or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to patent troll
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to patent troll - Page 4

post #121 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

So why do all of the Fandroids get upset whenever I make my comments? Hmmmm.

The mistakes of fact? The lapses of logic?

Your guess is as good as mine.
post #122 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I have patents to my name and have managed R&D departments which earned dozens of other patents (which required me to be involved with the patent process). Is that sufficient?

I wasn't really questioning anyone's qualifications specifically. By responding with the last three words, you seemed to take direct offense at my disclaimer as if I was targeting you. I was not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're arguing two different things. Do patents get awarded that shouldn't be? Sure. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the standards should be stricter or that the patent examiners should have better training (although you'd better be prepared to pay more to keep USPTO open if they have to hire more and better examiners).

But to jump from there to "we don't need patents" is absurd. Patents protect inventors. If a company couldn't protect its intellectual property, why invest in R&D? The winner would simply be the company who can copy things fastest. There would no longer be any advantage to innovation - which would be bad for consumers and the economy as a whole.

I don't recall stating we don't need patents. I do recall questioning why though. You have answered that question even though it was mostly rhetorical. They do protect inventors. The problem that I see is that they also seem to protect everyone you just claimed would win if patents didn't exist. That's all that seems to be going on here anymore. People copying other people. Some getting away with it and some not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Glad you said that - you saved me the trouble.

I'm not sure that was really necessary but you're welcome.

Samsung Galaxy series: Faster on a benchmark, not in your hand.

Reply

Samsung Galaxy series: Faster on a benchmark, not in your hand.

Reply
post #123 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


In what way is Apple encouraging people to break the law or to be evil?



Apple is in cahoots with the Patent Trolls, aiding and abetting - no, worse than that, enabling - the horrible situation that they wreak upon businesses and consumers alike.

Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable, it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit. Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.
post #124 of 271
Current speed of technical progress demands intelectual property rights to last no longer than 3-5 years, otherwise they only prevent progress from development.
post #125 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Yes I'm aware of the differences in the definitions of the words....

No, you don't.
post #126 of 271
Couple of questions:

(1) Would you say that their motivation should be something other than profit?

(2) Questionable in what sense? Legally questionable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable, it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit. Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.
post #127 of 271
Back in Apple, Digitude made this annoucement in a press release, bragging of their "completion of its first such strategic partnership with one of the worlds leading consumer electronics companies. . ."

Although the details of the transaction are confidential, a strategic partnership of this sort with a forward-looking market leader gives Digitude continued momentum and validates the unique Digitude strategy to bundle together a comprehensive license with the acquisition/contribution of assets from partners, said Robert Kramer, Chairman of Digitude Innovations and Managing Partner of Altitude Capital Partners. Given the significant nature of this partnership and the other discussions underway, we expect to secure only one or two more such strategic partnerships in the coming months before we aggressively begin our licensing efforts.
http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=455099

Were they referring to Apple? It appears to be the case.

Forbes had another article on them earlier in the year.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanva...fear-digitude/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #128 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

In his defense. His sig is a counter reaction to another sig on this forum that is even more annoying.

Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.

On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?
post #129 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That doesn't matter though. It's about who is right.

If an evil midget is bothering and bullying a giant, then the giant has every right to stomp on the midget's head.

LOL

Apple ][ you crack me up. I find your rather irreverent pro-Apple cum defense posture to be refreshing and humorous and intelligent.

Keep it up!
post #130 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.

On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?

There is a reason I titled it Occupy Signature. You are talking about it which is proving and validating the very point I'm making.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #131 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Back in Apple, Digitude made this annoucement in a press release, bragging of their "completion of its first such strategic partnership with one of the world’s leading consumer electronics companies. . ."

...

Were they referring to Apple? It appears to be the case.


This is a day for all True Apple Fans to hang their heads in shame.

This is not the kind of company that many fell in love with back in the day, but a wholly different sort of a beast. Indeed, it is exaclty the type of misadventuring corporate behemoth that Steve and Woz HATED back when they decided to create something for "the rest of us".

Did Steve want his legacy to practice questionable business ethics? Did Woz want his to be a gun runner for patent trolls?

Maybe? But not likely.
post #132 of 271
Nokia did the same thing recently mostly likely learning from its encounter with Apple. After Nokia settled with Apple, it licensed over two thousand patents to another patent licensing firm, Mosaid. Nobody can counter sue Mosaid because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Nokia will get the benefit of somebody aggressively defending its patents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That's a pretty good point that you make there.

