollars for my "invention".

Ridiculous. And if you actually like seeing technological advancements, you shouldn't condone it either.

 

[Charliebird]

I think our outrage is misdirected. These lawsuits are legal and people would be stupid not to try to win these big suites. What would you do if you were sitting on a patent worth millions of dollars? We should direct our anger at congress. They can fix it and they do nothing. We should expect them to fix it or we should vote in people who will fix it.

 

[groovyd]

We shouldn't ever remove patents, but we really, really need to rethink the ways that they can be enforced.

the solution would be to have anyone in the courtroom actually exercise any common sense.

 

[antbikerjl]

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.

Much like I posted in the last thread, you are entirely incorrect.

All these patents have a priority date back to 1999-2001. Ideas that were far ahead of anyone, especially Apple. Some of them are somewhat broad, but so are most of Apple's patents. These have never switched hands and are still in possession of their original filer. This is not an occurrence in which someone buys a boatload of patents to use for litigation (ie: Apple, Microsoft, etc).

The other patents that they used on the first lawsuit (and were awarded damages), they seemed broad but were actually very specific in their use.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8118221 (claim 32)
http://www.google.com/patents/US7334720 (claim 13)
http://www.google.com/patents/US8336772 (claims 26 and 32)

Four things are worth noting about them: (1) their priority date is 1999, far predating iTunes; (2) they are drawn to a very specific implementation of DRM, and not the vague concept of DRM; and (3) the original assignee in all of them is Smartflash, which means this is not just some troll who bought the patents and went crazy suing with them. (4) They received a 3x judgement in which demonstrates that Apple KNOWINGLY violated these patents ("After deliberating for eight hours in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the jury said that Apple not only had used the Smartflash patents without permission but also had done so willfully.")

None-the-less, patent (mainly software) definitively need a reform. Tyler, TX is especially known to rule in favor of the one bringing the lawsuit.

 

[aacealo]

My criticism of the term "patent troll" is that it fails to acknowledge that at some point, somebody out there invented the technology in dispute, and at some point Smartflash paid $$$ to that inventor. In order to recoup that cost, "patent trolls" engage in patent lawsuits. If you're opposed to patent trolling, then how is that original inventor going to be compensated?

A more lucid version of my argument is written here: The Other Side of the Debate over Patent Trolls

While I have long supported the idea of strong patent laws - I believe they are a bulwark of creative individuals - I don't support the idea of "patent trolls." It is hard to see how society benefits from such behavior. Patents were instituted to protect the rights of individuals actively pursuing the use of those patents. In other words, a patent holder should have the intent to use the patent for a productive end. While it is too ham handed to try to discern that in all cases, in the specific case of a "patent troll" I don't find it ham handed at all. It is hard to envision a productive end to a company which holds thousands of patents which it never intends to actively use itself. There may be some valid arguments on the grounds that they tend to make these patents more widely available, but I think they are ultimately non-productive institutions which draw excessive revenue from patents which they did not develop and do not intend to use themselves. Some may disagree, but I would ask those persons what further advantages these institutions serve?

 

[i5pro]

Karma's a bitch.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Karma's a bitch.

Especially since Apple handed over patents to a patent troll a few years ago.

 

[kdarling]

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

Apple totally invented rounded corners.

It's true that Apple actually got what is basically a design patent on a rounded rectangle:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/

However, Apple has never tried to use that against anyone.

The slightly more detailed design patent for a rounded-rectangular device with border-trim, that they DID try to use against Samsung in places like California, UK, Australia and Germany, failed to convince juries or judges that Samsung had copied the iPad. Especially since it wasn't even a design patent for the iPad.

What really cranked up the whole "Apple is suing over a rounded rectangle" meme, was when Apple's lawyers proposed that Samsung could avoid infringement (in their eyes) by using sharp instead of rounded corners. It made it sound as if Apple claimed rounded corners all to themselves.

When did Apple sue for patents it isn't using?

Most recently in a lawsuit against Samsung, for patent claims that Apple does not use themselves.

As Foss Patent's Mueller put it:

"It would be an exaggeration to say that asserting patent claims it doesn't even practice itself makes Apple a patent troll, but it's accurate to say that Apple is a non-practicing entity; with respect to at least three of the patent claims-in-suit (the parties disagree on the other two),” he said. “It won't help Apple later if it pursues an injunction. And it's definitely another blow to the credibility of Apple's allegations of ‘copying’.”

