Now if any here believe SGI had significant valuation in their Patent IP Portfolio, please explain the lack of interest by third parties to purchase it to insulate themselves from it.
Really? You don't consider $324 M to be of significant value?
Furthermore, market cap is not a reasonable estimate of market value of the technology. For example, most estimates put the value of Kodak's IP at $2-3 B, but their market cap is only $88 M (or about 1/4 of SGI's).
I really hate when people who don't understand patents scream 'patent troll' all the time.
First, SGI isn't a patent troll even by the broadest definition. They made a business out of the use of computers for graphics, so they have a right to obtain value from their inventions.
In addition, the term has no meaning except to people who don't understand the concept of intellectual property. If I buy a patent, I buy all the rights granted by that patent, including the right to sue. It's no different than if I own a factory. I can use it to produce something or rent it to someone else (or even sell it). The fact that I am not using it to produce goods doesn't give you the right to move in and start using it.
Do you understand how patents work? SGI will have made some specific claims on a particular method for turning images and text into pixels. If the patent is valid and Apple is using the process described in the claims, they are infringing. Apple will, of course, have the right to use 'prior art' to try to invalidate the patent. In any event, it will never come down to something as trivial as 'turning images and text into pixels'. Patents have very specific claims and without knowing the claims, you have no way of knowing if Apple is infringing or not.
Not to mention, of course, that TVs and computers operate by very different processes, anyway.
Not much of one.
Actually, in this case the definition used by many companies, a patent troll are companies who in themselves have not real assets or products, therefore, the only way they make money is by trolling around and forcing companies to license their IP in fear they will be sued or come after companies after the fact and sue them.
In this case, when SGI was a real company, yeah they may have gone after Apple and others. In most IP disputes a company like Apple if they believe SGI had a in rights to SGI IP. Or Apple could turn around and sue them since Apple obviously has lots of IP around graphics and how it is displayed on a screen. Most companies generally will not sue one another since each company could have their own war chest of IP as well as they risk their own products infringe on IP which they could be forced to license or stop making. Most companies will not risk this.
However, IP only companies can sue at will with not risk of reprisal, since it very hard to sue a IP company since they make no products.
In the case of SGI, they sold of or transfer the IP to a none product company who are only investors in the IP so by definition they are trolls they bring no value to the table other than trying to extort money from product making companies.
BTY, the history behind SGI it was made up lots of engineering from Apple, Sun and HP at the time. Arguable they may be more of gatherers than inventors of their technology.
Back to my point at one time SGI was a good company with lots of very smart people which lost its way.
I am an AAPL shareholder and an Apple fan for nearly 34 years...
That said, I do not agree with everything Apple does (or has done) and that the sun shined out of the butt of Steve Jobs and now Tim Cook... or any executive.
But, dealing with existing patents is a complicated process..
1) Apple could have been unaware of an existing patent or that [potentially] Apple's technology infringes that patent.
2) Apple could have been aware of the existing patent and believes that Apple's technology does not infringe that patent.
3) The patent is unclear (or Apple believes it is invalid) and Apple wants to test it the validity -- going to court and settling, if necessary,
4) Apple is aware of the patent, believes it is valid, believes that Apple's technology infringes and decides to go ahead anyway -- thinking that they will not get caught or not have to pay a significant enough penalty to not go forward.
The last, 4) is apparently what Google decided to do with Java.
I do not believe Apple would do 4) as there is little advantage.
For cases 1), 2), 3), I believe that Apple well could have decided to go forward with Apple's technology -- going forward, likely, is the most efficient way to proceed, let the patent owner identify potential infringement, test it in court and settle, if necessary.
When I worked at IBM, there was the general consensus that IBM had all these high-paid legal minds on the payroll -- might as well put them to use, and at the same time update their current knowledge and hone their legal skills.
eBay has become a virtual goldmine for SGI and SUN machines. I bought a SGI Tezro last year for 1200 EUR loaded. Anyone interested in 3D work should really pick one up. I know there are much faster machines that you can put together nowadays but they will also cost you more then 6,000.
You can pick an entire rack-mounts filled to the gill with multi processor MIPS goodness and it will cost less then a fully equipped iMac. Goldmine I tell you, goldmine.
Comments
Now if any here believe SGI had significant valuation in their Patent IP Portfolio, please explain the lack of interest by third parties to purchase it to insulate themselves from it.
