Apple to pay $8M in damages over iPod playlist patent suit - Page 2

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

It seems to me one sensible patent reform would be to outlaw the monetization of patents per se--selling them to holding companies who have no creative or productive interest in them. A patent could be sold to someone who is employing it for its intended use, but not to package it as a Wall Street investment "instrument." A "use it or lose it" law would be a good adjunct to this: even someone who does buy it for its intended purpose would have to employ it within a stipulated time. If not, the patent becomes null and void.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

No, that would be a terrible idea not to mention impossible. Patents that belonged to people would be worthless, patents that belonged to corporations would be placed into shell corporations that could be sold. If you prevented the sale of corporations that held patents then you would effectively end the possibility for technology firms to merge ever.

Originally Posted by cnocbui

You reckon 1/10th of $8,000,000 is "$80k" do you?

As for your username...

Originally Posted by Splash-reverse

Banishing East Texas is next in the agenda I believe. Anybody currently residing there that is not part of the courthouse are ought to be safe at this point.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

Actually I think there was prior art on pinch to zoom. It was done back in 2006 at least

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_de...uchscreen.html

Originally Posted by lightknight

Edison patented the light bulb, and Michelin the tire, unless I'm mistaken, and both were amazing inventions. What you are essentially saying is "if some invention is really useful, it should not be patented". This is not how you favor research.

The problem is not what you can patent, it's effectively deciding how much money you can make from a patent that you don't use. I think none, but that's my personal opinion and I won't force it upon anyone... yet. (I am honing my taking-over-the-world plan).

Patents belonging to people would only be worthless if they didn't actually use them. That's the whole point of my proposition.

Originally Posted by zoetmb

Michelin ...invented the process of vulcanization.

Originally Posted by Reginald

The REAL problem in this is that suing someone in the US has minimal consequences to the person suing. If they lose, they have to pay only their lawyers (and associated costs of course). It is a gamble that many choose to take, especially lawyers who gamble on a case and do it for "free" but take half to three quarters of the winnings if they win.

If the loser in such a suit had to pay the winner their legal fees and associated costs, then they have a lot more to lose in taking someone to trial. Add in a percentage of what they were wanting in the first place, and it gives one pause before continuing.

Change this one thing, and I think you would see a lot less lawsuits. However, since most politicians are lawyers, I doubt you would ever see this coming into effect in the US. It would be lawyers cutting their own pocketbook from their grasp, and where money is concerned, this would be a non-starter.

Originally Posted by Reginald

Forget whether East Texas or a specific judge is the problem. Patents are real and whether you like software patents, patents that are obvious, etc. it will not stop the continuous leeching by one party/person against another.

The REAL problem in this is that suing someone in the US has minimal consequences to the person suing. If they lose, they have to pay only their lawyers (and associated costs of course). It is a gamble that many choose to take, especially lawyers who gamble on a case and do it for "free" but take half to three quarters of the winnings if they win.

If the loser in such a suit had to pay the winner their legal fees and associated costs, then they have a lot more to lose in taking someone to trial. Add in a percentage of what they were wanting in the first place, and it gives one pause before continuing.

Change this one thing, and I think you would see a lot less lawsuits. However, since most politicians are lawyers, I doubt you would ever see this coming into effect in the US. It would be lawyers cutting their own pocketbook from their grasp, and where money is concerned, this would be a non-starter.

Originally Posted by cnocbui

You reckon 1/10th of $8,000,000 is "$80k" do you?

As for your username...

Originally Posted by jragosta

Why should I spend money on R&D if I can simply copy what someone else did?

Originally Posted by GQB

Lets hope they get their wish to secede

Originally Posted by joelsalt

he said 1/10 of 1/10. Reading is FUNdamental

Originally Posted by cnocbui

You reckon 1/10th of $8,000,000 is "$80k" do you?

As for your username...

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

This is actually a good example of the reverse of your argument.

Edison didn't really so much "invent" the lightbulb as simply beat others to it. Everyone knew at the time that 'electrically lighted bulbs' were going to work. The basic idea and how it would work were already done. The only thing missing was what material could be used for the filament and lots of inventors were trying to figure that out. Edison just tried over and over and over again until he hit on the right material.

The point is, it wasn't anything original, it wasn't even his idea. He just got there first and got the patent and froze out all the other inventors for years and years.

He didn't really "deserve" to have exclusive rights on the lightbulb idea, but he ended up with them anyway. He didn't actually think of the idea, yet he is "the inventor of the lightbulb." And whose to say that one of the other ideas might not have been better?

He probably didn't stifle much invention with the lightbulb patent, but he did with many of his other ideas. Patents can work to suppress ideas as much as they do to protect them. Especially since all copyright and patent law is basically skewed towards the needs and interests of business and not the actual inventors and creators.

Originally Posted by zoetmb

These patent troll companies get away with patenting obvious ideas. They get to patent choosing items from a list, or skipping over some items and choosing a different item???