Perhaps Apple is playing chess, while the other bozos are playing checkers.
post #133 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Nokia did the same thing recently mostly likely learning from its encounter with Apple. After Nokia settled with Apple, it licensed over two thousand patents to another patent licensing firm, Mosaid. Nobody can counter sue Mosaid because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Nokia will get the benefit of somebody aggressively defending its patents.

Indications are that it's a joint Microsoft/Nokia venture. Some guess it was created to make life difficult for Android partners until Microsoft can get their mobile strategies in place and have products to challenge them in the marketplace.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #134 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing. It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand.

Here's the way it works:

- Someone invents something.
- If the USPTO (or foreign equivalent) considers it novel and useful, they can get a patent.
- The patent is subject to challenge - immediately or at a later date
- The patent owner is free to do whatever they want with the patent. They can use it themselves, they can license it, they can sell it, or they can do nothing at all with it and simply prevent others from using the technology. The entire purpose of the patent system is that the inventor has absolute control over whatever they've invented.
- If the inventor doesn't want to own the patent for any reason, they are free to sell it, license it, transfer it, or give it away. The new owner has all the rights of the original owner (see above). The licensee has whatever rights the patent owner gives him.

That's it. There's nothing illegal about licensing a patent that you don't intend to use. That doesn't make you a troll, it just means that you are unable to practice a patent (most often because the cost of getting into the market is so high that there's no way for a small inventor to practice a patent).

So let's drop all the patent troll garbage. A patent owner is free to do whatever they want with their patents and is free to sue infringers. And there is absolutely no requirement (nor should there be) that a patent holder should be making products using the patent.

Just one example. Let's say that someone in a university lab develops a process to make nuclear reactors safer and more efficient. It's easy to implement and safe and reliable. Should the university lose their patent if they can't afford the $20,000,000,000 it costs to build a nuclear reactor or should they be allowed to license the technology to GE, Siemens, et al?



Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.

This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.

A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.
post #135 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Indications are that it's a joint Microsoft/Nokia venture. Some guess it was created to make life difficult for Android partners until Microsoft can get their mobile strategies in place and have products to challenge them in the marketplace.

I wouldn't doubt it. Regardless, it is a good strategy. If Mosaid sues somebody it would be harder for that somebody to retaliate against Nokia or Microsoft.
post #136 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.

This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.

A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.

+1. Well put.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #137 of 271
Patent troll

Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: were using your invention and were not going to pay or stop. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.

Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you dont like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.

Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.

For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
post #138 of 271
Hmmm. . .

Digitude took down their site just a few days ago, going undercover apparently. A cached copy of a press release at the now-removed Digitude site that I hadn't yet seen mentioned anywhere shows that Apple wasn't forced into any deal with them.(as well as proof of the link between Digitude and Altitude Capital). Instead they are an active and eager participant. Take a look at the speakers from their September invitation-only event:

New York, NY – May 27, 2011 – Altitude Capital Partners, a NY-based private equity fund,today announced that it will host a select group of the corporate intellectual property elite at itsfirst-ever Top IP Retreat. The inaugural event is by invitation-only and will take place on thegrounds of The Lodge at Pebble Beach on September 15-17.This influential set of executives will convene for two and a half days of discussions andnetworking. The Top IP Retreat will feature a line-up of world-class speakers, such as ChiefJudge Paul Michel (ret.) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Richard “Chip” Lutton ofApple, John Desmarais of Desmarais LLP and Round Rock Research, Morgan Chu of Irell &Manella, Michael Wagner of LitiNomics, and John Jarosz of The Analysis Group. “We’re excited to host this groundbreaking event and provide a unique forum for these top IPexecutives to get together, share ideas, discuss the current state of the intellectual market, andexplore ways to move the industry forward,” said Robert Kramer, Managing Partner of AltitudeCapital Partners

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...PR_5.27.11.pdf

For anyone interested, their other executive personnel include:
Ed Gomez-General Counsel/ Litigation Management
Jimmy Goo-Director Portfolio Management/ Licensing
Anthony Grillo-Director Licensing/Contracts
Bryan Lord-Director Acquisitions & Strategic Relationships/Licensing
William Marino-Director Litigation Management/Licensing

Based on some quick research I'd guess that those Kodak patents that were being shopped around have also made their way to Digitude.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #139 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.

