The other side is that every this is how all universities commercialize their research. Sorry but no matter how convenient it would be, the problem isn't the trolls - the problem is the patents. The solution will lie in patent reform, not in trying to treat one set of patent owning entities differently from another.
Here is a good blog post that reinforces the point that software patents are the problem:
EDIT: Looks like you have to scroll down a bit to get to: "Why Software Patents are a Terrible Idea -or- Why you shouldn't be allowed to patent a better virtual mouse trap."
If Apple raises any litigation against the core validity of any of Lodsys's patents, then there's a good chance that they'll be violating the agreement under which they were granted a license to Lodsys's patents in the first place -- and so they would be throwing away any protection that would have come from having the license. (See, for example, the reciprocal agreement developers have to enter into to gain access to Google's patent license for WebM.)
So if they attempted to invalidate the patent first, then they probably would lose the ability to attempt to extract any value from their existing license.
On the other hand, if they start out by trying to extract value from the license and fail, then they can determine that the license is worthless, and they will still have the liberty to switch to a strategy of invalidating the patent later.
It's a no brainer really: Don't burn your bridges until you're absolutely certain that those bridges don't lead anywhere you might want to go.
I disagree. They don't make the components, they don't asseble the phone, and they don't put it in any packaging. From the raw materieals coming out of the ground and turning into a product in a box ready to be sold, Apple don't touch it at all.
They did however design it and have all the rights to it. Hence no Apple product has made by Apple written on it, just "Designed by Apple in California". So if the argument is to say Patents arn't valid unless you produce something and that something can't be someone else implementing the idea into another product you have to end up with a very complicated defenition of what producing something actually means.
I stand by what I said. By every definition in business Apple is the maker of the iPhone. And what they do isn't analogous to what (non)-Intellectual Ventures does. Or Lodsys for that matter.
Comments
The other side is that every this is how all universities commercialize their research. Sorry but no matter how convenient it would be, the problem isn't the trolls - the problem is the patents. The solution will lie in patent reform, not in trying to treat one set of patent owning entities differently from another.
Here is a good blog post that reinforces the point that software patents are the problem:
http://appupdate.com/blog.html
EDIT: Looks like you have to scroll down a bit to get to: "Why Software Patents are a Terrible Idea -or- Why you shouldn't be allowed to patent a better virtual mouse trap."
Not sure that is correct. How about patent number 74786780 that was granted in 2010?
A quick search of the US Patent office website doesn't return any results for a granted patent number 74786780. Perhaps a typo on your part?
- Helping to build a prior art database
- Attempting to get the patent invalidated
- Supporting Developers legal fees
There's 3 options for startersIf Apple raises any litigation against the core validity of any of Lodsys's patents, then there's a good chance that they'll be violating the agreement under which they were granted a license to Lodsys's patents in the first place -- and so they would be throwing away any protection that would have come from having the license. (See, for example, the reciprocal agreement developers have to enter into to gain access to Google's patent license for WebM.)
So if they attempted to invalidate the patent first, then they probably would lose the ability to attempt to extract any value from their existing license.
On the other hand, if they start out by trying to extract value from the license and fail, then they can determine that the license is worthless, and they will still have the liberty to switch to a strategy of invalidating the patent later.
It's a no brainer really: Don't burn your bridges until you're absolutely certain that those bridges don't lead anywhere you might want to go.
I disagree. They don't make the components, they don't asseble the phone, and they don't put it in any packaging. From the raw materieals coming out of the ground and turning into a product in a box ready to be sold, Apple don't touch it at all.
They did however design it and have all the rights to it. Hence no Apple product has made by Apple written on it, just "Designed by Apple in California". So if the argument is to say Patents arn't valid unless you produce something and that something can't be someone else implementing the idea into another product you have to end up with a very complicated defenition of what producing something actually means.
I stand by what I said. By every definition in business Apple is the maker of the iPhone. And what they do isn't analogous to what (non)-Intellectual Ventures does. Or Lodsys for that matter.