Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.
This explains my post a lot better, with far fewer words and more understanding of the situation. Well said.
What I was trying to get at in more depth was that the system is broken in that there seem to be too many companies wielding too many patents that are basically the same technologies just worded differently and then granted as a patent. I mean how many different technologies can exist in how a cell phone utilizes a 3G radio? Thousands? Across multiple companies? How can anyone innovate in that environment? How can anyone even want to innovate in that environment?
Patents are property. Just like a car or a home or an ingot of gold. If I own property, I am legally able to do whatever I want with it. Sell it, license it, or sit on it. Your attempts to dictate how I can use and/or benefit from my property are absurd and unreasonable.
What if you use your property to troll with? Is that OK?
Nokia did the same thing recently mostly likely learning from its encounter with Apple. After Nokia settled with Apple, it licensed over two thousand patents to another patent licensing firm, Mosaid. Nobody can counter sue Mosaid because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Nokia will get the benefit of somebody aggressively defending its patents.
"(Google) did the same thing recently (2007) mostly likely learning from its encounter (sitting on the Board) with Apple. After Google (set up) Apple, it (freely) licensed ( a hijacked Java-based OS) to licensing OEMs. Nobody can counter sue Google because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Google will get the benefit of somebody ( HC, Samsung, Motorola...) aggressively defending (by proxy) its (fouly acquired and exploited cheap advertising platform)."
...how about them moral compasses...
In the end, there is only one proof of intent: overall consumer satisfaction with the products and services; there lies the real moral battleground. Through the roof, up in the Cloud, above gutter politics as far as Apple is concerned...
It's like any other investment. Someone can buy real estate with the belief that the value might be higher in the future - and they can develop it then.
Or someone can buy gold with the hopes that the gold will increase in value.
The same thing is true of patents. There is nothing illegal (or even morally wrong) with buying a patent as an investment - just like any other property that you could buy.
Your suggestion that the government should tell you what you can do with your property is far, far more wrong than the behavior you're trying to fix. If I want to buy a patent and sit on it for 5 years (or 10 or more), that's my right. It's my property. What gives you the right to try to negate my property rights?
You're making blanket statements about property that don't really exist. There is no "you own it I can do what I want with it" rule. In regards to owning a digital real estate, or cybersquatting, I can buy some generic name like porn or search hoping one day that someone will make a huge offer, but I can't buy iPad3 or Windows9 without running into some legal issues.
You can get upset by the term patent troll but the term is descriptive and much shorter than writing non-practicing patent holding company or patent investment firm. It's a simple term that describes exactly what they do and implies nothing illegal which is noted by licensing deals among companies and lawsuits they file in a court of law.
I think either of these two would define a patent troll in the view of most. The first one is Wikipedia's definition:
A Patent Troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered (by the party using the term) unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
or perhaps this one:
A person, company, or entity that uses acquired patents in order to use overly aggressive legal actions in hopes of preventing competing firms from entering the market. The company will often use older patents that are nearly outdated or have generic wording in order to pursue patent infringement on ideas that are at best moderately related.
The fact that you assume to know my worldview shows that you probably cannot be reasoned with.
The fact that you are supporting ANY company's move that feeds a patent troll is pathetic.
Apple may not be stifling innovation but patent trolls are damn near as a mission statement.
Your posts on here demonstrate your world view with very little assumption on my part.
There is nothing illegal about a company 'feeding' a patent troll. Assigning a human emotion to a corporation's actions is extremely naive. Companies aren't people and don't behave as such. They are in business for their own good, and must protect their interests.
How exactly do so called 'patent trolls' stifle innovation? If a company is bringing innovative products to market, that product falls into the realm of being attacked if it's design or features infringe on other's intellectual property, regardless of who owns the patent on the idea. Whether it's Motorola or Joe's Patent Garage, the owner of the IP is deserving of compensation.
Look at patents the same as song royalties. Sir Paul McCartney didn't write Buddy Holly's songs, but he owns the rights to them. Therefor he collects the royalties when Holly's songs are played. The same goes for patents. A patent owner can do whatever he likes with the patent, including give it to a non-manufacturing entity. It is up to whomever holds the patent to defend as aggressively as they choose.
