Apple sued by patent holding company over 'multimedia voicemail' - Page 2

I'm sorry but I must disagree with you.

If a company owns a patent that they are not using and are not at least licensing to those that wish to use the tech (or at least listening to offers and considering licensing) and then they sue based on the possible common idea of the patent whether in fact the other company is using the same tech or even very similar tech in the same way, then they are a troll.

This Brandywine certainly fits the bill. From the tech descriptions there is nothing in any Apple product that is their tech and yet they are suing for a violation. If that isn't trolling, what is.

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.

Apple sued by patent toll over "multimedia voicemail".

Fixed that title for you.

J.

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.

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.



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.

"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

The VVM is stored locally on the iPhone, see this thread on Apple Discussions:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread...art=0&tstart=0


With FT, there isn't a clip stored on the iPhone as it is a live stream

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?

Your inability is not the rest of the world's problem.

No biggie. If you have no proof for the claim, so be it.

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.

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.