or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Patent 'trolls' hit Apple with 171 lawsuits in last 5 years
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Patent 'trolls' hit Apple with 171 lawsuits in last 5 years

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
After being hit with 171 lawsuits from non-practicing intellectual property owning entities in the last five years, Apple has further solidified its place as the No. 1 target for so-called patent "trolls."

Patents


The latest data from the group PatentFreedom reveals that Apple faces another 24 patent suits that were filed through June 30 of this year. With more than 170 lawsuits filed since 2009, Apple is well ahead of second-place target Hewlett-Packard, which has seen 137 complaints.

Apple has increasingly become the most popular target for intellectual property complaints. Data from PatentFreedom detailed by AppleInsider in March found that Apple and HP were separated by 22 complaints. That number has since grown to 34.

Coming in third in the latest data is Apple's rival Samsung, facing 133 suits over the last five years. AT&T took fourth in the poll, with 127 complaints ??30 of those filed in 2013 alone.

Rounding out the top ten, in order, were Dell (122 lawsuits), Sony (110), HTC (106), Verizon (105), LG (104), and Google (103).Apple has been the No. 1 target of patent "trolls" for some time, but the distance between it and other companies has been widening.

The latest figures show that Apple has separated from the pack with regard to intellectual property lawsuits, becoming the top target for non-practicing entities. Through 2011, both Apple and Hewlett-Packard were tied in first place with 131 lawsuits filed since 2007.

"Patent trolls," as they're commonly known on the Internet, are referred to by PatentFreedom as "NPEs." The group feels the term "troll" is "unhelpful," as it is frequently used to refer to individuals or corporate entities who wish to enforce their patent rights.

PatentFreedom, however, draws a distinction by defining certain groups as "non-practicing entities." To them, an NPE is "any entity that earns or plans to earn the majority of its revenue from the licensing or enforcement of its intellectual property."

As Apple faces more intellectual property lawsuits than any other company, its former patent chief recently left his position earlier this year.

Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook spoke with members of the U.S. Senate about patent issues during a testimony in May. But the CEO spoke of his own interest in strengthening companies' abilities to protect their own intellectual property, rather than warding off lawsuits from non-practicing entities.
post #2 of 42
Mr Mueller was quite complimentary to Intellectual Ventures, an NPE aka Patent Troll, in an article today. Intellectual Ventures is who made Lodsys lawsuit against iOS developers possible.

Back in the day Apple, Nokia, Yahoo eBay and Google were some of the IV investors (Bill Gates still actively arms them with IP) but Google dropped out once it became apparent what the plans really were. I believe Apple did the same and probably for the same reason but can't find a reference right off.

I've no idea how NPE's should be dealt with, and I don't believe there's even general agreement in Congress or the administration on how to respond to a problem they both have acknowledged.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/28/13 at 7:16am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 42
I wish Apple would innovate instead of being a target of patent troll lawsuits. /s
post #4 of 42
Troll by any other name is still a TROLL! So, please everyone call them what they are Patient Trolls... period. Maybe if enough people keep that up others will take notice and can boot these silly trolls to the curb.

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply
post #5 of 42

HewlettPackard number is surprising! Really? In second position?

post #6 of 42
This issue made me angry enough that I decided to do something about it. The president has convened a panel to make recommendations on patent law reform and I'm petitioning them to get a specific item added to their proposal. If we get enough signatures on this petition, it'll go live on the White House web site and then, if we get enough they'll make an official response. If we're lucky, it may become law.

The idea is to let companies void out licensing agreements when the licensed patents are found to be illegitimate or fraudulent.

Here's a link to the petition: http://wh.gov/lg5vW
post #7 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade View Post

Troll by any other name is still a TROLL! So, please everyone call them what they are Patient Trolls... period. Maybe if enough people keep that up others will take notice and can boot these silly trolls to the curb.

Poor medical fields. They have no more "customers"

post #8 of 42
How many turned into a verdict for the Plaintiff where Apple had to pay a settlement? And the others? What's the average settlement amount?

You know what's worse that a stupid article? Lack of information that would make it interesting.
post #9 of 42
What if we changed the law so a patent was protected like a trademark: use it or lose it. Trademarks lose legal protection if they aren't actively used in commerce. There would have to be a trade-off with this change, however. Patents currently expire after 20 years (an eternity in computers). Trademarks can be owned indefinitely as long as they are kept in use. It would be a major change to let patents be protected forever as long as they are being applied: a useful patented drug would never have a generic version. On the other hand, patent trolls would be wiped out.
post #10 of 42
I just want to point out that not all NPEs are bad. ARM is the company that designs and licenses all ARM processors (CPUs, GPUs, compilers, subsystems, and more). That company only designs and licenses. They don't actually produce anything. Regardless, without that them we would have iPhones, Androids, Blackberries, etc. ARM is always widely regarded in the industry as providing fair and reasonable licensing terms for their licensees.