As such they can be sold, traded or licensed as the owner sees fit.
As to Apples involvement here, I'm not sure why people see this as a bad thing. Apparently this outfit owns some solid patents. By Becoming a partner Apple avoids the legal hassles of yet another court case, a case that they apparently would loose and actually gets to benefit from the patents owned by this firm.
Beyond that Apple also benefits by tying up the competition in court and bleeding off profits from those companies that it competes with. It allows Apple a way to attack corporate thieves like Google with a set of patents hey don't own directly. It is all part of going nuclear to rid the planet of Android.
In the end this is exactly what the patent system is for, it allows you to profit from your inventions for a fixed period of time and also forces the competition to innovate in a competitive way. The target is Google and frankly the attack is highly justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Forget the Apple involvement for a second. How the hell is this shit even legal period?
As such they can be sold, traded or licensed as the owner sees fit.
As to Apples involvement here, I'm not sure why people see this as a bad thing. Apparently this outfit owns some solid patents. By Becoming a partner Apple avoids the legal hassles of yet another court case, a case that they apparently would loose and actually gets to benefit from the patents owned by this firm.
Beyond that Apple also benefits by tying up the competition in court and bleeding off profits from those companies that it competes with. It allows Apple a way to attack corporate thieves like Google with a set of patents hey don't own directly. It is all part of going nuclear to rid the planet of Android.
In the end this is exactly what the patent system is for, it allows you to profit from your inventions for a fixed period of time and also forces the competition to innovate in a competitive way. The target is Google and frankly the attack is highly justified.
Apple is doing nothing here but protecting itself and finding legal avenues to deal with Googles theft of their technology. That is in a nut shell what is going on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
Apple is in cahoots with the Patent Trolls, aiding and abetting - no, worse than that, enabling - the horrible situation that they wreak upon businesses and consumers alike.
this is complete garbage. The situation is basically the opposite of what you claim. It is good for business, especially smaller businesses because it reinforces the value of patents. It is very good for consumers because it stops the complete ripoff of ideas. Often ripoffs of very poor quality. It also forces real innovation instead of coping the Google is so fond of.
Quote:
Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable,
The whole point of patents is to be able to profit from your patents/inventions. I'm not sure why people are so ignorant with respect to this issue.
Quote:
it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit.
Profit is good! However I think the bigger goal here is to bury Google, if the issue was only profit Apple could have taken other avenues.
Quote:
Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.
You need to grow up. This is all about Apple protecting itself and doing as much harm to the ripoff competition as possible. That is business boy. There is no middle ground in business you either play to win or get left behind.
This company sounds like good idea, rather than being a patent troll it's a repository of pooled IP with a single source for a license instead of having to negotiate and license with multiple IP holders.
This company sounds like good idea, rather than being a patent troll it's a repository of pooled IP with a single source for a license instead of having to negotiate and license with multiple IP holders.
Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.
On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?
Do yourself a favor and filter them out in your own options/prefs. Signatures are a throw back to when VBulletin was first starting out. They've always been areas for filling up web pages full of useless crap.
One of the main Apple memes has always been "us against them". Apple has consistently reinforced that mindset with its advertising slogans, including "the rest of us".
Us against them.
Not only that, but because Apple has traditionally been, until recently, a struggling company with few buyers, Apple fans could think of themselves as the underdogs, struggling, fighting the good fight, etc.
It is very hard for the people who grew up on the prior fiction to now accept that Apple is one of them. Apple is a huge multinational corporation that practices every sleazy move that big corporations proactice. They ain't your daddy's Apple, but the religious faithful try to pretend that they are still the scrappy little company fighting for what is good and right against a sea of conformity to corporate gods.
Apple is now their corporate God, but they can't quite reconcile that with their outmoded viewpoint that Apple stands for everything good and right and tasteful.
Sad. Very sad.
