I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing. It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand.
Here's the way it works:
- Someone invents something.
- If the USPTO (or foreign equivalent) considers it novel and useful, they can get a patent.
- The patent is subject to challenge - immediately or at a later date
- The patent owner is free to do whatever they want with the patent. They can use it themselves, they can license it, they can sell it, or they can do nothing at all with it and simply prevent others from using the technology. The entire purpose of the patent system is that the inventor has absolute control over whatever they've invented.
- If the inventor doesn't want to own the patent for any reason, they are free to sell it, license it, transfer it, or give it away. The new owner has all the rights of the original owner (see above). The licensee has whatever rights the patent owner gives him.
That's it. There's nothing illegal about licensing a patent that you don't intend to use. That doesn't make you a troll, it just means that you are unable to practice a patent (most often because the cost of getting into the market is so high that there's no way for a small inventor to practice a patent).
So let's drop all the patent troll garbage. A patent owner is free to do whatever they want with their patents and is free to sue infringers. And there is absolutely no requirement (nor should there be) that a patent holder should be making products using the patent.
Just one example. Let's say that someone in a university lab develops a process to make nuclear reactors safer and more efficient. It's easy to implement and safe and reliable. Should the university lose their patent if they can't afford the $20,000,000,000 it costs to build a nuclear reactor or should they be allowed to license the technology to GE, Siemens, et al?
My comment was more targeted towards certain companies that intentionally release something that is a blatant ripoff of another product. I don't think that those companies are any better than the patent trolls.
I think the rip-off companies are worse than the patent trolls because they have foundation to actually invest in product development. Patent trolls are typically just buying up paper. They have no infrastructure. They have no R&D. They have ownership of a method but no chance in ever being able to utilize that method.
2) Lodsys was never simply a patent troll waiting for a product to get profitable before claiming rights. Apple licensed with them early on.
3) Sounds to me that Apple's claim that their developers were covered by the original license may not have been so clear that they were willing to make a deal with Lodsys to safeguard their developers. Is Lodsys still going after Apple in that case? Are they still going after Google? Sounds like strategic and brilliant to me.
4) This isn't the playground. You can partner and sue all at the same time. Just look at Apple and Samsung's situation. Samsung blatantly copied Apple but Apple still still use their components in most of their HW products. That's how the game is played, not by taking your toys and going off to pout.
Then you'd be comfortable with Apple being no better than others (ex. Microsoft), employing the same indirect, back-door tactics to attack competitors? Think Linux. Just making sure I understand where your pride in Apple's move comes from.
I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing. It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand.
They wait for something to inadvertently use their patents (cross their bridge) and then they charge them for it. Sure, it's a pejorative term but it does fit the practice. Is there a better term to use that is as descriptive without sounding negative?
Potentially earning the ire of RIM, LG, Sony, Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, HTC, and Amazon? Very smart.
Yeah, it's not like any of them are currently suing Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
I don't really know. Have you asked Google or Samsung themselves?
Well you're the one who has GalaxyTab in their name, so I don't see how you can criticize Apple for defending itself when it is Google and Samsung that is using dirty tricks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
It sounds like this whole thing means a lot to you personally. Perusing the eradication of any group (be they social, racial, religious or other) sounds unhealthy & you seem to be engaged in some fictitious war.
Probably best if I ignore you from now in as I doubt you can have any kind of sound discussion with that kind of fanaticism.
I find it amusing and entertaining. And I don't seek the physical extermination of Fandroids, so you can relax. I meant that if Android were gone, there would be no point in being a Fandroid anymore.
Then you'd be comfortable with Apple being no better than others (ex. Microsoft), employing the same indirect, back-door tactics to attack competitors? Just making sure I understand where your pride in Apple's move comes from.
Your use of "no better" is pointless. Stop trying to make the business world into some Milton-esque fight for good and evil. There is no altruism. This is a strategic game made for creating profit. It's really not that hard of a concept.
No I don't care is other (ex.[sic] Microsoft) employ the same indirect, back-door tactics because I know they do. Your problem is that you can't see past the brand name. You're stuck in some self-hating tech-hole that only lets you see anything Apple does as evil despite not being able to escape using their products without having to lie to yourself about it later.
