Amen to everything jragosta has posted so far in this thread.

You are generally very sensible, fair-minded, lucid, and insightful.

Keep up the good work. Those of us who are too tired to counter ignorance and trolling salute you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Speaking of trolls, how about the people who don't have any concept of how patent law works who keep making up arguments against "patent trolls".
This has been discussed ad nauseam previously. There is absolutely nothing in US Patent law which requires the inventor to exercise their patent in order to protect it. If there were, small inventors would be out of the game. There are many, many inventions which it would be impossible for a small inventor to practice - so you'd essentially make it impossible for many inventors to profit from their inventions.
Same as a factory owner. If I own a factory that makes widgets and decide not to manufacture widgets for some reason, is it OK for GM or Ford or GE to move into the factory and start making widgets because I'm not using it? Of course not. So why should intellectual property be any different?

Start by learning about patent law. Patents are not about protecting unimpeded sale of a product. Patents are an exclusive right to exercise the invention. If I invent something and then patent it, no one else has the right to use that invention without a license from me. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether I am selling a competing product or not.

Yes, found it!

No, it's all about the money.  There is no message.

They buy up IP for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits. They have no product.  They have no intention of making one.  They are a lawsuit machine.  They always file in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas... that has always been a huge red flag.  Yes, they are the very definition of patent trolls.  

It seems we may have some new people here who are not familiar with them and their MO.  It has been going on for many years and those of us who have been around here for a while are very familiar with them and others like them.  It's always the same story.  

They don't just go after Apple but pretty much every major player with a lot of cash.  It's just that Apple has been a big target the past few years. 

Originally Posted by mrrodriguez 
Yes, found it!

Except for THESE clowns, it's ONLY about the money.

Originally Posted by 1984 
They buy up IP for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits.

This company does?

Patent law is a joke. It needs to be changed so one has to make a product for the patent to be enforceable. If this means small inventors are hurt and put out of business, so be it. This isn't the days of Edison anymore. What do small inventors actually invent these days other than bogus patents to sell to patent troll firms? All this does is drive up the cost of products by legit firms like Apple and Microsoft.

Also, China and India should just flat out refuse to recognize US IP laws. They should just copy at will.

Originally Posted by cylack 
Also, China and India should just flat out refuse to recognize US IP laws. They should just copy at will.

There's zero reason you should think this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Except for THESE clowns, it's ONLY about the money.

 

 

This company does?

They want an injuction on these devices. Their message is simple, "steal our ip and we'll go thermonuclear on you". Oh wait someone else said that...

Originally Posted by mrrodriguez 
They want an injuction on these devices. Their message is simple, "steal our ip and we'll go thermonuclear on you". Oh wait someone else said that...

I don't understand what your purpose is in saying this. 

Are you claiming that a company who uses zero patents to make zero products is the same situation as a company who uses hundreds of patents to make dozens of products and who has had their revenue stolen by a company who is somehow magically getting away with the blatant theft of every single imaginable facet of the products they sell? 

These situations are similar to you?

Originally Posted by mrrodriguez 
All I'm saying is people who blatanly copies someone else's invention needs to be held accountable. You have the same views. Somehow the fact that the company doesn't make a product doesn't mean that they shouldn't protect their IP.

There's protecting one's IP and then there's "sitting on a patent for 18 years for the sole purpose of dead-legging a company that in the interim has built a successful product which may or may not use it".

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilgto64 

I thought the to patent something you had to have very specific details included in the application - not just some vague notion. 

 

But I guess gone are the days when a court decides that BIOS can be reversed engineer provided no one on the reverse engineering team had access to the original designs that created the product which was reverse engineered. 

 

I have no problem with a patent being granted for an idea - but if someone else comes up with an entirely different solution to a problem that appears to be very similar than I don't think that is infringement. 

 

Samsung style copying of an interface element or design is one thing - but in my mind - "establishing a secure connection between one electronic device and another" is not a patentable idea. A specific implementation of that idea should be protected. 

