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.
VirnetX Wins Another $502.6 Million Award From Apple in Patent Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple's mission is to create products for end users.
Patent trolls don't (want to) contribute anything to society. They just want to make money from patent assets, without "earning" it.
Big difference.
That's probably what VirnetX are angling for.
However that would be rewarding software patent troll behaviour (and reinforcing court precedent, and giving the trolls encouragement that Apple will roll over and pay, thus opening the flood-gates), and i'm sure Apple would rather spend 10 billion on legal to ensure that doesn't happen.
Is this the reason we still can’t facetime with more than one person? I remember this possibility with iChat on the Mac long time ago. Now I’m forced to use Skype.
[doublepost=1523433499][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1523433499][/doublepost]
Isn’t that what Apple has been doing these last years? Macmini, MacPro to name a few... nothing new to contribute to society but asking money as if it was new.
No, because you’re still buying a physical product. Also, yeah, this is why FaceTime is closed.
Quite the contrary...
Patent holders like this specifically contribute to society BECAUSE they license the patents they own... instead of holding onto them and not allowing others to use them.
But, same as Apple, they'll sue if someone uses one of their patents without a license.
People always seem to worry that any financial hit on Apple (or any other company) will get passed on to consumers in the shape of price increases. However, Apple, like any other company, will already be selling their devices at what their research tells them is the highest price the market will bear. They're not going to then increase this price to recover their losses; if they could increase their prices without having a negative impact on revenue, they'd have done that already.
How is it contributing to society by harassing people that make stuff while you make nothing?
This patent trolling could be dealt with so easily.
"Any patent not used in the past 5 years by the patent holder in a final product may be used by competitors free of charge in order to provide the public with technological advancement."*
Patents are there to ensure that investment in R&D is protected so capitalistic companies can put money into said R&D that does only output revenue once applied to a product. If there's no product, a patent is potentially preventing technological progress, which is against public interest. And public interested is of higher priority than a companies IP.
*this is subject to fine tuning, but basically, non applied patents must be open to the public at very reasonable licensing fees. Also, the US must stop approve trivial patents. Where there's no R&D, there's nothing patent worthy. Copyrights may still apply though. => A lot of chinese knock offs could be taken care of using copyright law. No patent needed.
"Any patent not used in the past 5 years by the patent holder in a final product may be used by competitors free of charge in order to provide the public with technological advancement."*
Patents are there to ensure that investment in R&D is protected so capitalistic companies can put money into said R&D that does only output revenue once applied to a product. If there's no product, a patent is potentially preventing technological progress, which is against public interest. And public interested is of higher priority than a companies IP.
*this is subject to fine tuning, but basically, non applied patents must be open to the public at very reasonable licensing fees. Also, the US must stop approve trivial patents. Where there's no R&D, there's nothing patent worthy. Copyrights may still apply though. => A lot of chinese knock offs could be taken care of using copyright law. No patent needed.
Last edited:
Without a patent system, innovation would die.
Not necessarily. That was the intent when patents were invented some 200 years ago, but it is arguably not the case today, in technology fields. In fact, perhaps just the opposite!
This is an excerpt from a recent article on Stratechery by tech analyst and observer, Ben Thompson:
The reality is that technology has flipped the entire argument for patents — that they spur innovation — completely on its head. The very nature of technology — that costs are fixed and best maximized over huge user-bases, along with the presence of network effects — mean there are greater returns to innovation than ever before. The removal of most technology patents would not reduce the incentive to innovate; indeed, given that a huge number of software patents in particular are violated on accident (unsurprising, given that software is ultimately math), their removal would spur more. And, as Qualcomm demonstrates, one could even argue such a shift would be good for national security.
From the end of this article: https://stratechery.com/2018/qualcomm-national-security-and-patents/
In his podcast episode that accompanies the article, Ben says that the patent system is a govt granted monopoly that disrupts the natural competition, and was indeed intended to help "the little guy" just starting out, but that was suited to the mechanical era.