These are companies. They make products. They make deals to product IP and allies (e.g.: 3rd—party developers) that will help them make more money in the future. The difference between these companies isn't their goal — it's all the same — but their effectiveness in executing them.
PS: Microsoft makes more from Android-based devices because of deals it struck with vendors over the use of their IP.
Your use of "no better" is pointless. Stop trying to make the business world into some Milton-esque fight for good and evil. There is no altruism. This is a strategic game made for creating profit. It's really not that hard of a concept.
No I don't care is other (ex.[sic] Microsoft) employ the same indirect, back-door tactics because I know they do. Your problem is that you can't see past the brand name. You're stuck in some self-hating tech-hole that only lets you see anything Apple does as evil despite not being able to escape using their products without having to lie to yourself about it later.
These are companies. They make products. They make deals to product IP and allies (e.g.: 3rd—party developers) that will help them make more money in the future. The difference between these companies isn't their goal — it's all the same — but their effectiveness in executing them.
I see so many complaints about evil or sneaky tactics of Apple comtetitors, I wanted to confirm you didn't consider yourself part of the "play fair" group. You're OK with whatever methods companies like Samsung, Motorola, Lodsys or any of them use as long as they pass legal muster then. Business is business and they're all the same in the end.
I'm not passing judgement on at all. As the most prodigious poster here, your opinion matters and I wanted to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding your views.
I guess most of the companies who are suing Apple. They are trying to gang up on Apple.
Who? I recall several lawsuits from several companies reacting to Apple (who is hardly wrong in some cases) but I do not recall a consortium of Apple competitors ganging up on Apple.
They shouldn't have done that, it's disrespectful to the legal system as such.
If you actually read the article you will find that neither AI nor the author of the original article even know what Apple did, so it's more than a bit impetuous of you to try and convict them before even the basic facts are known.
There is not even a factual accusation here for Apple to be found guilty of. Just a lot of innuendo and guesswork. I sure hope if I'm ever on trial for anything that someone like you isn't sitting on the jury.
I think the rip-off companies are worse than the patent trolls because they have foundation to actually invest in product development. Patent trolls are typically just buying up paper. They have no infrastructure. They have no R&D. They have ownership of a method but no chance in ever being able to utilize that method.
Off-topic perhaps, but your signature is really, really, annoying (display not content). Please consider changing it.
Who? I recall several lawsuits from several companies reacting to Apple (who is hardly wrong in some cases) but I do not recall a consortium of Apple competitors ganging up on Apple.
Like all those Android companies working together, like Google handing off patents to HTC, immediately after they bought Motorola, so HTC can sue Apple. Samsung's also suing Apple using FRAND patents.
Who? I recall several lawsuits from several companies reacting to Apple (who is hardly wrong in some cases) but I do not recall a consortium of Apple competitors ganging up on Apple.
I see so many complaints about evil or sneaky tactics of Apple comtetitors, I wanted to confirm you didn't consider yourself part of the "play fair" group. You're OK with whatever methods companies like Samsung, Motorola, Lodsys or any of them use as long as they pass legal muster then. Business is business and they're all the same in the end.
I don't even care about certain legal rules the way you don't care if you drive 5 miles over the speed limit. You are technically breaking the law but you aren't going to turn yourself in and force and officer to give you a ticket for the offense. You take certain risks in all things, you don't blindly follow the law because you're an Asimovian robot.
Companies break, stretch, and contort the law al the time. If they want to go that route then its there choice, though they do have plenty of employees and shareholders to contend with, as well as public image that could cost them a lot more than the gain would ever be so they need to take that into account when attempting to step outside the box.
Why do I feel like I'm having a conversation with a 12yo you just got back from bible camp?
Comments
Here's the way it works:
- Someone invents something.
- If the USPTO (or foreign equivalent) considers it novel and useful, they can get a patent.
- The patent is subject to challenge - immediately or at a later date
- The patent owner is free to do whatever they want with the patent. They can use it themselves, they can license it, they can sell it, or they can do nothing at all with it and simply prevent others from using the technology. The entire purpose of the patent system is that the inventor has absolute control over whatever they've invented.
- If the inventor doesn't want to own the patent for any reason, they are free to sell it, license it, transfer it, or give it away. The new owner has all the rights of the original owner (see above). The licensee has whatever rights the patent owner gives him.