FWIW: http://www.google.com/finance?q=SGI
Present Market Cap Value: $324.02 Million.
In short, they do not have significant IP left.
Really? You don't consider $324 M to be of significant value?
Furthermore, market cap is not a reasonable estimate of market value of the technology. For example, most estimates put the value of Kodak's IP at $2-3 B, but their market cap is only $88 M (or about 1/4 of SGI's).
I really hate when people who don't understand patents scream 'patent troll' all the time.
First, SGI isn't a patent troll even by the broadest definition. They made a business out of the use of computers for graphics, so they have a right to obtain value from their inventions.
In addition, the term has no meaning except to people who don't understand the concept of intellectual property. If I buy a patent, I buy all the rights granted by that patent, including the right to sue. It's no different than if I own a factory. I can use it to produce something or rent it to someone else (or even sell it). The fact that I am not using it to produce goods doesn't give you the right to move in and start using it.
Do you understand how patents work? SGI will have made some specific claims on a particular method for turning images and text into pixels. If the patent is valid and Apple is using the process described in the claims, they are infringing. Apple will, of course, have the right to use 'prior art' to try to invalidate the patent. In any event, it will never come down to something as trivial as 'turning images and text into pixels'. Patents have very specific claims and without knowing the claims, you have no way of knowing if Apple is infringing or not.
Not to mention, of course, that TVs and computers operate by very different processes, anyway.
Not much of one.
Actually, in this case the definition used by many companies, a patent troll are companies who in themselves have not real assets or products, therefore, the only way they make money is by trolling around and forcing companies to license their IP in fear they will be sued or come after companies after the fact and sue them.
In this case, when SGI was a real company, yeah they may have gone after Apple and others. In most IP disputes a company like Apple if they believe SGI had a in rights to SGI IP. Or Apple could turn around and sue them since Apple obviously has lots of IP around graphics and how it is displayed on a screen. Most companies generally will not sue one another since each company could have their own war chest of IP as well as they risk their own products infringe on IP which they could be forced to license or stop making. Most companies will not risk this.
However, IP only companies can sue at will with not risk of reprisal, since it very hard to sue a IP company since they make no products.
In the case of SGI, they sold of or transfer the IP to a none product company who are only investors in the IP so by definition they are trolls they bring no value to the table other than trying to extort money from product making companies.
BTY, the history behind SGI it was made up lots of engineering from Apple, Sun and HP at the time. Arguable they may be more of gatherers than inventors of their technology.
Back to my point at one time SGI was a good company with lots of very smart people which lost its way.
I am an AAPL shareholder and an Apple fan for nearly 34 years...
That said, I do not agree with everything Apple does (or has done) and that the sun shined out of the butt of Steve Jobs and now Tim Cook... or any executive.
But, dealing with existing patents is a complicated process..
1) Apple could have been unaware of an existing patent or that [potentially] Apple's technology infringes that patent.
2) Apple could have been aware of the existing patent and believes that Apple's technology does not infringe that patent.
3) The patent is unclear (or Apple believes it is invalid) and Apple wants to test it the validity -- going to court and settling, if necessary,
4) Apple is aware of the patent, believes it is valid, believes that Apple's technology infringes and decides to go ahead anyway -- thinking that they will not get caught or not have to pay a significant enough penalty to not go forward.
The last, 4) is apparently what Google decided to do with Java.
I do not believe Apple would do 4) as there is little advantage.
For cases 1), 2), 3), I believe that Apple well could have decided to go forward with Apple's technology -- going forward, likely, is the most efficient way to proceed, let the patent owner identify potential infringement, test it in court and settle, if necessary.
When I worked at IBM, there was the general consensus that IBM had all these high-paid legal minds on the payroll -- might as well put them to use, and at the same time update their current knowledge and hone their legal skills.
Some of that may be happening here,
But when you don't have a choice, you've got to go for it, and when you go for it, you have to go all out for it. "
You can pick an entire rack-mounts filled to the gill with multi processor MIPS goodness and it will cost less then a fully equipped iMac. Goldmine I tell you, goldmine.
So they waited to sue everyone until Apple hit 600$??? Patent troll, period.
Why would the stock price entice them to sue? I would have thought the huge bank balance would have been a better target
So? Unless you can prove that the patent transfer was fraudulent, the new SGI has the same rights to enforce the patents as the old SGI.
This may be just a re-filing of the earlier suit with updated corporate identity to meet some legal necessity.