Apple has asserted patents against Android licensees it doesn't practice itself.
But did they make the patent available to license. If Apple was willing to license the tech and the other side didn't bother then it isn't trolling to sue them. It's right to sue them. Because Apple was playing fair by their willingness to license.
Trolls don't do that. When someone tries to license they refuse to talk. And then they want for anything they can claim is the same thing even when it is not and they file suit.
Not at all. My point was that you think that you should be able to define what is a valid use of a patent rather than the courts. That is blatantly false and your attempts at making a definition are pointless.
What a patent is, in the U.S. is defined in the Constitution and laws derived from that authority. Your concept of the type of property patents are is at odds with that. Where you go wrong is the false assumption that patents are property unencumbered with responsibility. They are not. The grant of that property is based on the Constitution's intent that the people receive value in return for the patent in the form of innovation that improves their quality of life. Even interpreted very broadly, developing patents solely for the purpose of "defending" them does not return value to the people, and thus is at odds with the purpose of patents, as defined in the Constitution.
We don't need a cottage industry in developing patents for the sole purpose of defending them -- i.e., not actually producing tangible products and services. Such a perversion of the patent process undermines the intent of the Constitution, and patent reform needs to be along the lines of returning the process to those values.
It may be, but it doesn't negate the fact that licensing a patent even if you have no interest in manufacturing a product is perfectly legitimate. See my examples above.
I agree that getting a patent even if you cannot manufacture something is legitimate.
I agree that selling the patent to someone to use to make something is legitimate.
I agree that if that's what you are legitimately trying to do and a company tries to swindle you to get the use of your patent because they copied your patent or took advantage of other negotiations they deserve to be sued.
I don't agree that if you have an patent which you do not intend to manufacture or sell for manufacturing that suddenly it should become valuable as a weapon of courtroom extortion. If a person or company decides to sit on an idea solely for lawsuit value, that rises to the level of patent troll in my eyes.
Patents should expire sooner if there is not a paper trail that shows how they tie to manufacturing or further R&D leading to manufacturing. To me that paper trail should include inventors pitching their ideas to manufacturers if the inventor was not going to manufacture themselves. That would be evidence of intent to make something, and making unique things is what should be protected, not abstract ideas that can only be tied to a product by enlisting help of a wayward District Court in east Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're making things up. I never used the former to legitimize the latter. I simply argued that no legitimatization of the latter was needed because there are perfectly legal and legitimate reasons for someone to own a patent that they have no intention of commercializing.
See my example above.
That I disagree with vehemently. That twists the concept of what patents were meant to protect too far. The fact the examiners office is so overworked and under technically qualified to effectively deal with software patents doesn't mean we have to formally legitimize the parts of the system that are broken and causing trouble. "Idea" patents are abstract and abstract things aren't what patents were intended to protect. Too much of the software patent areana has been written abstractly because the examiners office has let submitters get away with it. Fix that and the patent troll problems go way down since those overly abstract patents that slipped through suddenly don't hold up anymore.
(Hiro)Where did you see those were both used in the MacOS product? You may be exactly right, but I hadn't seen that claim myself.
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
But those patents were part of the Mac OS implementation and derived from MacOS/OS X development. A product line that does exist in the space the patents are being claimed against."
You haven't shown any reference for the claim. Is there one?
I wonder how Apple will address FaceTime messages - which is the next natural step in voicemail. It's still not a multi-media presentation, but it is a stored clip from a live video feed.
With FT, there isn't a clip stored on the iPhone as it is a live stream
But those patents were part of the Mac OS implementation and derived from MacOS/OS X development. A product line that does exist in the space the patents are being claimed against."
You haven't shown any reference for the claim. Is there one?
EDIT: I guess not
Why do you guess not? Can't you follow the threads of your own references. Geez, just read the damn things and stop being so faux dense for effect.
Why do you guess not? Can't you follow the threads of your own references. Geez, just read the damn things and stop being so faux dense for effect.
I can't find the reference showing both patents were practiced in the MacOS. You may have a reason for not giving me a clear answer, but since others reading the thread (who are really the more important audience) probably can't find the reference either , and you already know where to find it could you link the citation for the benefit of the readers?
I can't find the reference showing both patents were practiced in the MacOS. You may have a reason for not giving me a clear answer, but since others reading the thread (who are really the more important audience) probably can't find the reference either , and you already know where to find it could you link the citation for the benefit of the readers?
Your inability is not the rest of the world's problem.
The world does not owe you the special favor of handing you everything. The "proof" is out there as the poster (almost) used to say. Your inability to find it in the top three hits is not our problem.
I can't find the reference showing both patents were practiced in the MacOS. You may have a reason for not giving me a clear answer, but since others reading the thread (who are really the more important audience) probably can't find the reference either , and you already know where to find it could you link the citation for the benefit of the readers?
Notice how he's carefully emphasized "both patents were practiced in the MacOS". Remember, GG is paid to post here and spin things against Apple and for Google/Android. In that context, GG's statement means, "I saw references to one of the being practiced in Mac OS, and the other in iOS." (Or, he's really being cagey and he's distinguishing between Mac OS and OS X.)
Bottom line, for someone who's business is to spin deception out of facts, you have to read very carefully what they write and parse it accordingly. Essentially, he's backtracking here, without admitting such.
Comments
Apple has asserted patents against Android licensees it doesn't practice itself.