That's it. There's nothing illegal about licensing a patent that you don't intend to use. That doesn't make you a troll, it just means that you are unable to practice a patent (most often because the cost of getting into the market is so high that there's no way for a small inventor to practice a patent).
So let's drop all the patent troll garbage. A patent owner is free to do whatever they want with their patents and is free to sue infringers. And there is absolutely no requirement (nor should there be) that a patent holder should be making products using the patent.
Just one example. Let's say that someone in a university lab develops a process to make nuclear reactors safer and more efficient. It's easy to implement and safe and reliable. Should the university lose their patent if they can't afford the $20,000,000,000 it costs to build a nuclear reactor or should they be allowed to license the technology to GE, Siemens, et al?
I see what you mean.
My comment was more targeted towards certain companies that intentionally release something that is a blatant ripoff of another product. I don't think that those companies are any better than the patent trolls.
I think the rip-off companies are worse than the patent trolls because they have foundation to actually invest in product development. Patent trolls are typically just buying up paper. They have no infrastructure. They have no R&D. They have ownership of a method but no chance in ever being able to utilize that method.
1) This is an absolutely awesome story.
2) Lodsys was never simply a patent troll waiting for a product to get profitable before claiming rights. Apple licensed with them early on.
3) Sounds to me that Apple's claim that their developers were covered by the original license may not have been so clear that they were willing to make a deal with Lodsys to safeguard their developers. Is Lodsys still going after Apple in that case? Are they still going after Google? Sounds like strategic and brilliant to me.
4) This isn't the playground. You can partner and sue all at the same time. Just look at Apple and Samsung's situation. Samsung blatantly copied Apple but Apple still still use their components in most of their HW products. That's how the game is played, not by taking your toys and going off to pout.
Then you'd be comfortable with Apple being no better than others (ex. Microsoft), employing the same indirect, back-door tactics to attack competitors? Think Linux. Just making sure I understand where your pride in Apple's move comes from.
I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing. It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand.
They wait for something to inadvertently use their patents (cross their bridge) and then they charge them for it. Sure, it's a pejorative term but it does fit the practice. Is there a better term to use that is as descriptive without sounding negative?
Potentially earning the ire of RIM, LG, Sony, Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, HTC, and Amazon? Very smart.
Yeah, it's not like any of them are currently suing Apple.
I don't really know. Have you asked Google or Samsung themselves?
Well you're the one who has GalaxyTab in their name, so I don't see how you can criticize Apple for defending itself when it is Google and Samsung that is using dirty tricks.
It sounds like this whole thing means a lot to you personally. Perusing the eradication of any group (be they social, racial, religious or other) sounds unhealthy & you seem to be engaged in some fictitious war.
Probably best if I ignore you from now in as I doubt you can have any kind of sound discussion with that kind of fanaticism.
I find it amusing and entertaining. And I don't seek the physical extermination of Fandroids, so you can relax. I meant that if Android were gone, there would be no point in being a Fandroid anymore.
All bullies are at the core spineless.
Sometimes you have to become a bully in order to out bully the bully.
Then you'd be comfortable with Apple being no better than others (ex. Microsoft), employing the same indirect, back-door tactics to attack competitors? Just making sure I understand where your pride in Apple's move comes from.
Your use of "no better" is pointless. Stop trying to make the business world into some Milton-esque fight for good and evil. There is no altruism. This is a strategic game made for creating profit. It's really not that hard of a concept.
No I don't care is other (ex.[sic] Microsoft) employ the same indirect, back-door tactics because I know they do. Your problem is that you can't see past the brand name. You're stuck in some self-hating tech-hole that only lets you see anything Apple does as evil despite not being able to escape using their products without having to lie to yourself about it later.
These are companies. They make products. They make deals to product IP and allies (e.g.: 3rd—party developers) that will help them make more money in the future. The difference between these companies isn't their goal — it's all the same — but their effectiveness in executing them.
PS: Microsoft makes more from Android-based devices because of deals it struck with vendors over the use of their IP.
Sometimes you have to become a bully in order to out bully the bully.
Who else in the game right now can be considered a bully except Apple?
