Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to patent troll - Page 2

All bullies are at the core spineless.

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?

I think the rip-off companies are worse than the patent trolls because they have foundation to actually invest in product development. Patent trolls are typically just buying up paper. They have no infrastructure. They have no R&D. They have ownership of a method but no chance in ever being able to utilize that method.

Then you'd be comfortable with Apple being no better than others (ex. Microsoft), employing the same indirect, back-door tactics to attack competitors? Think Linux. Just making sure I understand where your pride in Apple's move comes from.

They wait for something to inadvertently use their patents (cross their bridge) and then they charge them for it. Sure, it's a pejorative term but it does fit the practice. Is there a better term to use that is as descriptive without sounding negative?

Yeah, it's not like any of them are currently suing Apple.


Well you're the one who has GalaxyTab in their name, so I don't see how you can criticize Apple for defending itself when it is Google and Samsung that is using dirty tricks.


I find it amusing and entertaining. And I don't seek the physical extermination of Fandroids, so you can relax. I meant that if Android were gone, there would be no point in being a Fandroid anymore.

Sometimes you have to become a bully in order to out bully the bully.

Your use of "no better" is pointless. Stop trying to make the business world into some Milton-esque fight for good and evil. There is no altruism. This is a strategic game made for creating profit. It's really not that hard of a concept.

No I don't care is other (ex.[sic] Microsoft) employ the same indirect, back-door tactics because I know they do. Your problem is that you can't see past the brand name. You're stuck in some self-hating tech-hole that only lets you see anything Apple does as evil despite not being able to escape using their products without having to lie to yourself about it later.

These are companies. They make products. They make deals to product IP and allies (e.g.: 3rd—party developers) that will help them make more money in the future. The difference between these companies isn't their goal — it's all the same — but their effectiveness in executing them.


PS: Microsoft makes more from Android-based devices because of deals it struck with vendors over the use of their IP.

Who else in the game right now can be considered a bully except Apple?

Well that last statement certainly tells us where you're coming from.
Back under the bridge with you.

I see so many complaints about evil or sneaky tactics of Apple comtetitors, I wanted to confirm you didn't consider yourself part of the "play fair" group. You're OK with whatever methods companies like Samsung, Motorola, Lodsys or any of them use as long as they pass legal muster then. Business is business and they're all the same in the end.

I'm not passing judgement on at all. As the most prodigious poster here, your opinion matters and I wanted to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding your views.

I guess most of the companies who are suing Apple. They are trying to gang up on Apple.

him telling people that waiting for all the facts should be applied to those things is trollish????

what isn't trollish to you?

Who? I recall several lawsuits from several companies reacting to Apple (who is hardly wrong in some cases) but I do not recall a consortium of Apple competitors ganging up on Apple.

If you actually read the article you will find that neither AI nor the author of the original article even know what Apple did, so it's more than a bit impetuous of you to try and convict them before even the basic facts are known.

There is not even a factual accusation here for Apple to be found guilty of. Just a lot of innuendo and guesswork. I sure hope if I'm ever on trial for anything that someone like you isn't sitting on the jury.

Off-topic perhaps, but your signature is really, really, annoying (display not content). Please consider changing it.

That has been earned for quite a while, with Apple's technological excellence making everyone else look like idiots.

Like all those Android companies working together, like Google handing off patents to HTC, immediately after they bought Motorola, so HTC can sue Apple. Samsung's also suing Apple using FRAND patents.

Who said anything about a 'consortium'?

I don't even care about certain legal rules the way you don't care if you drive 5 miles over the speed limit. You are technically breaking the law but you aren't going to turn yourself in and force and officer to give you a ticket for the offense. You take certain risks in all things, you don't blindly follow the law because you're an Asimovian robot.

Companies break, stretch, and contort the law al the time. If they want to go that route then its there choice, though they do have plenty of employees and shareholders to contend with, as well as public image that could cost them a lot more than the gain would ever be so they need to take that into account when attempting to step outside the box.

Why do I feel like I'm having a conversation with a 12yo you just got back from bible camp?