This is shameful for a variety of reasons. First, like a real troll, the patent troll is not interested in bargaining for a fair license. The patent troll is looking to gain maximum value under threat of a patent injunction where the troll has little to lose, and the maker of the product has a lot to lose. Second, this way of doing things hurts innovators, and consumers alike, which if the whole purpose of patent law: to facilitate the creating of useful works.

A patent troll is a troll not because it owns a patent without any intent to build a product, but because it looks to essentially engage in legal blackmail by taking advantage of a broken system in a way that hurts everybody but the troll. This problem could be fixed by insisting on patent rights to be asserted within a certain period of time or a product being shipped or by a patent tax to be paid into a fund where certain types of patents can make a claim to be paid from the pool.

That is total nonsense.

It's like any other investment. Someone can buy real estate with the belief that the value might be higher in the future - and they can develop it then.

Or someone can buy gold with the hopes that the gold will increase in value.

The same thing is true of patents. There is nothing illegal (or even morally wrong) with buying a patent as an investment - just like any other property that you could buy.

Your suggestion that the government should tell you what you can do with your property is far, far more wrong than the behavior you're trying to fix. If I want to buy a patent and sit on it for 5 years (or 10 or more), that's my right. It's my property. What gives you the right to try to negate my property rights?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #140 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by staff View Post

“Patent troll”

Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to pay or stop”. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.

Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don’t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.

Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.

For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.



Bravo! I'm glad to see that innovators are banding together to stop Patent Tolls and those who profit from their sleazy doings, like Apple.
post #141 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by staff View Post

Patent troll

Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: were using your invention and were not going to pay or stop. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.

Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you dont like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.

Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.

For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.

Your hypocrisy is amazing.

The behavior that you're criticizing already benefits small inventors. If I invent a technology that will improve the integrated circuit manufacturing process, I don't have a chance in the world of being able to commercialize it since I don't have a few billion dollars to buy a state-of-the-art facility. My only hope to get some money form it is if I can sell it or license it to a third party. And that's the process that you're arguing against.

Patents are property. Just like a car or a home or an ingot of gold. If I own property, I am legally able to do whatever I want with it. Sell it, license it, or sit on it. Your attempts to dictate how I can use and/or benefit from my property are absurd and unreasonable.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #142 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.

This explains my post a lot better, with far fewer words and more understanding of the situation. Well said.

What I was trying to get at in more depth was that the system is broken in that there seem to be too many companies wielding too many patents that are basically the same technologies just worded differently and then granted as a patent. I mean how many different technologies can exist in how a cell phone utilizes a 3G radio? Thousands? Across multiple companies? How can anyone innovate in that environment? How can anyone even want to innovate in that environment?

Samsung Galaxy series: Faster on a benchmark, not in your hand.

Reply

Samsung Galaxy series: Faster on a benchmark, not in your hand.

Reply
post #143 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Patents are property. Just like a car or a home or an ingot of gold. If I own property, I am legally able to do whatever I want with it. Sell it, license it, or sit on it. Your attempts to dictate how I can use and/or benefit from my property are absurd and unreasonable.

What if you use your property to troll with? Is that OK?
post #144 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Nokia did the same thing recently mostly likely learning from its encounter with Apple. After Nokia settled with Apple, it licensed over two thousand patents to another patent licensing firm, Mosaid. Nobody can counter sue Mosaid because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Nokia will get the benefit of somebody aggressively defending its patents.

"(Google) did the same thing recently (2007) mostly likely learning from its encounter (sitting on the Board) with Apple. After Google (set up) Apple, it (freely) licensed ( a hijacked Java-based OS) to licensing OEMs. Nobody can counter sue Google because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Google will get the benefit of somebody ( HC, Samsung, Motorola...) aggressively defending (by proxy) its (fouly acquired and exploited cheap advertising platform)."

...how about them moral compasses...

In the end, there is only one proof of intent: overall consumer satisfaction with the products and services; there lies the real moral battleground. Through the roof, up in the Cloud, above gutter politics as far as Apple is concerned...
post #145 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is total nonsense.

It's like any other investment. Someone can buy real estate with the belief that the value might be higher in the future - and they can develop it then.

