Jury orders Apple to pay $533M for infringing gaming patents

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 56
    This will get tossed out on appeal.
  • Reply 22 of 56
    Maybe apple can pay it from the billion they get from Samsung /s
  • Reply 23 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post



    Maybe apple can pay it from the billion they get from Samsung /s



    Would be a bad move as Samsung has been able to hold off MUCH better patents from Apple and pay nearly nothing (or nothing at all) for them. 

  • Reply 24 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    Ridiculous. Use it or lose it within 5 years.



    I don't agree with that, but I do think software should not be patentable. 

  • Reply 25 of 56
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,868member
    It figures, this one was in Texas.

    Al Gore should have challenged his legal loss to G W Bush's in an east Texas Court, .. oh, wait a minute ... on second thoughts ... :D
  • Reply 26 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post



    How do cases like this make it this far? 

    Tejas.

  • Reply 27 of 56
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,608member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post



    How do cases like this make it this far? Couldn't Apple's lawyers simply have asked the court if this patent perhaps could be applied to ANY ONLINE SERVICE EVER to demonstrate how totally absurd it is?

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    Tyler, Texas.



    This is what’s known as a “judicial hellhole.” We have one in Madison County, IL where I live. My county is famous for its large jury awards for personal injury cases, especially involving the railroad industry. Lawyers from all around the country file their cases in Madison County because the law says they can sue in any state and county the defendant does business in. Next to Cook County, IL (Chicago) Madison County (near St. Louis, MO) is the most corrupt county in Illinois. Public officials, including judges, get sent to prison regularly. Our former Country Treasurer is in prison right now for rigging delinquent tax property auctions. Next county over, St. Clair County, a judge is in prison for selling cocaine and hundreds of his cases are under review. Of course Illinois had TWO former governors in federal prison at the SAME TIME. 

  • Reply 28 of 56
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,926moderator
    beltsbear wrote: »

    I don't agree with that, but I do think software should not be patentable. 

    I really don't get the whole 'software should not be patentable' notion. Consider an inventor who invented, say, the variable valve timing capability for an automobile engine. Let's look at three scenarios:

    Scenario #1: the invention is implemented completely in hardware.

    Scenario #2: the invention is not able to be implemented solely in hardware, but requires a software element to control the hardware.

    Scenario #3: the invention is implemented completely in software, modifying the timing and control of existing engine components and engine monitoring and control elements that might have been used to adjust the engine's valve timing to yield sport versus economy mode, but never to adjust timing continuously.

    Let's just imagine, for the sake of argument, that any of these three means of inventing the first variable valve timing system were all possibilities. Variable valve timing clearly has value; it allows an engine to be more responsive to driver input while operating at higher efficiency.. The patent system exists to reward valuable innovation and invention. What's the argument for not providing those rewards in the second and third scenarios, above?

    (Edited for spelling.)
  • Reply 29 of 56
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Who do I think you are? You're no one to me, amigo. I don't know you and I don't really care for your thin-skinned hostility. Get a life.

     

     

    Condescension gets that reaction from me, online or in real life.

    I never let that pass and that has served me well.

    As for thin skinned... Maybe I learned that "skill" from you... (sic)

  • Reply 30 of 56
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    I really don't get the whole 'software should not be patentable' notion. Consider an inventor who invented, say, the variable valve timing capability for an automobile engine. Let's look at three scenarios:

    Scenario #1: the invention is implemented completely in hardware.

    Scenario #2: the invention is not able to be implemented solely in hardware, but requires a software element to control the hardware.

    Scenario #3: the invention is implemented completely in software, modifying the timing and control of existing engine components and engine monitoring and control elements that might have been used to adjust the engine's valve timing to yield sport versus economy mode, but never to adjust timing continuously.

    Let's just imagine, for the sake of argument, that any of these three means of inventing the first variable valve timing system were all possibilities. Variable valve timing clearly has value; it allows an engine to be more responsive to driver input while operating at higher efficiency.. The patent system exists to reward valuable innovation and invention. What's the argument for not providing those rewards in the second and third sceneries, above?
    It's becoming clear to me that software patents will be heavily hobbled, if not completely done away with, by SCOTUS. Even some high profile IP attorneys are recognizing that as an increasingly likely outcome.
    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/01/09/a-software-patent-setback-alice-v-cls-bank/id=53460/
  • Reply 31 of 56
    Am I the only one who saw the line "not used by iTunes"?

