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.
Wi-LAN Loses Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In these other cases the court did not rule either way. They managed to get settlements form companies just to stop proceedings. Apple have stood their ground and these patents have been found to unenforceable. Most of these patent troll companies rely on the cost and complexity of litigation being so high that their victims just cave and pay up.
Not necessarily. One can argue that Apple must file patents in order to protect itself because, unfortunately, that is how the game has to be played. The system is so dysfunctional that even the dumbest of patents get awarded and require millions of dollars in court costs to be invalidated. So companies (and even the good ones) have to file patents on every little bitty thing they do. The ridiculous patents filed against Apple and other companies are a prime example of why all companies now attempt to patent every trivial thing that they design.
Apple makes its money by designing and selling products that people like. How much of Apple's annual revenue is in the licensing of dusty, never-implemented patents? Is it even listed in their 10-K filing?
Depends what you mean by "actively use". Not all inventors should be manufacturers, and one could argue that licensing out your patents is an active use of the technology.
What i would suggest is that patents may not be sold by the original inventor, except licensed out to manufacturers. License can be inherited by a family member or a next-of-kin but not sold.
It seems that original inventors are not usually trolls, and if they are, they have a right to be.
Yes, but why would you invent something you have no intent to use. You shouldn't be allowed to invent something with the sole intention of preventing others from doing the same thing without paying.
I come from a research background, so I'm kind of against patents anyway. Imagine someone had invented the wheel and patented it, but never used it for anything. And then tried to license it to anyone else that wanted to use it. And sued them when they didn't. Same goes for software/technology IMO.
I think the other poster meant that there are many cases where an invention cannot be easily manufactured or used by the inventor themselves.
In that case, selling or licensing the patent through a broker, is the inventor's easiest way to get paid.
Every company patents stuff they might never use themselves. As long as they license it, at least other companies are not locked out.
The real problem is when companies patent things and refuse to license them.
I drive a car most days. Assume that I am a really, really clever guy and think of some way to improve the car that I drive. None if these clever people working for car manufacturers ever came up with that idea or ever will. On the other hand, that invention is _only_ useful as part of a car, and there is no way I could ever start building cars. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to benefit from my invention?
On the other hand, you don't see the actual problem. The patent system assumes that if the patent holder didn't invent it, it wouldn't be invented. If that is correct, nobody is damaged if I get my car improvement patent, because without me, the manufacturers wouldn't think of that invention anyway. But if they think that the license fee is worth it, they can improve their products and I make some money.
But it seems that with software, many people come up with the same invention independently. Very often to a degree that people come up with an invention to solve a problem, and don't even realise that their invention could have been worth a patent. In that situation, having a patent doesn't benefit society, it hinders it.
There's a slightly different situation where something is obvious to anyone after they see it. Like Apple's bouncy screen animation which is obvious once you see it. Doesn't mean it's obvious before you see it. And if Apple invents and patents it, at least one product has it. Without Apple inventing it, nobody would have it.