 

I have no idea how many "mouse trap" patents there are (hundreds? thousands?) but "a device used to trap mice" is not the basis for a patent. A specific manner in which a device traps a rodent should be protected - even if that device as described is impossible or prohibitively costly to build and never sees the light of day. I believe there have been patent lawsuits over the type of spring use in a mouse trap as that is what made it unique. And even Thomas Edison was smart enough to patent not the "light bulb" but a particular screw base which made replacing a light bulb simply and effective. 

 

Not sure how much of that applies in software patent suits but it does seem that basis on which patent infringement is determined varies from cases to case and being a highly subjective matter means that such cases aren't going away anytime soon. 

You have actually nailed one of the key problems with the current US patent law. I don't know if yout realize that :-).

The basic Idea behind the Patent law was to promote progress and developmemt by giving an inventor a time-limited monopoly IN RETURN for the inventor publishing the invention in sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art to be able to reproduce it.

What has happened in the meantime is that the fundamental idea has been turned upside down in many respects and it is actually now the opposite of what is intended. ... being used to BLOCK development and perpetuate monopolies.

Many patents are so vaguely formulated that nobody, not even an expert, can decipher what they actually mean. This is no accident. And if an expert thinks he can understand the patents, he is probably seriously wrong unless he is also an expert in patent law. In fact, it has become an art in and of itself to turn a patentable idea into an actual patent application.

There are a number of perversions of this problem. For example, it is frequently the case that an idea in and of itself is not patentable, and then some idiot comes along and adds the words "on a computer" and the USPTO and the Patent Appeals court has accepted this with the effect that the non-patentable idea suddenly becomes patentable if it is implemented in software.

The story goes on and on. What has been lost is of course that this perversion of purpose is utterly against the public interest.

Sad really.

Originally Posted by mrrodriguez 
All Apple needed to do was contact them ahead of time…

Put the brakes on. It is the responsibility of both parties to FIRST enter into negotiations whenever a patent issue is raised. Not go sue-happy off the cuff. Apple KNEW Samsung was stealing from them. Apple's first course of action was NOT to sue Samsung. Apple wanted to make a deal. Samsung refused, THEN Apple sued.

THAT is how you operate. Not like this. VirnetX has no excuses for this behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Originally Posted by mrrodriguez 
All Apple needed to do was contact them ahead of time…

 

Put the brakes on. It is the responsibility of both parties to FIRST enter into negotiations whenever a patent issue is raised. Not go sue-happy off the cuff. Apple KNEW Samsung was stealing from them. Apple's first course of action was NOT to sue Samsung. Apple wanted to make a deal. Samsung refused, THEN Apple sued.

 

THAT is how you operate. Not like this. VirnetX has no excuses for this behavior.

Is that a fact :-), then how, may I ask, do you explain Apple's refusal to enter into negotiations on FRAND with Motorola, chosing not to negotiate at all but to sue and try to get a court to impose a one-sided-apple-advantage ?? Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.

And remember that line had already been thrown out of court once before (Posner Judgement).

Your reality-distortion-field is showing.

Originally Posted by Taniwha 
Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.

Shut up or stop lying. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. You already refuse to have an actual e-mail address, meaning you're obviously just someone who we've already banned. 

If our new rule suggestions go through, you'll be out faster than you can make new fake accounts.

I assume that you, as a moderator, can see the email addresses. You could have tested the address and you would have found that it is in fact a real e-mail address. I call you out for lying on that one.

As to being someone who has already been banned. That is outright nonsense. I call you out for lying on that. 

Regarding the "shut up and stop lying". (sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander :-) )

I am not quite sure exactly what you are accusing me of with respect to lying, but I am sure you can be more precise on that if you chose to do so,

Regarding the Apple/Motorola FRAND dispute. The public record (ie, court transcripts, judgements and rulings,  and submissions/affadavits of the parties) shows that Apple is not disputing using Motorola FRAND patents without paying. They are not arguing about the usage of the FRAND Patents. They are simply refusing to (a) pay what Motorola suggested (2.5%) (b) enter into negotiations to find a mutually acceptable alternative.

