One has to wonder how someone can claim damages when they never actually commercialized an implementation nor are demonstrating the will to license the IP, following that it would also be interesting to understand why a ban would be required when the supposedly infringing components are not implemented on the phones.
Universities rarely commercialize IP. And at least in the US, you can't be forced to license non SEP patents, the issue that started the whole 'defacto standard' bs the other week
Since Nuance licensed the technology to Apple, and Dragon Naturally Speaking (in various forms and owners) has been around since 1982, where does that leave the patent in question? That is a lot of code and implementation to go through.
Universities rarely commercialize IP. And at least in the US, you can't be forced to license non SEP patents, the issue that started the whole 'defacto standard' bs the other week
Congratulations for missing the point!
The question here is: what damage? If you aren't willing to license (as demonstrated by the injunction demand) nor do you have an implementation, you have 0 damage to claim.
Because they are obvious patent trolls that know nothing.
Unfortunately for them, that's not even the case. Patent trolls sue for licensing fees, not for injunctions. By suing for an injunction without an implementation you are essentially throwing your claim out of the window because without the willingness to license or an existing implementation in the market you can't claim loss of profit (there would never be profit under those conditions even if there was no infringement). The only explanation I see for this particular lawsuit is that they are acting as white knights in an attempt to hit Apple in some way.
A method and system used to determine the similarity between an input speech data and a sample speech data is provided. First, the input speech data is segmented into a plurality of input speech frames and the sample speech data is segmented into a plurality of sample speech frames. Then, the input speech frames ...
And if Apple's technique is different, NCKU loses the suit. The patented method is very specific, and unless Dag Kittlaus and the other original Siri Inc. founders and engineers attended National Cheng Kung University and helped develop NCKU's algorithm, it's extremely unlikely that Siri uses the same method.
Mr. Kittlaus is Norwegian, and at least 44 years old. Highly unlikely that he attended a Taiwanese university, and if he did, he would have been in graduate school roughly 20 years ago. Long before the NCKU speech recognition patent was filed.
It's all about money folks. As long as this country is ruled by money, and we have more lawyers than workers, we will have to deal with this crap. I bet that there are numerous lawyers looking for a job calling all sorts of companies worldwide to ask if they have something that could be used against other large companies (e.g. Apple) to try to make a quick buck. I'll wager that this law suit was initiated by a greedy jobless American lawyer. Next...
Why is it crap? As far as I can tell, the only inconvenience to you as a user is web sites getting you riled up over stories online. Let the courts do their work, let the lawyers do their work.
East Texas is patent troll heaven. Sometimes I wonder if the reason the trolls are so successful is that they slip money under the table to the judges and juries. The trolls know that East Texas gives trolls favorable treatment, so that's where they all go.
I used to think that judges and juries were honest and unbiased, but the sheer number of wins over dubious patents in East Texas makes it pretty obvious someone is getting bribed and bribed repeatedly.
Wonder if any of the judges/juries live beyond their means? Or drive flashy cars they can't afford?
Comments
Universities rarely commercialize IP. And at least in the US, you can't be forced to license non SEP patents, the issue that started the whole 'defacto standard' bs the other week
Since Nuance licensed the technology to Apple, and Dragon Naturally Speaking (in various forms and owners) has been around since 1982, where does that leave the patent in question? That is a lot of code and implementation to go through.
"NCKU claims it has suffered monetary damages"
Step 1: Attract students to university and charge high tuition paid for by parents and government backed loans paid for by taxpayers
Step 2: Let students invent things
Step 3: Hire lawyers to file patents
Step 4: Wait for successful company to actually build a real product that purports to use that patent
Step 5: Hire more lawyers to check potential patent infringement
Step 6: Claim "damages" including above "lawyer fees" by suing successful company
Ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Universities rarely commercialize IP. And at least in the US, you can't be forced to license non SEP patents, the issue that started the whole 'defacto standard' bs the other week
Congratulations for missing the point!
The question here is: what damage? If you aren't willing to license (as demonstrated by the injunction demand) nor do you have an implementation, you have 0 damage to claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Because they are obvious patent trolls that know nothing.
Unfortunately for them, that's not even the case. Patent trolls sue for licensing fees, not for injunctions. By suing for an injunction without an implementation you are essentially throwing your claim out of the window because without the willingness to license or an existing implementation in the market you can't claim loss of profit (there would never be profit under those conditions even if there was no infringement). The only explanation I see for this particular lawsuit is that they are acting as white knights in an attempt to hit Apple in some way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
From the '032 patent abstract:
And if Apple's technique is different, NCKU loses the suit. The patented method is very specific, and unless Dag Kittlaus and the other original Siri Inc. founders and engineers attended National Cheng Kung University and helped develop NCKU's algorithm, it's extremely unlikely that Siri uses the same method.
Mr. Kittlaus is Norwegian, and at least 44 years old. Highly unlikely that he attended a Taiwanese university, and if he did, he would have been in graduate school roughly 20 years ago. Long before the NCKU speech recognition patent was filed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roos24
It's all about money folks. As long as this country is ruled by money, and we have more lawyers than workers, we will have to deal with this crap. I bet that there are numerous lawyers looking for a job calling all sorts of companies worldwide to ask if they have something that could be used against other large companies (e.g. Apple) to try to make a quick buck. I'll wager that this law suit was initiated by a greedy jobless American lawyer. Next...
Why is it crap? As far as I can tell, the only inconvenience to you as a user is web sites getting you riled up over stories online. Let the courts do their work, let the lawyers do their work.
Remember, Apple has had voice recognition on the Mac since 1984. They should sue the day-lights out of these people for being stupid!
East Texas is patent troll heaven. Sometimes I wonder if the reason the trolls are so successful is that they slip money under the table to the judges and juries. The trolls know that East Texas gives trolls favorable treatment, so that's where they all go.
I used to think that judges and juries were honest and unbiased, but the sheer number of wins over dubious patents in East Texas makes it pretty obvious someone is getting bribed and bribed repeatedly.
Wonder if any of the judges/juries live beyond their means? Or drive flashy cars they can't afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerbrent
Remember, Apple has had voice recognition on the Mac since 1984. They should sue the day-lights out of these people for being stupid!
Meh. The street goes both ways, so if the patent is valid, it's valid. If it's not, I'll be much happier.
And I am going to sue my dog for peeing!