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

Is the message in my sig really that unclear? I'd love to change it but I'm taking a stand against other posters with excessively large sigs. I can't exactly make my point with a small sig, now can I. It's exactly the same number of lines as ConradJoe's heavily spaced sig.

Because the conversation makes you uncomfortable when you find yourself rationalizing your views? Jus' guessing.

Wouldn't be the first time a 12-year old made an adult reexamine what they consider right and wrong. You don't have any children I suppose?

It's amazing how you can consistently miss every point. You still think good and evil run the world. You're ignored MS using it's patents to profit from Android. I'm going to ignore you now because despite my best efforts you are incapable of participating in a mature, rational discussion but I'll leave you with this: Try to separate your emotion from business and you may find yourself as successful as I am.

so then they aren't ganging up on Apple.

Yes I'm aware of the differences in the definitions of the words but to state that X number of companies are ganging up on company Z is to imply a consortium.

Sure they are. Just because they don't have an official consortium, that doesn't mean that they're not trying to get Apple.

If Google can give patents away to whoever, then so can Apple, and if the recipient happens to be a "patent troll", then so what.

I know I'm not responsible for what other apple fanboys think or say, but these are the sort of comments I find embarrassing.

So defending your own (non-FRAND, mind you) ideas, developments, and designs makes you a bully?

Are you sure you understand the word 'bully'?

. . .You left out "and just as happy". Personally I can't be happy with myself by making my success dependent on using any marginally legal means whether it intentionally harms others or not. I've been in business around 40 years, fairly successful myself. I've done so even treating customers and competitors honestly and evenly. The bonus is I actually like myself and won't look back at my life saying I wish I could make amends for numerous things that were clearly wrong in hindsight.

Not saying that you're not comfortable with yourself too, as you clearly feel you are. I just couldn't believe as you do and still be pleased with the direction of my life.

If that sounds like a sense of morality, it is.

Ask that Spanish company Apple went after...their tablet sure looked like an iPad huh?

Hell...HTC devices look nothing like Apple devices...but hey...go get em.

You need not be embarrassed on my behalf. I speak only for myself here.

Apple is almost always on the offensive...defense is not and cannot be a bully tactic.

Also I don't give a damn about Samsung as I'm actually kinda behind Apple on the more technical patents against them (bounce back, and some look and feel against Galaxy S phones)

I frequently complain about poorly written articles on apple blogs. That's not the case with this piece. There were no poorly-constructed sentences that forced me to go back and read, and re-read, to try to make sense of them. There was thorough attribution. And it seemed balanced. Nice job.

PS...Apple is no longer the underdog. Hasn't been for a while.

Agreed. It was pretty matter-of-factly with minimal if any bias.

Even though people like to make jokes and comments about rectangles and such, it's not just about the look you know.

Apple's filed suit against HTC, alleging that the company is infringing 20 patents "related to the iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture, and hardware."

I don't think you understood what I wrote there. I was referencing the varying stages of issues during early reports of wrongdoings.
Take antennagate for example.

Initially I thought "damn, that's bad" when the story first hit
Then I thought "Apple are addressing it with free bumpers - cool
Eventually I learned that the masses had no issue at all, coming to a final conclusion that it was a non-issue.

During each stage of the story I was able to make different assesments of the situation without the need of "all the facts" that charlituna thinks is a requirement to have an initial opinion on something.

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.

What is the take away from all these when nobody knows whether Apple did the same to avoid being sued by this patent troll or whether they want to start a proxy war against other OEMs?

But few things should be very clear. First atleast in US cour t patent troll cannot get preliminary injunction (they cannot show irreparable harm since they do not have any product of their own). Secondly even if infringement is proved damage award will be much less as there is nothing like lost sales/profits here from the point of patent holder.

Above mentioned are disadvantages of this system. So if Apple really thought those patents strong enough to claim good damages at the end of law suit they would have never sold it to this patent troll.

It could be bad for someone's health to believe that about all bullies. In my day I've seen a lot of spine from some of the worst bullies... and it's not always been a bad thing.

Just saying...