For every ARM, however, you end up with a thousand other NPEs that don't further develop their patent portfolios, but rather buy patents solely to use them in litigation for the purpose of securing licensing and/or settlement awards.

The point I'm making is that not all NPEs are bad, just the ones that operate in the second manner described above. Even those, however, are arguably not all bad because they provide inventors with a means to sell their inventions when no one else is looking to buy.
post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

What if we changed the law so a patent was protected like a trademark: use it or lose it. Trademarks lose legal protection if they aren't actively used in commerce. There would have to be a trade-off with this change, however. Patents currently expire after 20 years (an eternity in computers). Trademarks can be owned indefinitely as long as they are kept in use. It would be a major change to let patents be protected forever as long as they are being applied: a useful patented drug would never have a generic version. On the other hand, patent trolls would be wiped out.

 

That's an interesting idea, actually. 

 

The only thing I don't like is the foreverness of it-- many every day drugs we all rely on (aspirin and ibuprofen, for example) would've cost exorbitantly more than it costs now.  And I suspect even the 'expensive' brands would cost substantially more if they didn't have to compete at some level with the generics.  That's just one small example, but otherwise I generally like the idea of "use it or lose it".

post #12 of 42

Last time i checked Apple is also a 'Troll' - suing Samsung. Remember Nokia and BB probably hold more mobile related patents than all the others combined. I would not be surprised to learn that Apple has cross platform patent licenses with either of them.

post #13 of 42
The number of patents do not tell me anything. Were have all those 'more patents' led Nokia and BB?
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post

I just want to point out that not all NPEs are bad. ARM is the company that designs and licenses all ARM processors (CPUs, GPUs, compilers, subsystems, and more). That company only designs and licenses. They don't actually produce anything. Regardless, without that them we would have iPhones, Androids, Blackberries, etc. ARM is always widely regarded in the industry as providing fair and reasonable licensing terms for their licensees.

For every ARM, however, you end up with a thousand other NPEs that don't further develop their patent portfolios, but rather buy patents solely to use them in litigation for the purpose of securing licensing and/or settlement awards.

The point I'm making is that not all NPEs are bad, just the ones that operate in the second manner described above. Even those, however, are arguably not all bad because they provide inventors with a means to sell their inventions when no one else is looking to buy.

But ARM made the designs. Trolls just own patents just for licensing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Cranstone View Post

Last time i checked Apple is also a 'Troll' - suing Samsung. Remember Nokia and BB probably hold more mobile related patents than all the others combined. I would not be surprised to learn that Apple has cross platform patent licenses with either of them.

Perhaps you don't know what a patent troll is. Apple uses its patents and developed them in the first place.
post #15 of 42
Originally Posted by Peter Cranstone View Post
Last time i checked Apple is also a 'Troll' - suing Samsung.

 

Check again. Actually, check for the first time, since it's blindingly obvious you did absolutely nothing in the way of research on this topic.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #16 of 42
Originally Posted by Peter Cranstone View Post

Last time i checked Apple is also a 'Troll' - suing Samsung. Remember Nokia and BB probably hold more mobile related patents than all the others combined. I would not be surprised to learn that Apple has cross platform patent licenses with either of them.

 

Last time I checked, I read that a "patent troll" is "a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question," according to Wikipedia.  (Emphasis mine.)  And yeah, you might say that Apple manufactures quite a few products and supplies quite a few services based upon the patents they protect in court.

 

Here's the full Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

 

While you're at it, you need to brush up on Apple and its many products and services: http://www.apple.com

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

What if we changed the law so a patent was protected like a trademark: use it or lose it. .

That would be a horrible idea.

Let's say that your father owns a widget factory and leave it to you in his will. You don't want to make widgets, so you close the factory down. You also don't want to deal with the hassle of trying to find someone to run it or buy it, so you sell it to a real estate investment firm.

Does the fact that you're not making widgets mean that you have no right to the factory? Should someone who wants to make widgets be able to simply move in and take over your factory since you're not using it? That's exactly what you're advocating in the realm of patents.