Today we have a world of software, chemistry, and formulas. With 3D printing, and getting things designed, then made in China and shipped back all inside a long weekend -- the whole patent system just amounts to a legal minefield and morass that actually stifles innovation.
As has been noted through the thread and on other articles, the patent more or less just describes the goal: make a connection, and then secure it. Boom, hooray.
So, someone comes along and uses slightly different math or coding to achieve an obviously, self-evidently desirable goal. What then? Get bogged down in legal battles for a decade! Yay, what a boon to innovation for everyone (/s)
No wonder the patents have already been found invalid elsewhere -- that's the real boon to innovation: giving someone else a chance to use a slightly different set of numerals and characters to achieve the same result!
Last edited:
No if you want to monetise a patent, you can license it or continue to based on it being relevant. Suing another company is NOT an acceptable business model especially when patents are unrelated to someone’s product and so broad as to be deemed invalid.
Patents were designed to help companies recoup r&d costs with exclusive rights and encourage tech development with alternatives. This is the spirit of the law and this should be the primary consideration in court. VirnetX holds patents and is a leech on real use of patents and gives the system a bad name. You can be pro patent but against MISUSE of patents like this.
Calling companies patent trolls is just a way for haters to argue their point. They can't with valid points so they resort to name calling and thus the name patent trolls.
Sounds familiar ...
Like how Ireland makes out like a bandit from Apple's tax avoidance business.
So if you’re not using your driveway I am free to park my car there every singe time I fell like it right? Oh and when you’re not using your TV or bathroom I should be able to use those too right? Sure you own them but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to use what you own when ever I want and how ever I want.
Those "patent trolls" earned it by buying the patents. It is Apple's fault for not buying them first.
No, you'r not. You invented something and you are entitled to compensation for this if someone wants to use it. Patent trolls only buy patents, they do not do any research, sale or production at all. There just a bunch of lawyers trying to sue anybody for cash as their sole purpose. Their game is to make money out of this, adding no value whatsoever, having the consumer paying the price.
that's one variant of a patent troll.
I'd imagine a company can still be a patent troll and still sell products. example: I'm Google. I see HTC is failing and willing to sell their company. I can buy all of HTC's patents and sue Apple for infringing on my newly acquired patents. This is also a patent troll.
Are you using your car right now? I need to get somewhere so i think i am just going to take your car and use it because i want it and i will don't feel like actually paying you for it. It's cool though because even though you own it your not using it right now and people should be able to use what others people own.
[doublepost=1523440352][/doublepost]
I'd imagine a company can still be a patent troll and still sell products. example: I'm Apple. I see a company is failing and willing to sell their company. I can buy all of that companies patents and sue another company for infringing on my newly acquired patents. This is also a patent troll, but when Apple does it it's ok and people here defend that.
Where do you get “the actual purpose of the patent system”? People seem to have this misconception about the purpose being a single thing. It has many purposes.
One very important purpose today is creating valueable assets for businesses that investors can use as collateral. If a startup isn’t generating ip, investors won’t put money into it. This is because most startups don’t work out, and investors still like to get at least some of their money back (even if it is overall a loss). They do this my taking the assets such as patents as selling them to nonpracticing entities.
NPEs thus serve an important role in the market. They provide value to ip, which lets investors recoup some of their losses from defunct startups, which makes investing in startups slightly less risky, and thus encourages them to invest in more startups.
That is the purpose of the patent system. It “assetizes” inventions as something that can be traded on the open market for money.
Yes, IP is property, but broadly defined IP is a bit more questionable. A stupidly broad patent for something "A rectangle with one line missing" does not mean you can swoop in, claim ownership of ALL parking spaces in america, and demand that every person who owns a parking space pay you a royalty for the rights to the invention.
A few years ago, someone attempted to use the patent they had on *Online shopping carts* to sue a ton of companies and demand royalties. They got shot down in court because it was such a stupidly broad patent, and clearly, the idea was not novel.
Please tell us where Apple does that. Easy to throw around accusitions, harder to prove.