I don't think it is either, not by a long shot, but look at it this way. Say I invent something and claim it's worth a billion dollars. You want to use my invention but don't feel it's worth that much money. Are you then entitiled to use it without my permission because you don't like my price? Samsung did the same thing with Apple's rubber banding patent and it was equally wrong. They didn't like Apple's asking price so they just used it anyway without paying for it. It's wrong when Apple does it and it's wrong when Samsung does it. It's wrong when anyone does it.
As the suit was for a billion I'm sure the inventor's desired settlement was quite high to the point Apple just played it out letting the courts decide. This isn't Apple's first rodeo and they knew this route would result in paying less.
If I invent something new, genuine and useful and patent it, that that patent exists to recognise my contribution and to ensure I'm compensated for its use. Whether or not Apple knew in advance of the patent is irrelevant. Equally irrelevant is for someone else to determine 'fair value' - most of us don't live in a communist society where others get to decide what one should be paid for their contributions. In the capitalist system, the inventor gets to set a price and and a licensee has the must license the invention at the set price or must not use it.
Do I think its worth a billion dollars? Is irrelevant, I can't go into a store and pay what I think is fair for a newspaper, magazine or groceries - I pay the stated price or I leave without the product.
What I am curious about though is when did the inventor of this patent assert his right to the invention. The online articles I've seen state he applied for an injunction in 2007, several years after the iPod was released - did the inventor wait to see how popular the iPod was and then decide is price? We probably will never know but I believe the value of a patent should be determined at the outset, and not be determined by the eventual success of its use in a product.
I'm thinking this was yet another case of someone filing a patent and then sitting on it, never actually building a product or even the prototype. Then they sit back and wait, like a spider guarding his web, for a real company to come up with the same technology and a real product.
Yes. And also note that it has been nearly 10 years since the date Apple allegedly began infringing on this patent. Why no legal action until now? Surely, the "inventor" knew of iPods before this year.
It is typical for patent trolls to do nothing for years, waiting for the amount of alleged infringement to grow as much as possible, and then sue just before the patent expires (it's been about 15 years since the original patent's filing - anyone know how many years it is before Japanese patents expire?)
Comments
As the suit was for a billion I'm sure the inventor's desired settlement was quite high to the point Apple just played it out letting the courts decide. This isn't Apple's first rodeo and they knew this route would result in paying less.
Do I think its worth a billion dollars? Is irrelevant, I can't go into a store and pay what I think is fair for a newspaper, magazine or groceries - I pay the stated price or I leave without the product.
What I am curious about though is when did the inventor of this patent assert his right to the invention. The online articles I've seen state he applied for an injunction in 2007, several years after the iPod was released - did the inventor wait to see how popular the iPod was and then decide is price? We probably will never know but I believe the value of a patent should be determined at the outset, and not be determined by the eventual success of its use in a product.
It is typical for patent trolls to do nothing for years, waiting for the amount of alleged infringement to grow as much as possible, and then sue just before the patent expires (it's been about 15 years since the original patent's filing - anyone know how many years it is before Japanese patents expire?)