And the real estate investment firm is the equivalent of what people are calling a patent troll. They serve a useful purpose just as NPEs do. An inventor may not want to commercialize the product or may think that he'll get greater value by selling it to someone who has the expertise to get value for the invention. What's wrong with that?
"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 #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

HewlettPackard number is surprising! Really? In second position?

 

Perhaps even more surprising is that Microsoft isn't on the list at all. 

 

Here's a theory: Maybe M$ secretly owns a bunch of those trolling companies and are partly behind this whole "use non-performing patents as a revenue source" thing.

post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Last time I checked, I read that a "patent troll" is "a person or company who enforces patent 
rights against accused infringers 
in an attempt to collect licensing fees
, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question," according to Wikipedia.  (Emphasis mine.)  And yeah, you might say that Apple manufactures quite a few products and supplies quite a few services based upon the patents they protect in court.

So what? The owner of the patent might have lots of reasons not to practice it. For example, let's say I invent an improvement that makes nuclear power plants more efficient. Do I have to build a nuclear power plant in order to protect my invention?

Or maybe it's as simple as someone being a serial inventor who has no interest in actually running a manufacturing operation. He might choose to sell or license his invention rather than building a factory. Why shouldn't he be able to do so?
"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 #20 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So what? The owner of the patent might have lots of reasons not to practice it. For example, let's say I invent an improvement that makes nuclear power plants more efficient. Do I have to build a nuclear power plant in order to protect my invention?

Or maybe it's as simple as someone being a serial inventor who has no interest in actually running a manufacturing operation. He might choose to sell or license his invention rather than building a factory. Why shouldn't he be able to do so?

While you won't have to build your own nuke plant, you can consult with your patent rather than holding on to it and waiting for someone to do a similar way, then sue the eff out of them. If you don't want to use it, sell it to someone that will.

Use it or lose it.
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

While you won't have to build your own nuke plant, you can consult with your patent rather than holding on to it and waiting for someone to do a similar way, then sue the eff out of them. If you don't want to use it, sell it to someone that will.

Use it or lose it.

What do you think an NPE does?

It really amazes me how so many people who don't have any clue how the system works are so eager to parade their ignorance.
"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 #22 of 42
Here's an article about a lawyer, Apple and a "patent troll". . .

and probably not the kind of article you would expect.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/apple-betrayed-by-its-own-law-firm/

EDIT: PatentlyApple also had an article about Tim Cook's complaints about NPE's and Obama's response to it.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/06/tim-cook-complained-about-patent-trolls-in-may-and-today-president-obama-called-on-congress-to-assist-us-tech-companies.html
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/28/13 at 12:32pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 42
Whether you call them NPEs or trolls, the label breaks the relationship between the hard work and insight that's necessary to make an advance, and the reward for it.

The inventor who came up with intermittent windshield wipers did NOT work for a big car company. He was an NPE who hoped merely to negotiate a fair price for the automakers' use of his work in making a practical wiper.

Today, tech products are increasingly made by global megacorps, and incorporate tens of thousands of clever inventions. Many of the inventors were on the payroll of one of those big companies, but many were at a small firm or were solo inventors who might have a genius insight that they turn into an effective radio or voice codec, but have nowhere near the ability to produce a smartphone.

Even some of the most famous inventions and discoveries would be branded as unworthy of patent protection by this classification. Google's patented Page Rank algorithm that finds the most relevant web page? Not so fast, that patent is owned by Stanford University, which AFAICT, doesn't sell web searches to anybody. Stanford is a troll and if anybody sent them a check for $1 (which is what Google paid), then started running searches by that approach, you can be sure they'd have Stanford's lawyers at their door.

Or how about Dolby Labs? When was the last time you bought a radio or music player from them? Who uses a Fraunhofer MP3 player? SRI International (yes, the shop where Siri originated) developed the voice recognition software that powers Nuance and supposedly, Siri; would you set up laws so that those talents can't monetize their work except if they sell portable voice-recognition computers?

Intellectual work is the whole reason for the technology surge in the United States, a huge economic boost. A lot of the genius is at small startups, at research groups tied to universities, or in garages, so if we limit patent compensation to just companies big enough to sell the gizmos, we'll shut out a lot of the entrepreneurial spirit that's fired the tech revolution of the last 3 decades.

None of this is to say that bogus lawsuits over bogus patents are in any way helpful. Just that preventing individual or small-team inventors from being able to profit from their patents would be throwing sand in the gears of invention.
post #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltFrench View Post

None of this is to say that bogus lawsuits over bogus patents are in any way helpful. Just that preventing individual or small-team inventors from being able to profit from their patents would be throwing sand in the gears of invention.