Instead, they immediately sued in Wisconsin, trying to get the court to set license fees, and got their claim tossed. That had already happened in Judge Posner's court, albeit with different reasoning, but the same result ... dismissed with prejudice.

Among other problems you seem to have is a steadfast refusal or perhaps simply the inability to distinguish between assertions/claims in a litigation, and Facts.

In general a party to litigation will naturally attempt to present their case in the best possible light. The opposing party will do the same. The whole point of a court is to adjudicate and to determine (a) the FACTS and (b) what to do in the context of the claims and the facts.

For example: Elswhere you say "Apple KNEW" that Samsung was stealing their IP/Design. Apple didn't "Know". Apple ASSERTED something, which is absolutely not necessarily true or a "Fact",  and presented some evidence to support their assertion. With respect to the registered design (in the EU), their claims were rejected in the final instance by the court. In other words, the court found that Apple's claims were false and not supported by the evidence.

As far as I am aware, the UK case is the ONLY case that has actually reached final judgement anywhere in the world with respect to Apple's "thermonuclear war". In all other jurisdictions in the US and EU, the cases are still either in the preliminary phase (prior to the initial judgement), or pending appeal. As they say, the show is not over till the fat lady sings.

So to present any of the assertions of either party as if they are "FACTS" is simply nonsense ... or if you want to put it in a less polite way, "lies".

Returning to the "shut up" part: It may be that it is uncomfortable to you to be confronted with views and opinions that do not match your personal agenda.

It may also be the case that my view of what is "Just" or my ethical values do not correspond to yours. That would not surprise many people. For one thing, it appears that you are an American, and you seem to have a personal agenda. I am more interested in seeing justice done and ethical values maintained, and I am not an american. In fact I am an expat Kiwi living in Germany. (not that that is relevant except to emphasize the point that I probably do not share your cultural values. It is abundantly clear that I don't share your ethical values).

I do have a personal agenda : If I feel that either justice is not being done, or if ethical values are being violated, I will call it out, whether you like it or not. It has nothing to do with cool toys or a particular large company. (I work for a large multinational in its EU HQ and I could tell you a thing or two about the machinations of large concerns.)

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
If someone has posted at all on this forum they have used a real email address.

Nope. Huddler doesn't require e-mail verification. Unless ALL of the various utilities I have used to verify e-mail addresses are lying about the status of his e-mail, he signed up with a fake e-mail.

Originally Posted by Taniwha 
Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.

BLATANT LIES. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Taniwha 

They are simply refusing to (a) pay what Motorola suggested…

Funny how that's completely different from what you said before.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.

Oh, they have to put one, sure. But "asdjghasuietuwesht7w3y45iwerhlr7srkyw3t5awetia7ysg@a8s8tuaisuugaslfdgueirasdkg.com" is accepted, for example. They can type whatever they want.

I would hope, though can't confirm, that it's just a setting that is turned off, but that leads to the question of why something so fundamentally unquestionable is a setting in the first place.

I dunno, I certainly suppose the e-mail testing I've done could have all been broken or come back with wrong results, but I tend not to think so. Meaning his vehement denial of lying is all the more ironic.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
If someone has posted at all on this forum they have used a real email address.

 

Nope. Huddler doesn't require e-mail verification. Unless ALL of the various utilities I have used to verify e-mail addresses are lying about the status of his e-mail, he signed up with a fake e-mail.

Originally Posted by Taniwha 
Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.

 

BLATANT LIES. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Taniwha 

They are simply refusing to (a) pay what Motorola suggested…

 

Funny how that's completely different from what you said before.

Crap: Using Patented IP without paying is stealing IP. Wilfully.

You could also consider apologising PUBLICALLY for your unethical behaviour re my email address and "previous" accounts. Blatant lies, as you put it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
Mea culpa.... and what a horrible downgrade to the forum over vBulletin that will make it tougher on moderators and readers if anyone can sign up without an email address. Email verification is so standard that I never once questioned it when AI made the switch.