 

[Essenar]

When Apple sues Samsung, "Good! That's what they get, ha bunch of copy cat fakes!" When did Apple sue? Around the time the Galaxy S3 outsold the iPhone 4S.

When anyone sues Apple? "patent trolls! How dare you!"

Pick a side and stick to it. But make sure your principles are consistent or you look like an idiot. I'm an engineer, I have a MacBook and an iPad. I support this lawsuit because if my engineers didn't figure out they were infringing patents, they messed up and it's time to pay the piper.

 

[subsonix]

(2) they are drawn to a very specific implementation of DRM, and not the vague concept of DRM

They are not very specific at all, they outline the idea of downloading and storing of data including payment details with validation. They do not describe how this is implemented or enforced, but rather list a long list of embodiments as to cast as wide net as possible for future infringement.

The fact that they filed it themselves or that the patent is from 1999 doesn't change any of that.

 

[sshambles]

This is ****ing disgusting and it has to stop. What a ridiculous state of affairs the patent process is if this **** happens continuously to companies that actually produce products. What a ****ing joke.

 

[old-wiz]

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

My original comment was not related to Apple in particular, but rather a bit of sarcasm at how patent lawsuits in east Texas are so successful that one wonders if the judges and juries are being manipulated. The trolls know that the East Texas courts love them, so naturally they go there.

 

[dec.]

Well IMO Apple is also a Patent Troll under the same definition of this story then, they enter patents for products they never make to stop their competitors doing the same. If they own the patents, and others are breaching them then they have a right to sew, the big corporations would be first in line at the court house to sew.

So you agree that Apple were right with their "rounded corners" lawsuit?

 

[cylack]

must have idiots living in the eastern district of TX serving on juries o side with patent trolls. I’d love to serve on one of those juries to sway opinion the other way.

 

[nebo1ss]

By either putting the patent to use in an actual product or selling it to a company that puts the patent to use in an actual product.

No company should be able to exist solely for the purpose of buying patents and suing people for money.

The logical extension of your argument is that someone invents and patents something but does not have the Financial resources to develop it further. He takes it to a large company say Apple or Samsung who likes the idea but does not think they need to pay to use it. They simple make use of it and anything he does makes him a patent troll.

In General I don't like patent lawsuits. However, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for Apple who is the biggest offender.

 

[FriednTested]

The simple solution would be to limit enforceability of patents once they are sold.

Better would be if they aren't used once sold within a specified time limit.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Google Rockstar patent troll.

And also give this a read.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-no-worse-a-patent-troll/

 

[subsonix]

Google Rockstar patent troll.

Why? That would only bring up hits that relates Rockstar to a patent troll.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Why? That would only bring up hits that relates Rockstar to a patent troll.

And who is a major backer of Rockstar? And isn't Rockstar basically a patent troll? Also read the link.

 

[macintologist]

While I have long supported the idea of strong patent laws - I believe they are a bulwark of creative individuals - I don't support the idea of "patent trolls." It is hard to see how society benefits from such behavior. Patents were instituted to protect the rights of individuals actively pursuing the use of those patents. In other words, a patent holder should have the intent to use the patent for a productive end. While it is too ham handed to try to discern that in all cases, in the specific case of a "patent troll" I don't find it ham handed at all. It is hard to envision a productive end to a company which holds thousands of patents which it never intends to actively use itself. There may be some valid arguments on the grounds that they tend to make these patents more widely available, but I think they are ultimately non-productive institutions which draw excessive revenue from patents which they did not develop and do not intend to use themselves. Some may disagree, but I would ask those persons what further advantages these institutions serve?

Then how do small time inventors and startups earn revenue in the face of rich and powerful incumbents?

 

[subsonix]

And who is a major backer of Rockstar?

Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony.

And isn't Rockstar basically a patent troll? Also read the link.

They are the owners of patents from Nortel, the fact that they are co-owned by many vendors suggest that they share these patents in order to operate. It seems to be a fact that if you are in the big league you need a large patent portfolio both for negotiation and protection. Google also bided on these patents and went on to buy Motorola mobility about a month later when they lost the bid. The link has nothing to do with Rockstar I believe.