So if NPE's had some legal restrictions or "rules to play by" in monetizing the IP they snatch up then you'd be fine with that as long as those poor individual inventors got paid a reasonable fee for their inventiveness. After all it's not likely that poor inventor is getting a big cut from the millions in licensing fees the NPE collects.

IMO the whole "looking out for the little guy" angle is a red herring. When the largest of them all, Intellectual Ventures, made that claim and were challenged to offer examples it was true they only provided one as proof. Guess what? Even the single one they came up with turned out to be a bogus example.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121218/13395521429/intellectual-ventures-claims-its-misunderstood-its-really-just-trying-to-help-everyone-sift-through-find-good-patents.shtml
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/28/13 at 1:37pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltFrench View Post

Whether you call them NPEs or trolls, the label breaks the relationship between the hard work and insight that's necessary to make an advance, and the reward for it.

The inventor who came up with intermittent windshield wipers did NOT work for a big car company. He was an NPE who hoped merely to negotiate a fair price for the automakers' use of his work in making a practical wiper.

Today, tech products are increasingly made by global megacorps, and incorporate tens of thousands of clever inventions. Many of the inventors were on the payroll of one of those big companies, but many were at a small firm or were solo inventors who might have a genius insight that they turn into an effective radio or voice codec, but have nowhere near the ability to produce a smartphone.

Even some of the most famous inventions and discoveries would be branded as unworthy of patent protection by this classification. Google's patented Page Rank algorithm that finds the most relevant web page? Not so fast, that patent is owned by Stanford University, which AFAICT, doesn't sell web searches to anybody. Stanford is a troll and if anybody sent them a check for $1 (which is what Google paid), then started running searches by that approach, you can be sure they'd have Stanford's lawyers at their door.

Or how about Dolby Labs? When was the last time you bought a radio or music player from them? Who uses a Fraunhofer MP3 player? SRI International (yes, the shop where Siri originated) developed the voice recognition software that powers Nuance and supposedly, Siri; would you set up laws so that those talents can't monetize their work except if they sell portable voice-recognition computers?

Intellectual work is the whole reason for the technology surge in the United States, a huge economic boost. A lot of the genius is at small startups, at research groups tied to universities, or in garages, so if we limit patent compensation to just companies big enough to sell the gizmos, we'll shut out a lot of the entrepreneurial spirit that's fired the tech revolution of the last 3 decades.

None of this is to say that bogus lawsuits over bogus patents are in any way helpful. Just that preventing individual or small-team inventors from being able to profit from their patents would be throwing sand in the gears of invention.

Exactly. The proposal that you must either practice a patent or lose it would completely wipe out small inventors as a source of innovation.
"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 #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That would be a horrible idea.

Let's say that your father owns a widget factory and leave it to you in his will. You don't want to make widgets, so you close the factory down. You also don't want to deal with the hassle of trying to find someone to run it or buy it, so you sell it to a real estate investment firm.

Does the fact that you're not making widgets mean that you have no right to the factory? Should someone who wants to make widgets be able to simply move in and take over your factory since you're not using it? That's exactly what you're advocating in the realm of patents.

And the real estate investment firm is the equivalent of what people are calling a patent troll. They serve a useful purpose just as NPEs do. An inventor may not want to commercialize the product or may think that he'll get greater value by selling it to someone who has the expertise to get value for the invention. What's wrong with that?

You totally missed the point. He would still own the factory and the land, so he would still make money by selling the factory and land. And regardless of whether he shut it down and did nothing with the property, he would still own the land and property therein. What he would no longer own would be the the design of the widget itself. Once he stopped producing the widget, he would losing his rights (under the premise that patents should be treated like trademarks) as the exclusive widget maker, thus allowing another company to build a factory across town and produce and sell widgets of the same name.

Understand? The reasons why patents (arguably) shouldn't be treated like trademarks are numerous, but here are a few:
1. Not all patents are instantly monetizable (I designed a teleported but the tech to build it is a century away).
2. Patents may be monetizable, but not by the patent holder, usually because the startup costs for any production venture are too high (I'll have to shop this patent around to a company that can afford to build the product).
3. Patents may be granted for something that is only part of a whole (I designed a better wheel, but I don't make cars. I'll need time to shop this around to automakers).
post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post

You totally missed the point. He would still own the factory and the land, so he would still make money by selling the factory and land. And regardless of whether he shut it down and did nothing with the property, he would still own the land and property therein. What he would no longer own would be the the design of the widget itself. Once he stopped producing the widget, he would losing his rights (under the premise that patents should be treated like trademarks) as the exclusive widget maker, thus allowing another company to build a factory across town and produce and sell widgets of the same name.