    I assume that the underlying code is also used by iOS & Mac App stores as well. That being the case how can they be sued for something they didn't use and thusly didn't violate?
  • Reply 32 of 56
    I really don't get the whole 'software should not be patentable' notion. Consider an inventor who invented, say, the variable valve timing capability for an automobile engine. Let's look at three scenarios:

    Scenario #1: the invention is implemented completely in hardware.

    Scenario #2: the invention is not able to be implemented solely in hardware, but requires a software element to control the hardware.

    Scenario #3: the invention is implemented completely in software, modifying the timing and control of existing engine components and engine monitoring and control elements that might have been used to adjust the engine's valve timing to yield sport versus economy mode, but never to adjust timing continuously.

    Let's just imagine, for the sake of argument, that any of these three means of inventing the first variable valve timing system were all possibilities. Variable valve timing clearly has value; it allows an engine to be more responsive to driver input while operating at higher efficiency.. The patent system exists to reward valuable innovation and invention. What's the argument for not providing those rewards in the second and third sceneries, above?

    Interesting example. It seems to me that those most opposed to software patents (and patents in general) have either very little exposure to the theory, practice and reasons for patents, have been exposed to beliefs that because something is digital, by nature it should be free like air for the use and consumption of all, or they may already have a personal history of theft and seek to justify their actions by advocating for communistic beliefs.
  • Reply 33 of 56
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    I wouldn't assume that a reversal of this ruling is guaranteed.
    I'd put my hopes in Google getting this tossed on validity grounds, giving Apple an out too. They've been very successful in litigation dealings with PAE's with a high success rate in getting patent claim dismissed. So many of these "software patents" should never have been issued in the first place, simply invalid to begin with when the details are examined. Google seems to be pretty good at ferreting out the bad claims.
  • Reply 34 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    Congratulations to the author on the correct use of the term "non-practicing entity" instead of the loaded term "patent troll".



    Also, Apple will obviously appeal this decision.



    I prefer 'patent troll,' particularly in this case.

  • Reply 35 of 56
    stevenoz wrote: »

    I prefer 'patent troll,' particularly in this case.

    I find it inaccurate and insulting to any trying to assert their patent ownership rights. Maybe this case will be tossed out, maybe it won't, no matter if one is an Apple supporter (as I am) each case is different and each case deserves its day in court.
  • Reply 36 of 56
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,494member
    Who do I think you are? You're no one to me, amigo. I don't know you and I don't really care for your thin-skinned hostility. Get a life.

    Foggyhill is a valuable contributor here, and she is frequently an "amiga" to a realistic perspective.
  • Reply 37 of 56
    What if Apple does or must pay this fine? Wouldn't that be a huge precedent to go back to court to challenge Samsung Google and all the rest? Obviously that is what they want to do. They could win again. Then how much would those companies be fined? Same as Apple or more, because they have so any handsets? LOL.

    Also, what controls a company that refuses to pay like Samsung?
  • Reply 38 of 56
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    Foggyhill is a valuable contributor here, and she is frequently an "amiga" to a realistic perspective.

     

    My reaction to Spam was a bit excessive, but I hate condescension so much that it is one of the rare thing that really fluffs my wings. Thanks for the kudo though.

  • Reply 39 of 56
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    palomine wrote: »
    What if Apple does or must pay this fine? Wouldn't that be a huge precedent to go back to court to challenge Samsung Google and all the rest? Obviously that is what they want to do. They could win again. Then how much would those companies be fined? Same as Apple or more, because they have so any handsets? LOL.

    Also, what controls a company that refuses to pay like Samsung?
    According to the AI article there are lawsuits against Google and Amazon too. Those just haven't been adjudicated yet.

    EDIT: What judgement has Samsung refues to pay? If you're referring to the Apple/Samsung cases those appeals are still being heard AFAIK. Apple won't rush to pay this judgement either until the appeals are exhausted without Apple improving on it.
  • Reply 40 of 56
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,626member
    beltsbear wrote: »

    I don't agree with that, but I do think software should not be patentable. 

    If it's a unique idea, I think it should be patentable provided the inventor can prove it works within a limited timeframe. If not, the patent is lost and can't be patented by anyone else.
Sign In or Register to comment.