VirnetX Wins Another $502.6 Million Award From Apple in Patent Trial

[farewelwilliams]

No it’s not.

yes it is. buying companies' patents for the sole purpose of suing another company is called a patent troll.
[doublepost=1523567277][/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.

yes, that example is a patent troll, but I don't recall Apple suing others for patents they never used. can you think of one patent where Apple has done this?

 

[cmaier]

yes it is. buying companies' patents for the sole purpose of suing another company is called a patent troll.
[doublepost=1523567277][/doublepost]

yes, that example is a patent troll, but I don't recall Apple suing others for patents they never used. can you think of one patent where Apple has done this?

Yes that would be a patent troll. But your prior definition is wrong, and this new definition is under inclusive and over inclusive.

A practicing entity is not a patent troll.
[doublepost=1523577630][/doublepost]

Makes sense. So patent holding/assertion companies don't usually pay anything up front?

They may or may not. Often they get a percentage. But how much would a patent be worth if it couldn’t be asserted? If not for patent assertion entities, the value of patents would sink. Independent inventors could only assert themselves (expensive and difficult) or sell to a big company, for a low price.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Yes that would be a patent troll. But your prior definition is wrong, and this new definition is under inclusive and over inclusive.

A practicing entity is not a patent troll.

So I can setup a company to sell pencils and paperclips, then buy a bunch of tech patents for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits, and I still won't be a patent troll? Wrong.

 

[cmaier]

So I can setup a company to sell pencils and paperclips, then buy a bunch of tech patents for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits, and I still won't be a patent troll? Wrong.

I said “practicing.” If you practice the patents while selling pencils and paper clips, you aren’t a troll.

I’m glad you’re so certain of yourself given that you have no experience or education in patent law or the patent industry. It’s nice to know expertise is so easily obtained.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I said “practicing.” If you practice the patents while selling pencils and paper clips, you aren’t a troll.

I’m glad you’re so certain of yourself given that you have no experience or education in patent law or the patent industry. It’s nice to know expertise is so easily obtained.

Pencil and paper clip company is a patent troll. They aren't using the patents in their products, but only for the purposes of suing.

Likewise, Google isn't using the patents they bought from HTC, but only to sue (in my example). Therefore they are a patent troll.

How is the Google example different than the pencil/paperclip example? I think you just contradicted yourself.

 

[pankajdoharey]

My neighbor has alot of land he bought as an investment from a real estate broker who planned to developer a row of houses but lost funding. Right now he isn't using it and doesn't actually plan on developing or doing anything with it so I guess i can take it over and use it how ever i see fit while not pay him anything and when he gets upset people like you will defend me right?

Well he technically is the owner of the land that he bought.

 

[cmaier]

Pencil and paper clip company is a patent troll. They aren't using the patents in their products, but only for the purposes of suing.

Likewise, Google isn't using the patents they bought from HTC, but only to sue (in my example). Therefore they are a patent troll.

How is the Google example different than the pencil/paperclip example? I think you just contradicted yourself.

What makes you think google isn’t using the patents they bought from Htc? Please show me your claim charts and analysis.

 

[farewelwilliams]

What makes you think google isn’t using the patents they bought from Htc? Please show me your claim charts and analysis.

You need to read what I said again. I was talking about a hypothetical example, not an actual story that happened in the past. Re-read:

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.

I think you incorrectly assumed I was talking about Google buying HTC's smartphone division. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about IF Google acquired all of HTC's patents and then immediately sued Apple using those patents, that is a patent troll. Get it?

 

[cmaier]

You need to read what I said again. I was talking about a hypothetical example, not an actual story that happened in the past. Re-read:




I think you incorrectly assumed I was talking about Google buying HTC's smartphone division. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about IF Google acquired all of HTC's patents and then immediately sued Apple using those patents, that is a patent troll. Get it?

It’s not a patent troll if they use the patents or the patents are on technologies they might use. Patent trolls are non practicing entities. That’s their real name. How many cases have you defended against patent trolls since you are such an expert?

 

[farewelwilliams]

It’s not a patent troll if they use the patents or the patents are on technologies they might use. Patent trolls are non practicing entities. That’s their real name. How many cases have you defended against patent trolls since you are such an expert?

Again, I didnt say in my example that Google used any HTC patents in products.

In real life, Google did not buy ALL of HTC patents and to the best of my knowledge, never used HTC patents to sue Apple. So why are treating this example as a real event?

There’s a huge difference between a hypothetical example and an actual event. If you’re a lawyer, you’d easily understand this. I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to comprehend.

Feel free to reply, but it sounds like you’re trying to dig yourself out of this and I don’t have time to read any more from you.

 

[RobertMartens]

They need to start inventing their own technology instead of stealing others.

Why?

 

[EvilEvil]

Why?

Innovate instead of copying. They're not going to be on the top forever. With the way things are going, Apple is returning back to the way they were before they brought Steve Jobs back.

 

[KeanosMagicHat]

That's pretty damaging if they were found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay. It hasn't looked good lately for Apple with everyone wanting a piece of the pie. My only concern is they will pass this "settlement" on to the consumers in future devices.

I’m not saying I agree with this practice, but it’s far more common than some may be aware.

This is how Microsoft became such a huge company, they “borrowed“ (/S) technology from small companies and incorporated it into Windows.

As Windows became the undisputed market leader, they had more than enough cash reserves to settle the subsequent legal disputes.

That’s if they ever did get to a point of settlement, many cases were dragged out over so many years that the companies who created the various technologies ceased to trade.
[doublepost=1524581631][/doublepost]

Take a lesson from Samsung. Keep appealing and it will go away eventually.

As will the jobs for the people within those innovative smaller companies.

 

[Bacillus]

Patent law protects small startup companies, and those who invest in them. If you've never developed a novel product with unique technology and started a business, then you won't understand this at all. The business might fail for a number of reasons, but if the technology is valuable then the investment can be recovered through patent licensing.

Without a patent system, innovation would die.

That’s one (the initial...) part of the story.
Currently, giant industries do patent everything without actually developing it, thereby hampering innovation in order to protect their position and keep business as it is. Smaller companies are either being paid to stay out of markets or the barriers for entry are made extremely high.
Without the obligation and means to actively pursue product innovation, the patent system is counter-productive and rotten.
Sadly, this is far beyond the current infra and scope of patent authorities
(BTW this is not about the case in this thread)

 

[ksec]

That’s one (the initial...) part of the story.
Currently, giant industries do patent everything without actually developing it, thereby hampering innovation in order to protect their position and keep business as it is. Smaller companies are either being paid to stay out of markets or the barriers for entry are made extremely high.
Without the obligation and means to actively pursue product innovation, the patent system is counter-productive and rotten.
Sadly, this is far beyond the current infra and scope of patent authorities
(BTW this is not about the case in this thread)

Yes, and as a matter of fact, many more smaller companies are now being squashed out because of patents.