It ain't Steve and Woz bringing Apple goodness to us so we won't have to be conformists. It is suits and bean counters, and especially, lately, lawyers who define what Apple is. Apple is a huge conglomerate interested in only one thing: Money. And they don't give two shits what kind of sleazy tactics they might use to get it.
What's sad is that you believe what you just typed.
So, according to you, because Apple is big and successful they should now be hated and not admired?
Following your philosophy, you should hate any company that has become a big, international success: HP, Google, Sony, Samsung...did I miss anyone? By your philosophy, this patent holding company is an underdog, deserving of praise and worship, by your philosophy.
The fact is, Apple was successful and dominant a long time ago with the Apple II, before the IBM PC and HP clones running DOS finally beat Apple's market share in personal computers. Apple hasn't been an underdog since the iPod made Apple culturally relevant again. Your commentary on Apple is based on a distorted view of the company, and its competitors.
So, according to you, because Apple is big and successful they should now be hated and not admired?
Following your philosophy, you should hate any company that has become a big, international success: HP, Google, Sony, Samsung...did I miss anyone? By your philosophy, this patent holding company is an underdog, deserving of praise and worship, by your philosophy.
Mmmmnnnnn...no. I don't seem to agree with any of that. Thanks for trying, though.
I don't think AD likes anything Apple does, such as be open for business...
Yes...of course...you've figured me out...
Me being against any company that supports an entity that is ultimately bad for innovation as their sole purpose is generating income as opposed to protecting IP is the same as me wanting Apple dead and gone.
This is great..sue all the cloners out of existence. Maybe Samesung, HTCloner, etcloner... should innovate for a change and not just copy everything Apple does?
Comments
Yes, except your description has nothing to do with patent trolls. It describes an idealistic world that doesn't exist. In the real world, what often happens is a company or individual buys a patent with no desire to develop or market an idea. Instead, the company plans to take advantage of the sheer size and intentional vagueness of an essentially broken patent system. The hope is a company will someday develop a real product that arguably uses the patented idea. When the company is successful and making money, the patent owning company will crawl out from the wood work and demand to be paid under threat of the successful product being killed.
This explains my post a lot better, with far fewer words and more understanding of the situation. Well said.
What I was trying to get at in more depth was that the system is broken in that there seem to be too many companies wielding too many patents that are basically the same technologies just worded differently and then granted as a patent. I mean how many different technologies can exist in how a cell phone utilizes a 3G radio? Thousands? Across multiple companies? How can anyone innovate in that environment? How can anyone even want to innovate in that environment?
Patents are property. Just like a car or a home or an ingot of gold. If I own property, I am legally able to do whatever I want with it. Sell it, license it, or sit on it. Your attempts to dictate how I can use and/or benefit from my property are absurd and unreasonable.
What if you use your property to troll with? Is that OK?
Nokia did the same thing recently mostly likely learning from its encounter with Apple. After Nokia settled with Apple, it licensed over two thousand patents to another patent licensing firm, Mosaid. Nobody can counter sue Mosaid because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Nokia will get the benefit of somebody aggressively defending its patents.
"(Google) did the same thing recently (2007) mostly likely learning from its encounter (sitting on the Board) with Apple. After Google (set up) Apple, it (freely) licensed ( a hijacked Java-based OS) to licensing OEMs. Nobody can counter sue Google because it doesn't manufacture products. Yet, Google will get the benefit of somebody ( HC, Samsung, Motorola...) aggressively defending (by proxy) its (fouly acquired and exploited cheap advertising platform)."
...how about them moral compasses...
In the end, there is only one proof of intent: overall consumer satisfaction with the products and services; there lies the real moral battleground. Through the roof, up in the Cloud, above gutter politics as far as Apple is concerned...
That is total nonsense.
It's like any other investment. Someone can buy real estate with the belief that the value might be higher in the future - and they can develop it then.
Or someone can buy gold with the hopes that the gold will increase in value.
The same thing is true of patents. There is nothing illegal (or even morally wrong) with buying a patent as an investment - just like any other property that you could buy.
Your suggestion that the government should tell you what you can do with your property is far, far more wrong than the behavior you're trying to fix. If I want to buy a patent and sit on it for 5 years (or 10 or more), that's my right. It's my property. What gives you the right to try to negate my property rights?