This "all the facts" policy could also be applied to: Antennagate, Smaung vs Apple patent cases, PSN Network hack e.t.c
Well that last statement certainly tells us where you're coming from.
Back under the bridge with you.
Your use of "no better" is pointless. Stop trying to make the business world into some Milton-esque fight for good and evil. There is no altruism. This is a strategic game made for creating profit. It's really not that hard of a concept.
No I don't care is other (ex.[sic] Microsoft) employ the same indirect, back-door tactics because I know they do. Your problem is that you can't see past the brand name. You're stuck in some self-hating tech-hole that only lets you see anything Apple does as evil despite not being able to escape using their products without having to lie to yourself about it later.
These are companies. They make products. They make deals to product IP and allies (e.g.: 3rd—party developers) that will help them make more money in the future. The difference between these companies isn't their goal — it's all the same — but their effectiveness in executing them.
I see so many complaints about evil or sneaky tactics of Apple comtetitors, I wanted to confirm you didn't consider yourself part of the "play fair" group. You're OK with whatever methods companies like Samsung, Motorola, Lodsys or any of them use as long as they pass legal muster then. Business is business and they're all the same in the end.
I'm not passing judgement on at all. As the most prodigious poster here, your opinion matters and I wanted to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding your views.
Who else in the game right now can be considered a bully except Apple?
I guess most of the companies who are suing Apple. They are trying to gang up on Apple.
Well that last statement certainly tells us where you're coming from.
Back under the bridge with you.
him telling people that waiting for all the facts should be applied to those things is trollish????
what isn't trollish to you?
I guess most of the companies who are suing Apple. They are trying to gang up on Apple.
Who? I recall several lawsuits from several companies reacting to Apple (who is hardly wrong in some cases) but I do not recall a consortium of Apple competitors ganging up on Apple.
They shouldn't have done that, it's disrespectful to the legal system as such.
If you actually read the article you will find that neither AI nor the author of the original article even know what Apple did, so it's more than a bit impetuous of you to try and convict them before even the basic facts are known.
There is not even a factual accusation here for Apple to be found guilty of. Just a lot of innuendo and guesswork. I sure hope if I'm ever on trial for anything that someone like you isn't sitting on the jury.
I think the rip-off companies are worse than the patent trolls because they have foundation to actually invest in product development. Patent trolls are typically just buying up paper. They have no infrastructure. They have no R&D. They have ownership of a method but no chance in ever being able to utilize that method.
Off-topic perhaps, but your signature is really, really, annoying (display not content). Please consider changing it.
Potentially earning the ire of RIM, LG, Sony, Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, HTC, and Amazon?
That has been earned for quite a while, with Apple's technological excellence making everyone else look like idiots.
Who? I recall several lawsuits from several companies reacting to Apple (who is hardly wrong in some cases) but I do not recall a consortium of Apple competitors ganging up on Apple.
Like all those Android companies working together, like Google handing off patents to HTC, immediately after they bought Motorola, so HTC can sue Apple. Samsung's also suing Apple using FRAND patents.
Who? I recall several lawsuits from several companies reacting to Apple (who is hardly wrong in some cases) but I do not recall a consortium of Apple competitors ganging up on Apple.
Who said anything about a 'consortium'?
I see so many complaints about evil or sneaky tactics of Apple comtetitors, I wanted to confirm you didn't consider yourself part of the "play fair" group. You're OK with whatever methods companies like Samsung, Motorola, Lodsys or any of them use as long as they pass legal muster then. Business is business and they're all the same in the end.
I don't even care about certain legal rules the way you don't care if you drive 5 miles over the speed limit. You are technically breaking the law but you aren't going to turn yourself in and force and officer to give you a ticket for the offense. You take certain risks in all things, you don't blindly follow the law because you're an Asimovian robot.
Companies break, stretch, and contort the law al the time. If they want to go that route then its there choice, though they do have plenty of employees and shareholders to contend with, as well as public image that could cost them a lot more than the gain would ever be so they need to take that into account when attempting to step outside the box.
Why do I feel like I'm having a conversation with a 12yo you just got back from bible camp?
Off-topic perhaps, but your signature is really, really, annoying (display not content). Please consider changing it.
In his defense. His sig is a counter reaction to another sig on this forum that is even more annoying.