Go back and read the many times I've explained the folly of your position.

What if he doesn't want to make widgets, but the factory is still valuable and is set up so that it's really only good for making widgets?

By selling it to a real estate investment firm, he can get his money but leave it to the experts to rent it out to a widget manufacturer.

Your proposal would absolutely destroy innovation in this country - at least as far as small inventors is concerned. The idea that you could invent something, patent it, and then anyone in the world who wanted to make the product could do so simply because you hadn't gotten around to licensing or selling the technology is just plain absurd.
"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 #28 of 42
The term "patent troll" is designed to hide the fact that theft is occurring. "I'm not stealing someone else's intellectual property, a patent troll is after me." and we all know that patent trolls have no rights. Their intellectual property can be stolen and used by anyone with impunity. Is that the thesis being promulgated here?


Look THIEVES, if I have a patented invention, I am ENTITLED, by law, to be paid if someone want to use it.

If I chose to sell that right to someone rather than fight the BIG THIEVES in court, - that right to be paid transfers to them. If a BIG THIEF chooses to not pay but just steal the invention and use it and profit from it, then we have recourse to the courts. Of course then the BIG THIEF starts squealing the "patent troll is after me", "protect me from the patent troll while I steal his property".
post #29 of 42
Originally Posted by ihor43us View Post
Look THIEVES, if I have a patented invention, I am ENTITLED, by law, to be paid if someone want to use it.

 

Right. Except when no theft is occurring, they're called patent trolls.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #30 of 42

It seems weird to say that Apple's increasing its lead when it's actually not #1 in the most recent period. AT&T's ahead this year, and Verizon & HP are a lot closer to Apple than they were in earlier periods.

 

I guess the headline "Apple solidified its lead as the #1 patent troll target in 2012, then lost it in 2013" is less compelling.

post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihor43us View Post

The term "patent troll" is designed to hide the fact that theft is occurring. "I'm not stealing someone else's intellectual property, a patent troll is after me." and we all know that patent trolls have no rights. Their intellectual property can be stolen and used by anyone with impunity. Is that the thesis being promulgated here?


Look THIEVES, if I have a patented invention, I am ENTITLED, by law, to be paid if someone want to use it.

If I chose to sell that right to someone rather than fight the BIG THIEVES in court, - that right to be paid transfers to them. If a BIG THIEF chooses to not pay but just steal the invention and use it and profit from it, then we have recourse to the courts. Of course then the BIG THIEF starts squealing the "patent troll is after me", "protect me from the patent troll while I steal his property".

Is that what you really think Apple is doing when Tim Cook complains about "patent trolls"? Have you spent any time reading up on the problems caused by questionable patent assertions by NPE's or just flyin' by the seat of your pants? You seem to be ignoring the financial harm caused to medium and small companies when a "patent troll" comes a'knockin. (Scanner patent infringement anyone?)

The "widget factory owner" will probably be hard pressed to come up with the money to fight a big well-funded NPE. Do you have any idea how much the average legal bill is to defend against a patent infringement lawsuit involving even a million (or less)? Over $600,000 dollars!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-32973_3-57409792-296/how-much-is-that-patent-lawsuit-going-to-cost-you/

A big company like Apple can of course afford whatever they have to do and just pass the cost over to iDevice buyers. What about Mr Widget? He's not dealing with the little inventor who got the patent in the first place, someone Mr. Widget might be able to reason with. He's dealing with a company that doesn't care who he is, what he does, who he supports or how many other people depend on him. It's just about maximizing the money they can get from threatening to sue anyone who might, maybe, possibly, somehow be using any of the patent claims by any stretch of imagination. Maybe little iOS app developers for instance?

So even if the infringement claim is probably bogus in the view of Mr. Widget he'll have to make one of two bad choices: Pay whatever "they" say he owes for "stealing their property" or take a chance, however remote, on being found in violation by a court decree and losing his land, factory and equipment just to pay off the NPE's legal fees for suing him, paying past damages and current licensing fees if he decides to fight it. There's probably only one of those choices that makes sense business-wise. Just pay off "the troll" to go away and hope they don't come back for another bite later. 'Cause Mr. Widget, factory owner, can't afford to fight them even if he's not "stealing their property".
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/29/13 at 10:14am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltFrench View Post

The inventor who came up with intermittent windshield wipers did NOT work for a big car company. He was an NPE who hoped merely to negotiate a fair price for the automakers' use of his work in making a practical wiper.