Or someone can buy gold with the hopes that the gold will increase in value.

The same thing is true of patents. There is nothing illegal (or even morally wrong) with buying a patent as an investment - just like any other property that you could buy.

Your suggestion that the government should tell you what you can do with your property is far, far more wrong than the behavior you're trying to fix. If I want to buy a patent and sit on it for 5 years (or 10 or more), that's my right. It's my property. What gives you the right to try to negate my property rights?

You're making blanket statements about property that don't really exist. There is no "you own it I can do what I want with it" rule. In regards to owning a digital real estate, or cybersquatting, I can buy some generic name like porn or search hoping one day that someone will make a huge offer, but I can't buy iPad3 or Windows9 without running into some legal issues.

You can get upset by the term patent troll but the term is descriptive and much shorter than writing non-practicing patent holding company or patent investment firm. It's a simple term that describes exactly what they do and implies nothing illegal which is noted by licensing deals among companies and lawsuits they file in a court of law.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #146 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No, you don't.

Yes I be.

(Is poor syntax the game?)
post #147 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by staff View Post

For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.

I think either of these two would define a patent troll in the view of most. The first one is Wikipedia's definition:

A Patent Troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered (by the party using the term) unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

or perhaps this one:
A person, company, or entity that uses acquired patents in order to use overly aggressive legal actions in hopes of preventing competing firms from entering the market. The company will often use older patents that are nearly outdated or have generic wording in order to pursue patent infringement on ideas that are at best moderately related.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #148 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

The fact that you assume to know my worldview shows that you probably cannot be reasoned with.

The fact that you are supporting ANY company's move that feeds a patent troll is pathetic.

Apple may not be stifling innovation but patent trolls are damn near as a mission statement.

Your posts on here demonstrate your world view with very little assumption on my part.

There is nothing illegal about a company 'feeding' a patent troll. Assigning a human emotion to a corporation's actions is extremely naive. Companies aren't people and don't behave as such. They are in business for their own good, and must protect their interests.

How exactly do so called 'patent trolls' stifle innovation? If a company is bringing innovative products to market, that product falls into the realm of being attacked if it's design or features infringe on other's intellectual property, regardless of who owns the patent on the idea. Whether it's Motorola or Joe's Patent Garage, the owner of the IP is deserving of compensation.

Look at patents the same as song royalties. Sir Paul McCartney didn't write Buddy Holly's songs, but he owns the rights to them. Therefor he collects the royalties when Holly's songs are played. The same goes for patents. A patent owner can do whatever he likes with the patent, including give it to a non-manufacturing entity. It is up to whomever holds the patent to defend as aggressively as they choose.
post #149 of 271
As such they can be sold, traded or licensed as the owner sees fit.

As to Apples involvement here, I'm not sure why people see this as a bad thing. Apparently this outfit owns some solid patents. By Becoming a partner Apple avoids the legal hassles of yet another court case, a case that they apparently would loose and actually gets to benefit from the patents owned by this firm.

Beyond that Apple also benefits by tying up the competition in court and bleeding off profits from those companies that it competes with. It allows Apple a way to attack corporate thieves like Google with a set of patents hey don't own directly. It is all part of going nuclear to rid the planet of Android.

In the end this is exactly what the patent system is for, it allows you to profit from your inventions for a fixed period of time and also forces the competition to innovate in a competitive way. The target is Google and frankly the attack is highly justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Forget the Apple involvement for a second. How the hell is this shit even legal period?
post #150 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

As such they can be sold, traded or licensed as the owner sees fit.

As to Apples involvement here, I'm not sure why people see this as a bad thing. Apparently this outfit owns some solid patents. By Becoming a partner Apple avoids the legal hassles of yet another court case, a case that they apparently would loose and actually gets to benefit from the patents owned by this firm.

Beyond that Apple also benefits by tying up the competition in court and bleeding off profits from those companies that it competes with. It allows Apple a way to attack corporate thieves like Google with a set of patents hey don't own directly. It is all part of going nuclear to rid the planet of Android.

In the end this is exactly what the patent system is for, it allows you to profit from your inventions for a fixed period of time and also forces the competition to innovate in a competitive way. The target is Google and frankly the attack is highly justified.

He doesn't like it because Apple is doing it.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #151 of 271
Your post is a fine example.