Originally Posted by zoetmb

But patents were never supposed to be issued for ideas, only for the implementation of ideas. Otherwise, I could patent the "idea" of flying cars, holographic TV displays, cars that run on sewer water and traveling through time.

Originally Posted by zoetmb

Alex Haley lost a copyright infringement lawsuit over Roots, because his researchers apparently copied some descriptions of a fence construction verbatim out of another book

Originally Posted by Reginald

The REAL problem in this is that suing someone in the US has minimal consequences to the person suing. If they lose, they have to pay only their lawyers (and associated costs of course).

Originally Posted by Reginald

If the loser in such a suit had to pay the winner their legal fees and associated costs, then they have a lot more to lose in taking someone to trial. Add in a percentage of what they were wanting in the first place, and it gives one pause before continuing.

Change this one thing, and I think you would see a lot less lawsuits.

Originally Posted by brentbordelon

I love how they say "inventions". These aren't inventions, they're ideas. I've got a million of em, just like everyone else.

Getting a paper that says, basically, "FIRST!!!", shouldn't give you the right to sue someone who get's the same idea and actually makes it a reality.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

as the $8 million damages award is relatively insubstantial for the company, which has more than $60 billion in cash reserves.

Originally Posted by Galbi

Contrary to popular belief, Apple doesnt have "$60 billion in cash reserves" They have total securities asset that is equivalent to $60 billion.

Their real cash/cash equivalent ( any assets that can be converted to cash within one period or one year, whichever is longer) is only around $15 billion.



http://www.asymco.com/2011/04/26/2895/#idc-cover

Originally Posted by Galbi

Contrary to popular belief, Apple doesnt have "$60 billion in cash reserves" They have total securities asset that is equivalent to $60 billion.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

This is actually a good example of the reverse of your argument.

Edison didn't really so much "invent" the lightbulb as simply beat others to it. Everyone knew at the time that 'electrically lighted bulbs' were going to work. The basic idea and how it would work were already done. The only thing missing was what material could be used for the filament and lots of inventors were trying to figure that out. Edison just tried over and over and over again until he hit on the right material.

Originally Posted by quinney

I think you quoted Samsung's corporate slogan.



As long as they give the U.S. all its assets presently in Texas, and/or assumes its portion of the national debt.

Originally Posted by pmz

What a ridiculous statement. Is building something a lot like buying something? Since we're utterly ignoring true meaning in English, why not?

Syncing with iTunes is nothing even remotely close to downloading, you know it, I
Know it, and the judge who ruled on this failed. His was the incorrect decision in this case, by a long long way.

Originally Posted by robbydek

I also agree. Although it could stiffle innovation, so maybe a patent that lasts 5-10 years and can't be renewed so that a company is given credit for what they created and allowed to use it.
I think Apple will appeal because even the small amount could have long term affects to the bottom line. In other words, will it cover the continued sale? what about new products? Although, it could be part of the terms of the agreement.

Originally Posted by ameldrum1

That's a horrible analogy Jeff. Copying files from a computer to a connected device is a lot like downloading; whilst controlling a computer with a mouse is not even remotely like uploading?

(The key would be the copying of files...)

Why don't people on the Internet simply acknowledge when other folks make a good/valid point, and instead come up with silly justifications to defend their (often somewhat silly) positions?

No response necessary...

Originally Posted by wizard69

Lamps and tires come to mind, and I'd imagine some shoe laces.

The problem I have with this patent is that they effectively patented a list. That should fall under the obvious heading.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

A federal jury has decided against Apple in a patent infringement suit accusing Apple of violating two patents related to downloadable playlists for iPods.

Bloomberg reported on Friday that, according to the lawyer for plaintiff Personal Audio, a jury found that patents were indeed infringed on and upheld their validity. Sirius XM Radio, Coby Electronics and Archos were also included in the original suit, but they had settled out of court last year.

Personal Audio, a patent licensing company, sued Apple in 2009 asking for $84 million in damages. Apple was accused of violating U.S. patents 6,199,076 "Audio Program Player Including a Dynamic Program Selection Controller" and 7,509,178 "Audio Program Distribution and Playback System."

The inventions describe an audio player that "can receive navigable playlists and can skip forward or backward through the downloaded list," report author Susan Decker wrote. Apple asserted that the patents were invalid, while also claiming that it wasn't using the inventions.

Patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents noted that Apple has "little incentive to appeal this decision," as the $8 million damages award is relatively insubstantial for the company, which has more than $60 billion in cash reserves. However, Apple could announce an intent to file an appeal in hopes of negotiating a discounted settlement with the company.

Mueller also compared the case to an ongoing case between iOS developers and Lodsys. The company filed suit in May, alleging that iOS developers have violated patents related to in-app purchasing. Apple has filed a motion to intervene in the case and maintains that the developers are covered under an licensing agreement it signed with Lodsys.

Like Personal Audio, Lodsys is a non-practicing entity that generates income from patent licenses. Both companies also chose to file their cases in East Texas, a district known for favoring so-called "patent trolls."

