So you guys are hypocrites then right? So when a small company sues apple for millions for patent infringement everybody says OMG thats messed up but when apple does something screwed up with the patent system everybody lets it go?
These laws exists to help stop patent trolls.
Apple and other Huge companies cant abuse the patent system while small companies cant.
So you guys are hypocrites then right? So when a small company sues apple for millions for patent infringement everybody says OMG thats messed up but when apple does something screwed up with the patent system everybody lets it go?
These laws exists to help stop patent trolls.
Apple and other Huge companies cant abuse the patent system while small companies cant.
So you guys are hypocrites then right? So when a small company sues apple for millions for patent infringement everybody says OMG thats messed up but when apple does something screwed up with the patent system everybody lets it go?
These laws exists to help stop patent trolls.
Apple and other Huge companies cant abuse the patent system while small companies cant.
There is such an enormous difference between suing over infringement on an obscure patent and listing a perfectly valid, applicable patent number that just happens to be expired.
Also, it seems the purpose of the regulation in this case is to prevent misleading the public regarding patent protection or status in order to increase sales of your product and the fines are there to provide a penalty intended to discourage the practice. And what I think most folks are saying here is that there is no evidence of intent to mislead.
Apple is not always in the right - and should be held accountable when they are in the wrong - just as any other company or individual or government etc. But the larger point is that the patent system itself is so convoluted that just as with our legal and political systems - it would seem that increasingly the result is not what is right or just or fair - and far from impartial - but rather whatever the deepest pockets or craftiest lawyers can concoct that wins. (that doesn't seem to be coming out nearly as elegant as the idea I have - to put it a bit simpler - in criminal proceedings for example, where we should have an outcome that is fair and just and right and punishments that are appropriate to the crime etc - instead we have whatever the best deal the lawyers are abel to hash out within a system so convoluted to innocent people go to prison and guilty people walk free).
Listing a patent that has expired as if it still applies is a false patent claim, no? Take a look at recent cases. An expired patent ISN'T a valid patent anymore, btw. Used to be, sure, but now that thing/process/whatever is no longer protected and others can use freely without compensating or crediting the last patentholder.
As to deceiving, I suppose it would have to be shown that the company wasn't performing due diligence to purge expired patent claims from its labeling/marketing processes. Having old product on the shelf, labled with the patents when the were valid, doesn't seem to be deceiving.
I wouldn't think so. Does a patent under that number for that device exist? Yes, even though it is expired. And that expiration just covers whether or not the patent exclusivity is enforceable, wWhich it isn't when it is expired. You could make the counter claim that listing an expired patent is beneficial as when someone wants to look it up it is obvious it is expired and that all the filing documentation is immediately available to use fro new manufacturing without penalty.
Thats absolute BS. 1. How the heck were they harmed in the matter. 2. who cares if it expired 3. I don't even read the manuals little lone read or care about patents. And 3. the yahoos making this allegations are falsely mislead. They target Apple saying they knew what they were doing that they marketed with expired patents. How do these people know that? And does Apple market patents. No. They don't say anything about Patents. Why? Because people care about FaceTime but they don't care if it is patented. The only time I've ever heard Steve Jobs say the word patent was with the iPhone launch "Boy have we patented it" Whoever started this government group is ridiculously mindless. All it is is a bunch of lazy people ho have no aspects in life other than red tape and they sit on their crap computer all day trying to find a slip up. They're like the little Girl Scouts of the government. Make sure everyone does the right thing and all that. Government should be putting money towards notable causes not towards a bunch of little ladies in an office all proper trying to sue somebody because they slipped on the paper work. And what is the government going to do with that Billions of dollars they'd get? Probably go rebuild Iraq or bail out some bank. I was thinking about being a lawyer when I grew up but because of this one thing I don't think I want to be anymore. Cause it's corrupt and it probably will be for a long time if not forever. Ad besides Patents are stupid to begin with but they're there because of the sad brainless, greedy people that live in this world.
I hope Apple doesn't have to pay anything to these idiots or any of the other companies for that matter. If they do I'm sure they wouldn't have to pay $500 per product, they can surely talk it down in court but if they do thats ridiculous. Say they sold 100 million products thats $50B. $50B they could be innovating with or building new stores or facilities but instead they're gonna be paying for some idiot lawyers new Rolls Royce.
Comments
These laws exists to help stop patent trolls.
Apple and other Huge companies cant abuse the patent system while small companies cant.
Indeed. Companies should be allowed to make false patent claims regarding their products without penalty.
Well to be fair the products are still covered by the patents. The patents just happen to have expired, is all.
...so why did you come here, again?
So you guys are hypocrites then right? So when a small company sues apple for millions for patent infringement everybody says OMG thats messed up but when apple does something screwed up with the patent system everybody lets it go?
These laws exists to help stop patent trolls.
Apple and other Huge companies cant abuse the patent system while small companies cant.
So you guys are hypocrites then right? So when a small company sues apple for millions for patent infringement everybody says OMG thats messed up but when apple does something screwed up with the patent system everybody lets it go?
These laws exists to help stop patent trolls.
Apple and other Huge companies cant abuse the patent system while small companies cant.
There is such an enormous difference between suing over infringement on an obscure patent and listing a perfectly valid, applicable patent number that just happens to be expired.
Also, it seems the purpose of the regulation in this case is to prevent misleading the public regarding patent protection or status in order to increase sales of your product and the fines are there to provide a penalty intended to discourage the practice. And what I think most folks are saying here is that there is no evidence of intent to mislead.
Apple is not always in the right - and should be held accountable when they are in the wrong - just as any other company or individual or government etc. But the larger point is that the patent system itself is so convoluted that just as with our legal and political systems - it would seem that increasingly the result is not what is right or just or fair - and far from impartial - but rather whatever the deepest pockets or craftiest lawyers can concoct that wins. (that doesn't seem to be coming out nearly as elegant as the idea I have - to put it a bit simpler - in criminal proceedings for example, where we should have an outcome that is fair and just and right and punishments that are appropriate to the crime etc - instead we have whatever the best deal the lawyers are abel to hash out within a system so convoluted to innocent people go to prison and guilty people walk free).
Well to be fair the products are still covered by the patents. The patents just happen to have expired, is all.
No, they are not. An expired patent is no longer valid. The patent no longer applies and is no longer protected. To be fair.
Listing a patent that has expired as if it still applies is a false patent claim, no? Take a look at recent cases. An expired patent ISN'T a valid patent anymore, btw. Used to be, sure, but now that thing/process/whatever is no longer protected and others can use freely without compensating or crediting the last patentholder.
As to deceiving, I suppose it would have to be shown that the company wasn't performing due diligence to purge expired patent claims from its labeling/marketing processes. Having old product on the shelf, labled with the patents when the were valid, doesn't seem to be deceiving.
I wouldn't think so. Does a patent under that number for that device exist? Yes, even though it is expired. And that expiration just covers whether or not the patent exclusivity is enforceable, wWhich it isn't when it is expired. You could make the counter claim that listing an expired patent is beneficial as when someone wants to look it up it is obvious it is expired and that all the filing documentation is immediately available to use fro new manufacturing without penalty.
I hope Apple doesn't have to pay anything to these idiots or any of the other companies for that matter. If they do I'm sure they wouldn't have to pay $500 per product, they can surely talk it down in court but if they do thats ridiculous. Say they sold 100 million products thats $50B. $50B they could be innovating with or building new stores or facilities but instead they're gonna be paying for some idiot lawyers new Rolls Royce.
I cant find these patents on anything that came with my iPhone 4.
Probably because Apple hardly even includes any reading material in the products the whole allegation is BS