It doesn't disprove the rest of your post of course, but it's not accurate to say he only wanted to negotiate a fair price for using the patent. Mr. Kearns fully intended to build his own intermittent wiper assemblies in his own factory and sell them to the car builders. Selling the rights in return for a royalty was absolutely NOT what he wanted to do. According to him it was never about the money.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/28/13 at 6:03pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Is that what you really think Apple is doing when Tim Cook complains about "patent trolls"? Have you spent any time reading up on the problems caused by questionable patent assertions by NPE's or just flyin' by the seat of your pants? You seem to be ignoring the financial harm caused to medium and small companies when a "patent troll" comes a'knockin. (Scanner patent infringement anyone?)

There's a difference. If the patent really has no validity and the NPE is being heavy handed in trying to enforce it, then there is a legitimate complaint.

That's different than all the whiners here arguing that NPEs should NEVER be allowed to have a patent.
"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 #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There's a difference. If the patent really has no validity and the NPE is being heavy handed in trying to enforce it, then there is a legitimate complaint.

That's different than all the whiners here arguing that NPEs should NEVER be allowed to have a patent.

Agreed
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Cranstone View Post

Remember Nokia and BB probably hold more mobile related patents than all the others combined. I would not be surprised to learn that Apple has cross platform patent licenses with either of them.

 

Simply proves you are not up on old news. http://press.nokia.com/2011/06/14/nokia-enters-into-patent-license-agreement-with-apple/
post #36 of 42
Shame, Apple, shame. I really wish someday software patents will be called invalid. I'm not a leftist at all, but software patents are one of the most unfair things in the tech land. Period.
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Go back and read the many times I've explained the folly of your position.

What if he doesn't want to make widgets, but the factory is still valuable and is set up so that it's really only good for making widgets?

By selling it to a real estate investment firm, he can get his money but leave it to the experts to rent it out to a widget manufacturer.

Your proposal would absolutely destroy innovation in this country - at least as far as small inventors is concerned. The idea that you could invent something, patent it, and then anyone in the world who wanted to make the product could do so simply because you hadn't gotten around to licensing or selling the technology is just plain absurd.

You didn't read what I wrote. I responded to your misunderstanding of another poster's (not mine) suggestion that patents be treated like trademarks. You attempted to give an analogy to show why this was bad but your analogy made zero sense, so I corrected it. Then I explained why, giving multiple reasons, patents should NOT be treated like trademarks. First read, then respond. Sound like a plan?
post #38 of 42

Have you looked at how long a THIEF can string out the court proceedings? you whine about small companies being victimized. Bullcrap.

 

With requests for re-examination, court delays, appeals, so called but phony work-arounds the THIEF can delay justice for a decade or more.

 

There is NO WAY that a small company or individual with stolen IP can fight a THIEF. Our system is designed to protect the BIG THIEVES with deep pockets.

 

To call a company that has won a court case against a BIG THIEF a troll is not only puerile but is also dead wrong.

post #39 of 42
Originally Posted by ecs View Post
Shame, Apple, shame. I really wish someday software patents will be called invalid. I'm not a leftist at all, but software patents are one of the most unfair things in the tech land. Period.

 

That makes zero sense.

 

What I think you actually want is for a legal clarification to be issued that reaffirms the scope of patents. You want patents to only cover an implementation of an idea, and not the idea itself: correct? That seems right.

 

Originally Posted by ihor43us View Post

To call a company that has won a court case against a BIG THIEF a troll is not only puerile but is also dead wrong.

 

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, so please stop talking about it until you do. It really sounds like you or a loved one own one of these patents…


Edited by Tallest Skil - 8/29/13 at 9:25am

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihor43us View Post

you whine about small companies being victimized. Bullcrap.

Ever use an all-in-one fax machine/scanner to email a document? Make sure you send these guys $1000 for each one of the folks at your workplace. Thief!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/08174721543/patent-troll-shell-companies-shake-down-small-businesses-1k-per-employee-using-network-scanner.shtml

Ever send out an email and request a read-receipt? Thief!
https://trollingeffects.org/demand/rpost-2013-07-05

Do you or your company use a LAN system? Thief!
https://trollingeffects.org/demand/rpost-2013-07-05

So "patent trolls" are a myth? I don't think so.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/29/13 at 9:35am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Patent 'trolls' hit Apple with 171 lawsuits in last 5 years