But did they make the patent available to license. If Apple was willing to license the tech and the other side didn't bother then it isn't trolling to sue them. It's right to sue them. Because Apple was playing fair by their willingness to license.
Trolls don't do that. When someone tries to license they refuse to talk. And then they want for anything they can claim is the same thing even when it is not and they file suit.
Fixed that title for you.
J.
Not at all. My point was that you think that you should be able to define what is a valid use of a patent rather than the courts. That is blatantly false and your attempts at making a definition are pointless.
What a patent is, in the U.S. is defined in the Constitution and laws derived from that authority. Your concept of the type of property patents are is at odds with that. Where you go wrong is the false assumption that patents are property unencumbered with responsibility. They are not. The grant of that property is based on the Constitution's intent that the people receive value in return for the patent in the form of innovation that improves their quality of life. Even interpreted very broadly, developing patents solely for the purpose of "defending" them does not return value to the people, and thus is at odds with the purpose of patents, as defined in the Constitution.
We don't need a cottage industry in developing patents for the sole purpose of defending them -- i.e., not actually producing tangible products and services. Such a perversion of the patent process undermines the intent of the Constitution, and patent reform needs to be along the lines of returning the process to those values.
It may be, but it doesn't negate the fact that licensing a patent even if you have no interest in manufacturing a product is perfectly legitimate. See my examples above.
I agree that getting a patent even if you cannot manufacture something is legitimate.
I agree that selling the patent to someone to use to make something is legitimate.
I agree that if that's what you are legitimately trying to do and a company tries to swindle you to get the use of your patent because they copied your patent or took advantage of other negotiations they deserve to be sued.
I don't agree that if you have an patent which you do not intend to manufacture or sell for manufacturing that suddenly it should become valuable as a weapon of courtroom extortion. If a person or company decides to sit on an idea solely for lawsuit value, that rises to the level of patent troll in my eyes.
Patents should expire sooner if there is not a paper trail that shows how they tie to manufacturing or further R&D leading to manufacturing. To me that paper trail should include inventors pitching their ideas to manufacturers if the inventor was not going to manufacture themselves. That would be evidence of intent to make something, and making unique things is what should be protected, not abstract ideas that can only be tied to a product by enlisting help of a wayward District Court in east Texas.
You're making things up. I never used the former to legitimize the latter. I simply argued that no legitimatization of the latter was needed because there are perfectly legal and legitimate reasons for someone to own a patent that they have no intention of commercializing.
See my example above.
That I disagree with vehemently. That twists the concept of what patents were meant to protect too far. The fact the examiners office is so overworked and under technically qualified to effectively deal with software patents doesn't mean we have to formally legitimize the parts of the system that are broken and causing trouble. "Idea" patents are abstract and abstract things aren't what patents were intended to protect. Too much of the software patent areana has been written abstractly because the examiners office has let submitters get away with it. Fix that and the patent troll problems go way down since those overly abstract patents that slipped through suddenly don't hold up anymore.
(Hiro)Where did you see those were both used in the MacOS product? You may be exactly right, but I hadn't seen that claim myself.
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
But those patents were part of the Mac OS implementation and derived from MacOS/OS X development. A product line that does exist in the space the patents are being claimed against."
You haven't shown any reference for the claim. Is there one?
EDIT: I guess not
VVM isn't storing a data message, unless I'm missing something altogether with the iPhone.
The VVM is stored locally on the iPhone, see this thread on Apple Discussions:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread...art=0&tstart=0
I wonder how Apple will address FaceTime messages - which is the next natural step in voicemail. It's still not a multi-media presentation, but it is a stored clip from a live video feed.
With FT, there isn't a clip stored on the iPhone as it is a live stream
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
But those patents were part of the Mac OS implementation and derived from MacOS/OS X development. A product line that does exist in the space the patents are being claimed against."
You haven't shown any reference for the claim. Is there one?
EDIT: I guess not
Why do you guess not? Can't you follow the threads of your own references. Geez, just read the damn things and stop being so faux dense for effect.
Why do you guess not? Can't you follow the threads of your own references. Geez, just read the damn things and stop being so faux dense for effect.
I can't find the reference showing both patents were practiced in the MacOS. You may have a reason for not giving me a clear answer, but since others reading the thread (who are really the more important audience) probably can't find the reference either , and you already know where to find it could you link the citation for the benefit of the readers?
I can't find the reference showing both patents were practiced in the MacOS. You may have a reason for not giving me a clear answer, but since others reading the thread (who are really the more important audience) probably can't find the reference either , and you already know where to find it could you link the citation for the benefit of the readers?
Your inability is not the rest of the world's problem.
Your inability is not the rest of the world's problem.
No biggie. If you have no proof for the claim, so be it.
I can't find the reference showing both patents were practiced in the MacOS. You may have a reason for not giving me a clear answer, but since others reading the thread (who are really the more important audience) probably can't find the reference either , and you already know where to find it could you link the citation for the benefit of the readers?
Notice how he's carefully emphasized "both patents were practiced in the MacOS". Remember, GG is paid to post here and spin things against Apple and for Google/Android. In that context, GG's statement means, "I saw references to one of the being practiced in Mac OS, and the other in iOS." (Or, he's really being cagey and he's distinguishing between Mac OS and OS X.)
Bottom line, for someone who's business is to spin deception out of facts, you have to read very carefully what they write and parse it accordingly. Essentially, he's backtracking here, without admitting such.