Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
Because that venue has a deserved reputation for favoring the plaintiffs.
Surprising this article (or the posts appended) didn't mention this. A company by the name of "Rembrandt IP Management" sued Apple today because, basically, everything Apple does or makes infringes their intellectual property.
And what does "Rembrandt IP Management" do, exactly? Well, "Rembrandt has provided patent owners with the necessary financial capital, in-depth research and analysis, industry expertise, and hands-on litigation management to help monetize their inventions.... Rembrandt frequently augments its internal team by engaging “best-in-class” legal and technical experts to assess opportunities and provide their talent and knowledge to obtain a return on infringed intellectual property."
Ah. Patent-troll-for-hire. And where, oh where, would this case be brought?
Quote:
Rembrandt IP Management, LLC (Rembrandt) affiliates Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC and Rembrandt Secure Computing, LP have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
No they shouldn't. The only thing a patent holding company should be blocked from doing is seeking an injunction to block sales, for the simple reason they don't have any products that could be blocked in a suit brought against them. Owning patents and making money off them by licensing and/or suing others is perfectly legal and acceptable.
Let's say I'm a physicist and I invent a new method to make even smaller transistors for microchips. The problem is that it would cost me 1$ billion (or more) to actually start making chips using my process (the price to buy a fab). So does that mean my patent should become public domain because I'm not actually fabbing chips? If Intel starts using my method to make new processors, I shouldn't be allowed to sue them because they're using my patented idea?
What you're basically saying is companies with the means to use their patents in actual products get patent protection while inventors who have great ideas, but lack the money to implement them should suffer? That's beyond asinine.
I agree with your comments but after reading the first part of the patent, there's nothing special or original being patented. I don't know who came up with VPN but it probably wasn't these guys and all they seemed to patent was a process, not a real product like the transistors you mentioned. I go back to the intermittent windshield wiper design. The guy who developed this built a working model and fought automakers who blatantly stole the design. The process VirnetX was able to get the stupid USPTO to patent is so basic, even when it was patented, that it shouldn't have been patented. It's like patenting putting butter on toasted bread. Nothing original to it.
I agree with your comments but after reading the first part of the patent, there's nothing special or original being patented. I don't know who came up with VPN but it probably wasn't these guys and all they seemed to patent was a process, not a real product like the transistors you mentioned. I go back to the intermittent windshield wiper design. The guy who developed this built a working model and fought automakers who blatantly stole the design. The process VirnetX was able to get the stupid USPTO to patent is so basic, even when it was patented, that it shouldn't have been patented. It's like patenting putting butter on toasted bread. Nothing original to it.
That's what makes these vague patents so hard to fight once they are awarded. The vaguer the better they are as a weapon.
Please Apple, just buy the troll and bring FaceTime back to the superb quality it used to be!!
They have stacks of money - this would be a perfect use for it. Hostile takeover or something.
Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.
Complete nonsense. Look, Apple has just as much opportunity to file for patents as small-time inventors or direct competitors. Patents even the playing field.
Apple needs to be on the lookout for potential infringements and either buy out the IP immediately, license it or come up with workarounds. This is a case of intellectual property lawyers not doing their due diligence, quite honestly. I'm serious. If I were responsible (as part of Apple's in-house legal team) for defending one of the largest companies on Earth from patent infringement cases, I'd be combing the USPTO applications to make sure the Apple board and the CEO were always well aware of potential problems coming down the pipeline.
There is a very obvious cost of doing business at Apple's level and I'm not seeing the proper defensive measures being put in place. As a shareholder, I'd appreciate it if their legal team had the opportunity to review all IP in development at the same time it is being applied for. Intellectual Ventures does a commendable job in tearing down products to search for IP infringements. With billions in the bank and billions more being made every quarter, it is up to Apple to take the right legal measures as early as possible.
That's what makes these vague patents so hard to fight once they are awarded. The vaguer the better they are as a weapon.
Please Apple, just buy the troll and bring FaceTime back to the superb quality it used to be!!
They have stacks of money - this would be a perfect use for it. Hostile takeover or something.
Writing a solid patent is an art, not really a science. You're right about a broad patent being desirable, and I'm sure it's a very fine line for the applicant(s) to find that sweet spot.
I disagree with the loaded term, "patent troll". It's lazy populism on the part of the parties that find themselves on the wrong end of a patent infringement lawsuit. If they were the ones pressing the infringement suit, you can bet your last dollar they would not view themselves as anything but justified.
Writing a solid patent is an art, not really a science. You're right about a broad patent being desirable, and I'm sure it's a very fine line for the applicant(s) to find that sweet spot.
I disagree with the loaded term, "patent troll". It's lazy populism on the part of the parties that find themselves on the wrong end of a patent infringement lawsuit. If they were the ones pressing the infringement suit, you can bet your last dollar they would not view themselves as anything but justified.
I agree that perhaps 'patent troll' was a bit over the top. I stand by the rest of the paragraph though. FaceTime was awesome. Its still better than Skype for my uses, but is no longer miles better. Perhaps they should buy VirnetX and for their legal team as well as their patents?