 

Oh, they have to put one, sure. But "asdjghasuietuwesht7w3y45iwerhlr7srkyw3t5awetia7ysg@a8s8tuaisuugaslfdgueirasdkg.com" is accepted, for example. They can type whatever they want.

 

I would hope, though can't confirm, that it's just a setting that is turned off, but that leads to the question of why something so fundamentally unquestionable is a setting in the first place.

 

I dunno, I certainly suppose the e-mail testing I've done could have all been broken or come back with wrong results, but I tend not to think so. Meaning his vehement denial of lying is all the more ironic.
 

TS, what you have NOT done is attempt to verify the Email address by the simplest of all procedures ... namely to send a manual email to that address.

I really think it is intolerable that you are repeatedly abusing your role as moderator.

It simply doesn*t wash to try and pretend that its a technical problem. It is not. The mail address is valid and functions regularly, including today where I received email notifications from AI that new comments were present in the forums to which I have contributed.

I also think it is totally unethical because the standard users have no possibility to check whether you are being truthful or not.

However I do hope that other moderators will take the opportunity to check for themselves simply by writing an email to the address in my profile.

I do intend to complain to the editors of AI and refer this issue to them for further action.

I would accept a public apology from you in this forum.

Hey taniwha!   Manage Subscriptions | Manage Email Preferences AppleInsider Subscription Update Period ending November 11, 2012 Here is a quick summary of the latest activity from AppleInsider. For more, login to your personalized homepage.   New/Updated Threads VirnetX sues Apple again after winning $368M patent trial verdict 1 Unread Post Judge to review Samsung's allegations of jury misconduct in loss to Apple 3 Unread Posts     Email sent to <ADDRESS DELETED> from AppleInsider. To change the frequency at which you receive subscription emails, please visit your subscription management page. If you want to stop receiving ALL email from us (including private message notifications), click here to disable all email notifications. You can also modify this setting by clicking Edit Account Details button on Your Profile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taniwha 

I would accept a public apology from you in this forum.

You want a public apology? WTF?! In that case I want a public apology for having to read your request.

Sorry if you misunderstood. I was offering TS the chance.

BTW; I don't know where you get the idea that the forum software doesn't require email verification. That is a load of bs.

From the account management screen on AI: (anyone can check it out if they wish to do so)

Basic Information

Originally Posted by mrrodriguez 
WRONG, the patent holder has only 1 responsibility, and that is to defend its patent from infringers.

So they should go kill the executives at Apple that "stole the patent" so that they can't do it again. 

No. That's not their only responsibility.

Probably because I'm not defending the behavior of IP theft. I'm suggesting behavior for the other party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taniwha 

Is that a fact :-), then how, may I ask, do you explain Apple's refusal to enter into negotiations on FRAND with Motorola, chosing not to negotiate at all but to sue and try to get a court to impose a one-sided-apple-advantage ?? Apple does not dispute stealing Motorola's IP in this matter, they are just refusing to pay.

 

And remember that line had already been thrown out of court once before (Posner Judgement).

 

Your reality-distortion-field is showing.

Motorola sued Apple first.

Motorola attempted to rescind the licenses they granted to the companies Apple bought chips from to get around patent exhaustion issues.

Apple are not refusing to pay at all, they are willing to pay a "fair and reasonable" amount, such is their right under the agreements which make patented technology part of a standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

Motorola sued Apple first.

 

Motorola attempted to rescind the licenses they granted to the companies Apple bought chips from to get around patent exhaustion issues.

 

Apple are not refusing to pay at all, they are willing to pay a "fair and reasonable" amount, such is their right under the agreements which make patented technology part of a standard.

Then it's unfortunate Apple would not commit to accepting a judge's "fair and reasonable" determination of what that royalty should be. It looked particularly damning when Motorola did commit to accept the judge's royalty order no matter the amount.

Originally Posted by jpadhiyar 
Would it be cliched if I say, What goes around comes around?

It would just be wrong, is all.