You're making blanket statements about property that don't really exist. There is no "you own it I can do what I want with it" rule. In regards to owning a digital real estate, or cybersquatting, I can buy some generic name like porn or search hoping one day that someone will make a huge offer, but I can't buy iPad3 or Windows9 without running into some legal issues.
You can get upset by the term patent troll but the term is descriptive and much shorter than writing non-practicing patent holding company or patent investment firm. It's a simple term that describes exactly what they do and implies nothing illegal which is noted by licensing deals among companies and lawsuits they file in a court of law.
No, you don't.
Yes I be.
(Is poor syntax the game?)
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
I think either of these two would define a patent troll in the view of most. The first one is Wikipedia's definition:
A Patent Troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered (by the party using the term) unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
or perhaps this one:
A person, company, or entity that uses acquired patents in order to use overly aggressive legal actions in hopes of preventing competing firms from entering the market. The company will often use older patents that are nearly outdated or have generic wording in order to pursue patent infringement on ideas that are at best moderately related.
The fact that you assume to know my worldview shows that you probably cannot be reasoned with.
The fact that you are supporting ANY company's move that feeds a patent troll is pathetic.
Apple may not be stifling innovation but patent trolls are damn near as a mission statement.
Your posts on here demonstrate your world view with very little assumption on my part.
There is nothing illegal about a company 'feeding' a patent troll. Assigning a human emotion to a corporation's actions is extremely naive. Companies aren't people and don't behave as such. They are in business for their own good, and must protect their interests.
How exactly do so called 'patent trolls' stifle innovation? If a company is bringing innovative products to market, that product falls into the realm of being attacked if it's design or features infringe on other's intellectual property, regardless of who owns the patent on the idea. Whether it's Motorola or Joe's Patent Garage, the owner of the IP is deserving of compensation.
Look at patents the same as song royalties. Sir Paul McCartney didn't write Buddy Holly's songs, but he owns the rights to them. Therefor he collects the royalties when Holly's songs are played. The same goes for patents. A patent owner can do whatever he likes with the patent, including give it to a non-manufacturing entity. It is up to whomever holds the patent to defend as aggressively as they choose.
As to Apples involvement here, I'm not sure why people see this as a bad thing. Apparently this outfit owns some solid patents. By Becoming a partner Apple avoids the legal hassles of yet another court case, a case that they apparently would loose and actually gets to benefit from the patents owned by this firm.
Beyond that Apple also benefits by tying up the competition in court and bleeding off profits from those companies that it competes with. It allows Apple a way to attack corporate thieves like Google with a set of patents hey don't own directly. It is all part of going nuclear to rid the planet of Android.
In the end this is exactly what the patent system is for, it allows you to profit from your inventions for a fixed period of time and also forces the competition to innovate in a competitive way. The target is Google and frankly the attack is highly justified.
Forget the Apple involvement for a second. How the hell is this shit even legal period?
As such they can be sold, traded or licensed as the owner sees fit.
As to Apples involvement here, I'm not sure why people see this as a bad thing. Apparently this outfit owns some solid patents. By Becoming a partner Apple avoids the legal hassles of yet another court case, a case that they apparently would loose and actually gets to benefit from the patents owned by this firm.
Beyond that Apple also benefits by tying up the competition in court and bleeding off profits from those companies that it competes with. It allows Apple a way to attack corporate thieves like Google with a set of patents hey don't own directly. It is all part of going nuclear to rid the planet of Android.
In the end this is exactly what the patent system is for, it allows you to profit from your inventions for a fixed period of time and also forces the competition to innovate in a competitive way. The target is Google and frankly the attack is highly justified.
He doesn't like it because Apple is doing it.
Apple is doing nothing here but protecting itself and finding legal avenues to deal with Googles theft of their technology. That is in a nut shell what is going on here.
