Why do these things always look like they were filled out by someone saying, "What the hell, now is as good as any to start practicing to write with my non-dominate hand." If I'm ever writing in an amount that's in the millions I'm going to make sure I use excellent penmanship.
The problem with your argument is that nobody forces anyone to sell products that infringe. If the feature is so stupid, why doesn't Apple just take it out of their products? Because they are important. Secondly, why shouldn't Apple compensate the inventors that advanced the technology that made the iPhone possible. Apple didn't start from a clean slate. Many people invented stuff that made the iPhone possible. Apple expects to pay some of these people what they are owed. We have no reason to believe this wasn't a legitimate process. Besides, $23.5 million to Apple is like 1 penny to the average american.
Apple does license patents from people/companies that provide applicable technology. Saying a pager is the basis for messaging is like saying a pencil is the basis for a typewriter. How far back do you pay people for inventions that no longer are being improved on or hardly even used? If you read the verdict, the jury said Apple did not knowingly use the patents. In other words, Apple did not feel any of their development was predicated on the pager patents. The problem with jury trials on patents is that 99.999% of our population is not technically qualified to determine whether a product is using a patented idea yet they are allowed to determine the fate of an offender. As for $23M being nothing to Apple, it's still the principle of fair play and fair use that Apple needs to fight. I believe in the patent system but I also believe the patent system is being abused and those who really abuse it should have to pay their fines quickly (Samsung comes to mind).
This was in Texas. I wonder if it was East Texas, because that district is known for being plaintiff friendly. It's why they all try to get their cases there. The judges are biased to agree with them.
This was in Texas. I wonder if it was East Texas, because that district is known for being plaintiff friendly. It's why they all try to get their cases there. The judges are biased to agree with them.
Seems like over the last 10 years the public has become anti-patent. It's a real shame. The patent system is the foundation of entrepreneurship and a pillar of the U.S. technology sector. You naysayers are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. And for what? Why not force big companies to compensate inventors? Incentivizing entrepreneurs to invent stuff is way better than taxing big companies and giving it to lazy people on welfare.
Apple has $150 billion dollars sitting on its balance sheet with no idea what to do with it. It is a very very good thing to force Apple to pay $23.5 million to the company that built a novel pager system in the 1990s and has patents that cover the new system. If you prefer a technology sector that distributes its wealth through cronyism and leaves all the cash with fat cats in legacy big companies, move to a place like Russia. You'll fit in perfectly. I prefer the American way; a patent system that causes turnover in wealth and incentivizes creativity.
the way the american patent system allows patent trolls, an office with one worker, to make law suits based on patents that are vague in every detail to the function and implementation of the idea being patented? yes- i feel the incentives.
as Benjamin Frost points out- there is a new nokia tablet that looks like the iPad. So according to you this is just another incentivised creativity based on the patent system.
Out come the patent-haters again. These patents are entirely valid, MTel are no patent troll, they developed and sold a product, one which is still in business (http://www.americanmessaging.net/). Their business revolved around messaging with specific features such as two way messaging with acknowledgement receipts over a wireless network. Acknowledgement receipts are critical in healthcare and emergency services systems and as such, these paging systems are still in use. The implementation of these features into Apple's products is a logical step but this may also impact on MTel's business, a business they have invested heavily in, so why shouldn't they be compensated?
The United States should simply annex this little East Texas kingdom of Trollvania back into the United States. If they don't come willingly send in 4 or 5 Marines and they'll crumble in a day or two.
I wonder how the jury came up with $23,575,000. Did they apply some formula the judge provided? Did each member just throw a number out and they took the average?
The judge probably gave them some guidance, but they most likely just took the average of what the jurors each thought was fair.
I was on a jury once where a lady sued her homebuilder, and wanted $1M in damages. We essentially sided with the builder. One guy wanted to give her like $5M, but we threw that out and wound up giving her $40k. Her reaction when we read the verdict was priceless. We found out afterwards from the defense attorneys that they had offered her $250k and to pay her moving expenses and she turned it down. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Both sides would have presented mountains of evidence on damages. They hired experts, prepared numerous briefs, took depositions, and put many people on the stand to discuss this issue. It wouldn't surprise me if the parties spent half a million dollars in legal costs to determine that number. Apple seems to have won most of the damages issues if they only got $23.5 million.