I agree that perhaps 'patent troll' was a bit over the top. I stand by the rest of the paragraph though. FaceTime was awesome. Its still better than Skype for my uses, but is no longer miles better. Perhaps they should buy VirnetX and for their legal team as well as their patents?
I'd like Apple to buy them also, but VirnetX has the golden goose of patents. They'll continue to make truckloads of money until their patent eventually expires...and it will one day.
Comments
Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?
Quote:
Because that venue has a deserved reputation for favoring the plaintiffs.
Surprising this article (or the posts appended) didn't mention this. A company by the name of "Rembrandt IP Management" sued Apple today because, basically, everything Apple does or makes infringes their intellectual property.
And what does "Rembrandt IP Management" do, exactly? Well, "Rembrandt has provided patent owners with the necessary financial capital, in-depth research and analysis, industry expertise, and hands-on litigation management to help monetize their inventions.... Rembrandt frequently augments its internal team by engaging “best-in-class” legal and technical experts to assess opportunities and provide their talent and knowledge to obtain a return on infringed intellectual property."
Ah. Patent-troll-for-hire. And where, oh where, would this case be brought?
Imagine that.
No they shouldn't. The only thing a patent holding company should be blocked from doing is seeking an injunction to block sales, for the simple reason they don't have any products that could be blocked in a suit brought against them. Owning patents and making money off them by licensing and/or suing others is perfectly legal and acceptable.
Let's say I'm a physicist and I invent a new method to make even smaller transistors for microchips. The problem is that it would cost me 1$ billion (or more) to actually start making chips using my process (the price to buy a fab). So does that mean my patent should become public domain because I'm not actually fabbing chips? If Intel starts using my method to make new processors, I shouldn't be allowed to sue them because they're using my patented idea?
What you're basically saying is companies with the means to use their patents in actual products get patent protection while inventors who have great ideas, but lack the money to implement them should suffer? That's beyond asinine.
I agree with your comments but after reading the first part of the patent, there's nothing special or original being patented. I don't know who came up with VPN but it probably wasn't these guys and all they seemed to patent was a process, not a real product like the transistors you mentioned. I go back to the intermittent windshield wiper design. The guy who developed this built a working model and fought automakers who blatantly stole the design. The process VirnetX was able to get the stupid USPTO to patent is so basic, even when it was patented, that it shouldn't have been patented. It's like patenting putting butter on toasted bread. Nothing original to it.
Please Apple, just buy the troll and bring FaceTime back to the superb quality it used to be!!
They have stacks of money - this would be a perfect use for it. Hostile takeover or something.
Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.
Complete nonsense. Look, Apple has just as much opportunity to file for patents as small-time inventors or direct competitors. Patents even the playing field.
Apple needs to be on the lookout for potential infringements and either buy out the IP immediately, license it or come up with workarounds. This is a case of intellectual property lawyers not doing their due diligence, quite honestly. I'm serious. If I were responsible (as part of Apple's in-house legal team) for defending one of the largest companies on Earth from patent infringement cases, I'd be combing the USPTO applications to make sure the Apple board and the CEO were always well aware of potential problems coming down the pipeline.
There is a very obvious cost of doing business at Apple's level and I'm not seeing the proper defensive measures being put in place. As a shareholder, I'd appreciate it if their legal team had the opportunity to review all IP in development at the same time it is being applied for. Intellectual Ventures does a commendable job in tearing down products to search for IP infringements. With billions in the bank and billions more being made every quarter, it is up to Apple to take the right legal measures as early as possible.
That's what makes these vague patents so hard to fight once they are awarded. The vaguer the better they are as a weapon.
Please Apple, just buy the troll and bring FaceTime back to the superb quality it used to be!!
They have stacks of money - this would be a perfect use for it. Hostile takeover or something.
Writing a solid patent is an art, not really a science. You're right about a broad patent being desirable, and I'm sure it's a very fine line for the applicant(s) to find that sweet spot.
I disagree with the loaded term, "patent troll". It's lazy populism on the part of the parties that find themselves on the wrong end of a patent infringement lawsuit. If they were the ones pressing the infringement suit, you can bet your last dollar they would not view themselves as anything but justified.
Writing a solid patent is an art, not really a science. You're right about a broad patent being desirable, and I'm sure it's a very fine line for the applicant(s) to find that sweet spot.
I disagree with the loaded term, "patent troll". It's lazy populism on the part of the parties that find themselves on the wrong end of a patent infringement lawsuit. If they were the ones pressing the infringement suit, you can bet your last dollar they would not view themselves as anything but justified.
I agree that perhaps 'patent troll' was a bit over the top. I stand by the rest of the paragraph though. FaceTime was awesome. Its still better than Skype for my uses, but is no longer miles better. Perhaps they should buy VirnetX and for their legal team as well as their patents?
Are you out of your FUCKING mind?! Why are you shoot the pic of Apple's copyright devices on your fucking website?!
Apple should countersue VirtnetX for shoot that pic of Apple's copyright devices!!
Website: http://virnetx.com (scroll down until u saw ho's tits play by fingering on iPad, Apple keyboard, Magic Mouse and MacBook Pro)
I'd like Apple to buy them also, but VirnetX has the golden goose of patents. They'll continue to make truckloads of money until their patent eventually expires...and it will one day.