Apple is in cahoots with the Patent Trolls, aiding and abetting - no, worse than that, enabling - the horrible situation that they wreak upon businesses and consumers alike.
this is complete garbage. The situation is basically the opposite of what you claim. It is good for business, especially smaller businesses because it reinforces the value of patents. It is very good for consumers because it stops the complete ripoff of ideas. Often ripoffs of very poor quality. It also forces real innovation instead of coping the Google is so fond of.
Indeed, while Apple profits from this conduct, which is in itself questionable,
The whole point of patents is to be able to profit from your patents/inventions. I'm not sure why people are so ignorant with respect to this issue.
it would seem that Apple's very motivation for this conduct is nothing but profit.
Profit is good! However I think the bigger goal here is to bury Google, if the issue was only profit Apple could have taken other avenues.
Filthy lucre. Mercenary reasons. That makes it all the worse.
You need to grow up. This is all about Apple protecting itself and doing as much harm to the ripoff competition as possible. That is business boy. There is no middle ground in business you either play to win or get left behind.
It's like a private version of a standards body.
A one stop shop.
This company sounds like good idea, rather than being a patent troll it's a repository of pooled IP with a single source for a license instead of having to negotiate and license with multiple IP holders.
It's like a private version of a standards body.
A one stop shop.
That's a good way to put it.
He doesn't like it because Apple is doing it.
I don't think AD likes anything Apple does, such as be open for business...
Yeah, I know. That's why I was fairly mild in my complaint about it.
On the other hand, except for Conrad Joe and a few others, we are all smart people here. Is it not obvious that "fighting back" against long obnoxious sigs by making a long obnoxious sig is a kind of a problematic stance to take? Anyone else see the giant hole in the logic of that?
Do yourself a favor and filter them out in your own options/prefs. Signatures are a throw back to when VBulletin was first starting out. They've always been areas for filling up web pages full of useless crap.
One of the main Apple memes has always been "us against them". Apple has consistently reinforced that mindset with its advertising slogans, including "the rest of us".
Us against them.
Not only that, but because Apple has traditionally been, until recently, a struggling company with few buyers, Apple fans could think of themselves as the underdogs, struggling, fighting the good fight, etc.
It is very hard for the people who grew up on the prior fiction to now accept that Apple is one of them. Apple is a huge multinational corporation that practices every sleazy move that big corporations proactice. They ain't your daddy's Apple, but the religious faithful try to pretend that they are still the scrappy little company fighting for what is good and right against a sea of conformity to corporate gods.
Apple is now their corporate God, but they can't quite reconcile that with their outmoded viewpoint that Apple stands for everything good and right and tasteful.
Sad. Very sad.
It ain't Steve and Woz bringing Apple goodness to us so we won't have to be conformists. It is suits and bean counters, and especially, lately, lawyers who define what Apple is. Apple is a huge conglomerate interested in only one thing: Money. And they don't give two shits what kind of sleazy tactics they might use to get it.
What's sad is that you believe what you just typed.
So, according to you, because Apple is big and successful they should now be hated and not admired?
Following your philosophy, you should hate any company that has become a big, international success: HP, Google, Sony, Samsung...did I miss anyone? By your philosophy, this patent holding company is an underdog, deserving of praise and worship, by your philosophy.
The fact is, Apple was successful and dominant a long time ago with the Apple II, before the IBM PC and HP clones running DOS finally beat Apple's market share in personal computers. Apple hasn't been an underdog since the iPod made Apple culturally relevant again. Your commentary on Apple is based on a distorted view of the company, and its competitors.
So, according to you, because Apple is big and successful they should now be hated and not admired?
Following your philosophy, you should hate any company that has become a big, international success: HP, Google, Sony, Samsung...did I miss anyone? By your philosophy, this patent holding company is an underdog, deserving of praise and worship, by your philosophy.
Mmmmnnnnn...no. I don't seem to agree with any of that. Thanks for trying, though.
I don't think AD likes anything Apple does, such as be open for business...
Yes...of course...you've figured me out...
Me being against any company that supports an entity that is ultimately bad for innovation as their sole purpose is generating income as opposed to protecting IP is the same as me wanting Apple dead and gone.
(removed for kindness)
I don't think AD likes anything Apple does, ...