Don't forget the last $75K! I appreciate your explanation, but at the end of the day it's still a jury of random Joes off the street (who couldn't come up with a good excuse to blow it off) who had to digest that information and come up with a single answer. I was on a criminal jury and getting everyone to agree on two guilty/not-guilty decisions was hard enough; I wonder if it's easier or harder when you have to come up with a number instead. (I expect easier because at the end of the day you can just split the difference and walk away.)
Edit: thanks for your example, Freshmaker. Did the $5 million guy fight for his contrary position much?
The problem with your argument is that nobody forces anyone to sell products that infringe. If the feature is so stupid, why doesn't Apple just take it out of their products? Because they are important. Secondly, why shouldn't Apple compensate the inventors that advanced the technology that made the iPhone possible. Apple didn't start from a clean slate. Many people invented stuff that made the iPhone possible. Apple expects to pay some of these people what they are owed. We have no reason to believe this wasn't a legitimate process. Besides, $23.5 million to Apple is like 1 penny to the average american.
I agree 100%, and I would also add that patents expire (perhaps not soon enough, but that's another debate), so after a while everyone is free to use the original invention.
Apple does license patents from people/companies that provide applicable technology. Saying a pager is the basis for messaging is like saying a pencil is the basis for a typewriter. How far back do you pay people for inventions that no longer are being improved on or hardly even used? If you read the verdict, the jury said Apple did not knowingly use the patents. In other words, Apple did not feel any of their development was predicated on the pager patents. The problem with jury trials on patents is that 99.999% of our population is not technically qualified to determine whether a product is using a patented idea yet they are allowed to determine the fate of an offender. As for $23M being nothing to Apple, it's still the principle of fair play and fair use that Apple needs to fight. I believe in the patent system but I also believe the patent system is being abused and those who really abuse it should have to pay their fines quickly (Samsung comes to mind).
They didn't patent "a pager" they patented a number of solutions that allowed them to make (at the time) a state of the art pager. Like Steve said when Apple rolled out the iPhone, it was/is protected by hundreds of patents. I'm sure plenty of them apply well beyond smart phones. So to take your silly pencil/typewriter example, it's like if a pencil maker patented a new way to apply paint to wood and a typewriter company used the same trick in its new factory. Yes, the patent would be completely relevant. They would have the choice of using a different technique or licensing the tech (or doing neither and risk getting sued).
Comments
It's 23 million owed.
Not $2300.
????
The problem with your argument is that nobody forces anyone to sell products that infringe. If the feature is so stupid, why doesn't Apple just take it out of their products? Because they are important. Secondly, why shouldn't Apple compensate the inventors that advanced the technology that made the iPhone possible. Apple didn't start from a clean slate. Many people invented stuff that made the iPhone possible. Apple expects to pay some of these people what they are owed. We have no reason to believe this wasn't a legitimate process. Besides, $23.5 million to Apple is like 1 penny to the average american.
Apple does license patents from people/companies that provide applicable technology. Saying a pager is the basis for messaging is like saying a pencil is the basis for a typewriter. How far back do you pay people for inventions that no longer are being improved on or hardly even used? If you read the verdict, the jury said Apple did not knowingly use the patents. In other words, Apple did not feel any of their development was predicated on the pager patents. The problem with jury trials on patents is that 99.999% of our population is not technically qualified to determine whether a product is using a patented idea yet they are allowed to determine the fate of an offender. As for $23M being nothing to Apple, it's still the principle of fair play and fair use that Apple needs to fight. I believe in the patent system but I also believe the patent system is being abused and those who really abuse it should have to pay their fines quickly (Samsung comes to mind).
If it is then expect Apple to appeal.
http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
Great to see pagers are still relevant. Like it's 1988.
Seems like over the last 10 years the public has become anti-patent. It's a real shame. The patent system is the foundation of entrepreneurship and a pillar of the U.S. technology sector. You naysayers are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. And for what? Why not force big companies to compensate inventors? Incentivizing entrepreneurs to invent stuff is way better than taxing big companies and giving it to lazy people on welfare.