Apple is doing nothing here but protecting itself and finding legal avenues to deal with Googles theft of their technology. That is in a nut shell what is going on here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Apple is in cahoots with the Patent Trolls, aiding and abetting - no, worse than that, enabling - the horrible situation that they wreak upon businesses and consumers alike.

this is complete garbage. The situation is basically the opposite of what you claim. It is good for business, especially smaller businesses because it reinforces the value of patents. It is very good for consumers because it stops the complete ripoff of ideas. Often ripoffs of very poor quality. It also forces real innovation instead of coping the Google is so fond of.
Quote:
Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable,

The whole point of patents is to be able to profit from your patents/inventions. I'm not sure why people are so ignorant with respect to this issue.
Quote:
it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit.

Profit is good! However I think the bigger goal here is to bury Google, if the issue was only profit Apple could have taken other avenues.
Quote:
Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.

You need to grow up. This is all about Apple protecting itself and doing as much harm to the ripoff competition as possible. That is business boy. There is no middle ground in business you either play to win or get left behind.
post #152 of 271
This company sounds like good idea, rather than being a patent troll it's a repository of pooled IP with a single source for a license instead of having to negotiate and license with multiple IP holders.

It's like a private version of a standards body.

A one stop shop.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #153 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

This company sounds like good idea, rather than being a patent troll it's a repository of pooled IP with a single source for a license instead of having to negotiate and license with multiple IP holders.

It's like a private version of a standards body.

A one stop shop.

That's a good way to put it.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #154 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

He doesn't like it because Apple is doing it.

I don't think AD likes anything Apple does, such as be open for business...
post #155 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.

On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?

Do yourself a favor and filter them out in your own options/prefs. Signatures are a throw back to when VBulletin was first starting out. They've always been areas for filling up web pages full of useless crap.
post #156 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

One of the main Apple memes has always been "us against them". Apple has consistently reinforced that mindset with its advertising slogans, including "the rest of us".

Us against them.

Not only that, but because Apple has traditionally been, until recently, a struggling company with few buyers, Apple fans could think of themselves as the underdogs, struggling, fighting the good fight, etc.

It is very hard for the people who grew up on the prior fiction to now accept that Apple is one of them. Apple is a huge multinational corporation that practices every sleazy move that big corporations proactice. They ain't your daddy's Apple, but the religious faithful try to pretend that they are still the scrappy little company fighting for what is good and right against a sea of conformity to corporate gods.

Apple is now their corporate God, but they can't quite reconcile that with their outmoded viewpoint that Apple stands for everything good and right and tasteful.

Sad. Very sad.

It ain't Steve and Woz bringing Apple goodness to us so we won't have to be conformists. It is suits and bean counters, and especially, lately, lawyers who define what Apple is. Apple is a huge conglomerate interested in only one thing: Money. And they don't give two shits what kind of sleazy tactics they might use to get it.

What's sad is that you believe what you just typed.
So, according to you, because Apple is big and successful they should now be hated and not admired?
Following your philosophy, you should hate any company that has become a big, international success: HP, Google, Sony, Samsung...did I miss anyone? By your philosophy, this patent holding company is an underdog, deserving of praise and worship, by your philosophy.

The fact is, Apple was successful and dominant a long time ago with the Apple II, before the IBM PC and HP clones running DOS finally beat Apple's market share in personal computers. Apple hasn't been an underdog since the iPod made Apple culturally relevant again. Your commentary on Apple is based on a distorted view of the company, and its competitors.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #157 of 271
This thread is full of the most hypocritical Apple fans I've ever seen.
post #158 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

So, according to you, because Apple is big and successful they should now be hated and not admired?
Following your philosophy, you should hate any company that has become a big, international success: HP, Google, Sony, Samsung...did I miss anyone? By your philosophy, this patent holding company is an underdog, deserving of praise and worship, by your philosophy.


Mmmmnnnnn...no. I don't seem to agree with any of that. Thanks for trying, though.
post #159 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

I don't think AD likes anything Apple does, such as be open for business...

Yes...of course...you've figured me out...

Me being against any company that supports an entity that is ultimately bad for innovation as their sole purpose is generating income as opposed to protecting IP is the same as me wanting Apple dead and gone.

(removed for kindness)
post #160 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

I don't think AD likes anything Apple does, ...




New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to patent troll