The link has everything to do with Apple and a patent troll. Many here seem to think Apple is a victim of a patent troll but have no idea about Apple's involvement with patent trolling.
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.
Smartflash Hits Apple With Second Lawsuit After Winning $533 Million Verdict
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The link has everything to do with Apple and a patent troll. Many here seem to think Apple is a victim of a patent troll but have no idea about Apple's involvement with patent trolling.
I never said it did. It is two examples of Apple's involvement on the other side of the fence.
I'm not familiar with the last example, but the first example is pretty much normal procedure (like it or not) which is why so many companies ended up biding on them and they went up being co-owned. I define a "patent troll" as someone who's sole business is to extort money from patents, not to license a genuine invention or make any products. They may either be bought from other entities or be the original owners, in the latter case it's often nonsensical patents which aims to cast as wide net as possible by being overly broad or general.
The normal way for the so-called patent trolls to end up with patents is when somebody invents something and starts a company. That company - like 95% of start-ups - goes bankrupt, crushed under a mountain of debt. To repay some of the debt, the company or a receiver sells off all company assets, including the patent. These patent troll companies buy up patents like this for relatively small amounts, because most such patents are worthless.
How they make money is by trying to license their portfolio of patents. If there weren't patent trolls, all patents would fall to the public domain when the inventor's company went bankrupt. Is that what you want? Because if the patent is worthless at liquidation, it becomes even harder to secure financing for start-ups.
I'm not sure how common each case is, but if the invention is worthy of the term, it's a bit different I think.
Sure is hard not to click on a thread/link you are not interested in reviewing...
And it's sure hard to accept the truth as well
re: patents taken away ...
In a way, yes... but it's not quite that simplistic.
In the "real world", anyone I know of who might invent something worthwhile and go through the whole patent process is someone who intends to try to bring that idea to market. (Don't forget that getting the successful patent in the first place isn't exactly free! People don't just patent things for the heck of it.)
I'm proposing that govt. give people a time window to show they attempted to actually DO something with the patent. Perhaps 6 months or perhaps 1 year? (I'm not going to pretend I have the "ideal" time-frame already calculated out for this.)
If they can show they clearly made the effort to commercialize the patent, I think that's valid reason to grant them continued legal protection for the idea.
I'm simply opposed to the OTHER types who patent things; the ones who simply want to spend the money on the patents but NOT on actually trying to do anything useful with the ideas. It's clear that doing this would be a complete waste of one's time and money, EXCEPT they intend to patent-troll in the future, hoping to be a leech. They want to suck money from people who actually DO try to bring products or services to market, who happen to run across one of their idle patents.
In a way, yes... but it's not quite that simplistic.
In the "real world", anyone I know of who might invent something worthwhile and go through the whole patent process is someone who intends to try to bring that idea to market. (Don't forget that getting the successful patent in the first place isn't exactly free! People don't just patent things for the heck of it.)
I'm proposing that govt. give people a time window to show they attempted to actually DO something with the patent. Perhaps 6 months or perhaps 1 year? (I'm not going to pretend I have the "ideal" time-frame already calculated out for this.)
If they can show they clearly made the effort to commercialize the patent, I think that's valid reason to grant them continued legal protection for the idea.
I'm simply opposed to the OTHER types who patent things; the ones who simply want to spend the money on the patents but NOT on actually trying to do anything useful with the ideas. It's clear that doing this would be a complete waste of one's time and money, EXCEPT they intend to patent-troll in the future, hoping to be a leech. They want to suck money from people who actually DO try to bring products or services to market, who happen to run across one of their idle patents.
Those are trolling patents
I agree that patent reform needs to happen. I for one think that software patents should live for a shorter time than mechanical patents, so if these knuckleheads had this patent for 3 years, extended it 3 more for a total of 6, and still hadn't produced a single thing with it, then it becomes public domain. The patent system working as it should. 22 years on a software concept is oppressive to software progress and innovation.
As for these patents being specific ... I disagree. They appear to be works of art in the realm of pretending to talk about something specific while generically describing the only possible way to accomplish an obviously necessary task. And they are clumsily worded, making it hard enough to read that the reader (patent grantor) actually gives up trying to make sense of the terrible sentence structure. These are intentionally pseudo specific and difficult to parse, and should never have been granted.
I agree that patent reform needs to happen. I for one think that software patents should live for a shorter time than mechanical patents, so if these knuckleheads had this patent for 3 years, extended it 3 more for a total of 6, and still hadn't produced a single thing with it, then it becomes public domain. The patent system working as it should. 22 years on a software concept is oppressive to software progress and innovation.
As for these patents being specific ... I disagree. They appear to be works of art in the realm of pretending to talk about something specific while generically describing the only possible way to accomplish an obviously necessary task. And they are clumsily worded, making it hard enough to read that the reader (patent grantor) actually gives up trying to make sense of the terrible sentence structure. These are intentionally pseudo specific and difficult to parse, and should never have been granted.
I edited my post, you were quick to reply
And no, IMO it was pure desperation of Apple to make such a claim, as it was to attempt to claim they copied the colours black and white of them.
How is that "simple"? If the limit the use of the patents after they are sold that devalues the patents for the inventor (i.e. people are less likely to buy them).
----------
Owning a non-Apple device does not make you anti-Apple.
I think you need to distinguish between people like my Father who invent something and hold a Patent. That then is ignored by EVERY Company going because he did not have a Degree or was not some Professional and well known yet when a Professional Engineer came along who was well known and invented the SAME thing my father did then everyone jumped on him like a cheap Suit!
And Firms who are Patent Trolls who only exist to make money from Patents they will never use and in other words just want to make Money doing nothing and then continually Sue every Company involved again and again when they have done nothing to deserve a SINGLE Penny!
The original inventor will not get a SINGLE Penny I think, it will all go to Smartflash LLC
I bet you that they will keep suing Apple over and over and over till Apple run out of Money just because Smartflash LLC see in my mind too lazy and greedy to actually invent fomenting themselves and market a product.
So you stick up for themselves all you like and i will stick up for the small inventors who get screwed over again and again like my father just because people are Snobs and arrogant
maybe he should have tried to patent something really revolutionary like a rectangle shape
It's pretty unbelievable that you can be granted patents as broad and unspecific as this. He basically just throws everything against the wall and sees what will stick. He's not describing any specific invention or method, he's just coming up with a list of things that could theoretically be used in some theoretical unstated combination to do a whole range of outcomes.