Apple recently paid $2 billion for a collection of 4G wireless networking patents from Canadian telecommunications company Nortel in hopes of gaining a competitive advantage in the smartphone race. As patent suits have ramped up in recent years, Apple has become the world's most-sued

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

You understand that patents don't enforce themselves right? To enforce them requires a lawsuit, a very expensive one generally, which puts it well outside the means of most individuals. The easiest way an individual can profit from a patent is by selling it, or by granting an exclusive license to it - which would amount to the same thing - and would fall afoul of your hypothetical draconian regulations.

Originally Posted by dru

It's about to get worse if President Obama gets the "patent reform" bill he keeps demanding. Right now we have a "first to invent" system meaning if you can prove you invented something first, you get the patent.

Under the proposal, it'll change to "first to file." This will favor large companies with deep pockets able to file early and often. Small businesses, entrepreneurs and start ups will be harmed. Just yesterday he claimed it'll create jobs.

Originally Posted by dru

Under the proposal, it'll change to "first to file." This will favor large companies with deep pockets able to file early and often. Small businesses, entrepreneurs and start ups will be harmed. Just yesterday he claimed it'll create jobs.

Big companies already file and amend and amend and amend again as a way to block competitors and extend the effective term of a patent.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

No falling afoul of regulations if it is sold or licensed--you can sell or license your patent to anyone who is willing to pay. Seller still gets his cash. But the buyer would actually have to use it. If buyer doesn't utilize patent within prescribed period it becomes null and void--worthless.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

The First District Kangaroo Court of AppleInsider hereby finds the finds the United States District Court of East Texas guilty of something. After we string them up we will decide what they did wrong. Maybe. Not that it's really necessary.

This court is adjourned.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Come on, really? The AI forum members are hardly alone in being suspicious of the abuses of the system that allow plaintiffs to file in that district, despite the fact that they almost never have an actual operating office in that district. It's a district well known for disproportionately siding with plaintiffs on patent infringement cases, and a lot of filers "venue shop" to that area for that very reason. They're 20% more likely to get a favorable ruling in that district than the national average.

I haven't read the entire article yet, but this one seems to encapsulate the legal "tourism" going on in the tiny town in question:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2&pagewanted=1

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

Ok, you're reframing your idea from banning selling to invalidating patents that aren't used by the owning company, which is a different idea, though still not helpful. There are several problems with that, First off it introduces a huge and messy question, what is a product?

Can ARM patent anything? They don't have any physical product, they don't have any software product, their product is a design. Is a product a product if nobody buys it? How many people need to? What happens when a patent owner becomes bankrupt and ceases production of its products? Do they become invalid? Introducing poorly defined concepts into law is a recipe for massively expensive litigation, and would result only in further consolidation of patents into rich firms.

Finally your solution doesn't solve the problem. Terrible patents like 1-click would still exist because Amazon created and used it, so that's all great in your system.

The problem with obvious patents isn't that their made by trolls, the problem is that they're obvious. The way to fix them is to tighten up patents needs to come by getting legal recognition that 'obvious' means something.

A great example is the linked list. There's really no doubt at this point that if computers were invented right now I could get a patent on linked lists. But linked lists are massively obvious to anybody who works in computers, many of us invented them for ourselves before we ever found that they had a name. The problem is when a completely new domain appears, concepts that are 'obvious' to people who work in that domain can seem novel to the rest of the world that doesn't.

A lot of Apple's multitouch patents probably come into this category. Apple will almost certainly succeed in defending them, because the current standard for obvious is so low - but it's very questionable that it should.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Come on, really? The AI forum members are hardly alone in being suspicious of the abuses of the system that allow plaintiffs to file in that district, despite the fact that they almost never have an actual operating office in that district. It's a district well known for disproportionately siding with plaintiffs on patent infringement cases, and a lot of filers "venue shop" to that area for that very reason. They're 20% more likely to get a favorable ruling in that district than the national average.

I haven't read the entire article yet, but this one seems to encapsulate the legal "tourism" going on in the tiny town in question:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2&pagewanted=1

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Really. I have a problem with vague and uninformed opinions leading to a lynch mob mentality, which is fully in evidence here. I can't claim any great knowledge of the issues and deficiencies of the current patent system, let alone the role played in it by the federal courts, but I can see that nobody here does either. I can also distinguish between informed, rational discussion and emotional spews.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

You make a good point, Doc, but aren't you also sidestepping Jeff's point? You make the point that lynch mob mentality is evident (granted), but when he offers evidence to support those feelings you don't acknowledge it. Might be worth reading his link before concluding that nobody here has any knowledge about the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I recall reading that article years ago. It provides little evidence to support the claims that this court is somehow fundamentally biased in favor of patent holders. They seem to do somewhat better in this court mainly (apparently) because the judge keeps things moving. Maybe some believe that courts, judges and juries are (or should be) machines that churn out identical results nationwide. That has never been the case in our justice system, or any other for that matter. As we can see here, some would stick a bomb under any court that returns a verdict that they don't like for some reason. It doesn't even have to be a good reason. This, to my mind, is a much bigger issue than a court that seems to be friendly to patent holders.