Apple has $150 billion dollars sitting on its balance sheet with no idea what to do with it. It is a very very good thing to force Apple to pay $23.5 million to the company that built a novel pager system in the 1990s and has patents that cover the new system. If you prefer a technology sector that distributes its wealth through cronyism and leaves all the cash with fat cats in legacy big companies, move to a place like Russia. You'll fit in perfectly. I prefer the American way; a patent system that causes turnover in wealth and incentivizes creativity.
the way the american patent system allows patent trolls, an office with one worker, to make law suits based on patents that are vague in every detail to the function and implementation of the idea being patented? yes- i feel the incentives.
as Benjamin Frost points out- there is a new nokia tablet that looks like the iPad. So according to you this is just another incentivised creativity based on the patent system.
The United States should simply annex this little East Texas kingdom of Trollvania back into the United States. If they don't come willingly send in 4 or 5 Marines and they'll crumble in a day or two.
I wonder how the jury came up with $23,575,000. Did they apply some formula the judge provided? Did each member just throw a number out and they took the average?
The judge probably gave them some guidance, but they most likely just took the average of what the jurors each thought was fair.
I was on a jury once where a lady sued her homebuilder, and wanted $1M in damages. We essentially sided with the builder. One guy wanted to give her like $5M, but we threw that out and wound up giving her $40k. Her reaction when we read the verdict was priceless. We found out afterwards from the defense attorneys that they had offered her $250k and to pay her moving expenses and she turned it down.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Both sides would have presented mountains of evidence on damages. They hired experts, prepared numerous briefs, took depositions, and put many people on the stand to discuss this issue. It wouldn't surprise me if the parties spent half a million dollars in legal costs to determine that number. Apple seems to have won most of the damages issues if they only got $23.5 million.
Don't forget the last $75K! I appreciate your explanation, but at the end of the day it's still a jury of random Joes off the street (who couldn't come up with a good excuse to blow it off) who had to digest that information and come up with a single answer. I was on a criminal jury and getting everyone to agree on two guilty/not-guilty decisions was hard enough; I wonder if it's easier or harder when you have to come up with a number instead. (I expect easier because at the end of the day you can just split the difference and walk away.)
Edit: thanks for your example, Freshmaker. Did the $5 million guy fight for his contrary position much?
The problem with your argument is that nobody forces anyone to sell products that infringe. If the feature is so stupid, why doesn't Apple just take it out of their products? Because they are important. Secondly, why shouldn't Apple compensate the inventors that advanced the technology that made the iPhone possible. Apple didn't start from a clean slate. Many people invented stuff that made the iPhone possible. Apple expects to pay some of these people what they are owed. We have no reason to believe this wasn't a legitimate process. Besides, $23.5 million to Apple is like 1 penny to the average american.
I agree 100%, and I would also add that patents expire (perhaps not soon enough, but that's another debate), so after a while everyone is free to use the original invention.
Apple does license patents from people/companies that provide applicable technology. Saying a pager is the basis for messaging is like saying a pencil is the basis for a typewriter. How far back do you pay people for inventions that no longer are being improved on or hardly even used? If you read the verdict, the jury said Apple did not knowingly use the patents. In other words, Apple did not feel any of their development was predicated on the pager patents. The problem with jury trials on patents is that 99.999% of our population is not technically qualified to determine whether a product is using a patented idea yet they are allowed to determine the fate of an offender. As for $23M being nothing to Apple, it's still the principle of fair play and fair use that Apple needs to fight. I believe in the patent system but I also believe the patent system is being abused and those who really abuse it should have to pay their fines quickly (Samsung comes to mind).
They didn't patent "a pager" they patented a number of solutions that allowed them to make (at the time) a state of the art pager. Like Steve said when Apple rolled out the iPhone, it was/is protected by hundreds of patents. I'm sure plenty of them apply well beyond smart phones. So to take your silly pencil/typewriter example, it's like if a pencil maker patented a new way to apply paint to wood and a typewriter company used the same trick in its new factory. Yes, the patent would be completely relevant. They would have the choice of using a different technique or licensing the tech (or doing neither and risk getting sued).
I'm curious if any other modern day OS also infringes? Is it only Apple's?
We'll know at some point - according to this link, there are also suits outstanding against Samsung and AT&T (and others).