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

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





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



    I didn't think compliments were allowed on AI. Learned something new today.

  • Reply 42 of 56
    It is tIme to give Texas back to its rightful owner, Mexico!
  • Reply 43 of 56



    Just because it's prevalent now doesn't mean the suit has no merit.  

     

    The claims of the case & whey they are crying fowl on Apple are outlined in the lawsuit starting with number 18 under "The Parties".  They are claiming Augustin Farrugia was privy to Patrick Racz idea back when Farrugia worked at Gemplus and then thereafter left Gemplus to work for Apple.  They are accusing him of taking this knowledge to Apple.

     

    [Quote]

    18. In or around the year 2000, Patrick Racz, one of the co-inventors of the patents-in-suit, met with various personnel of Gemplus (now Gemalto S.A.) to discuss the technology claimed in the patents-in-suit. Mr. Augustin Farrugia was one of the people at Gemplus who learned of the technology of the patents-in-suit.

     

    19. Mr. Farrugia subsequently joined Apple and is currently a Senior Director at Apple Inc."

     

    The iTunes store didn't become a reality until 2003 and the patent in question seems to have been filed somewhere around 2000 so unless they can prove that they held a patent before Patrick Racz he has every right to assume they used his idea & go after them.  This is not a no name patent firm that bought rights to someone else' work and then trolls after big companies finding obscure ways to make those patents fit successful technologies, there is a deeper history here that indicates theft of ideas.  

     

    Just because you like Apple & their products doesn't mean they can do no wrong.  The purpose of a patent is to actually encourage innovation and that's what makes patent trolls so horrible is they use that system to stifle innovation.  This is clearly not the case here.  Racz has every right to protect his intellectual property, especially when there is evidence it was knowingly used without license.

  • Reply 44 of 56
    freerange wrote: »
    It is tIme to give Texas back to its rightful owner, Mexico!

    Immediately following, it'll be time to give Mexico back to its rightful owners, the Aztec.
  • Reply 45 of 56
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,960member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post



    The fact that they calculated awards based upon hardware sales will be the thing that gets a reversal for Apple.

    At the end, Apple will give them something like $10 million for the damn ice cream for everyone in that Texas. Remember the ProView and iPad name in China? Yeah, $2 billion ended up with $16 million offered and something like $60 million settled eventually. Well, at least ProView had right to the iPad name. This company is totally s.hit. I would say they'll get nothing...Nada.

  • Reply 46 of 56
    When cancer on innovation like Smartflash will finally be banned from practice like this? If you did not excercise creative work on patent you should not be allowed to enforce it. I can see how it is acquired, but that is not excuse to prevent use in innovative world.

    Lame USTPO.

    Learn some from Europe on patenting subjects. Sorry, but it is much different there.
  • Reply 47 of 56
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Immediately following, it'll be time to give Mexico back to its rightful owners, the Aztec.
    What, no respect for the Olmec?
  • Reply 48 of 56
    Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post

    Tejas.

     

    Texas. 1848 says so.

     

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    What, no respect for the Olmec?

     

    Too busy assembling a silver monkey.

  • Reply 49 of 56
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,012member
    jungmark wrote: »
    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.

    Ideas can't be patented.* Otherwise you'd have people running around registering what coming out of their thought bubbles. I'm sure you're using idea and invention interchangeably.

    * I'm sure there are thousands of things on the patent register which are merely ideas.
  • Reply 50 of 56
    Anyone else notice how all of a sudden every breaking story involving Apple (not just here, mind you) has gone sour. Sure as heck looks like a coordinated attack to undermine the stock. Fell yesterday, bigger fall today and I can almost guarantee another big down day tomorrow.
  • Reply 51 of 56
    habihabi Posts: 317member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

     



    Just because it's prevalent now doesn't mean the suit has no merit. 

     

    [Quote]

     

    19. Mr. Farrugia subsequently joined Apple and is currently a Senior Director at Apple Inc."

     

    The iTunes store didn't become a reality until 2003 and the patent in question seems to have been filed somewhere around 2000 so unless they can prove that they held a patent before Patrick Racz he has every right to assume they used his idea & go after them.  This is not a no name patent firm that bought rights to someone else' work and then trolls after big companies finding obscure ways to make those patents fit successful technologies, there is a deeper history here that indicates theft of ideas.  

     


     

    This thinking would be OK if the patent wasn't just an idea which this is, nothing more than a novel idea. You cant patent an idea but a technical way to do solve a problem that cant be novel at the time off application. The patent office sometimes cant see the wood from the trees and accepts stupid applications until someone proves them wrong (meaning the courts). Which is what should happen in court now that its going up the ladder of appeals (past the texas rubberstamp court).

  • Reply 52 of 56
    habi wrote: »
    This thinking would be OK if the patent wasn't just an idea which this is, nothing more than a novel idea. You cant patent an idea but a technical way to do solve a problem that cant be novel at the time off application. The patent office sometimes cant see the wood from the trees and accepts stupid applications until someone proves them wrong (meaning the courts). Which is what should happen in court now that its going up the ladder of appeals (past the texas rubberstamp court).

    As you seemingly started to say, the USPTO doesn't grant patents for ideas. So what is the point of the rest of the post?
  • Reply 53 of 56
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    Anyone else notice how all of a sudden every breaking story involving Apple (not just here, mind you) has gone sour. Sure as heck looks like a coordinated attack to undermine the stock. Fell yesterday, bigger fall today and I can almost guarantee another big down day tomorrow.
    I dunno, I've read a whole lotta positive stories about Apple lately ranging from the billions they will see from the Apple Watch to their car-building plans to their incredible market value. Add to that recent high-profile publicity efforts to promote the media capabilities of Apple's iPhone and software (movie shot entirely with Apple gear, Modern Family episode and Will Smith movie editted entirely with Final Cut) and media reports seem to be highly positive for Apple for the most part. More so than most other companies at the moment IMHO.
  • Reply 54 of 56
    habihabi Posts: 317member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    As you seemingly started to say, the USPTO doesn't grant patents for ideas. So what is the point of the rest of the post?

    Well they do, sometimes. Havent you noticed? Its not always easy to see where the line should be drawn and this is the problem they face... Logical loopholes exist and are easy to fall into.

  • Reply 55 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post





    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.)



    Really great argument for having software patents.  Except software patents existing aren't really the problem.



    The problem is patents being granted for things they shouldn't be.  The patent office is now filled with accepted patents on things that are common knowledge or have been common workflows except the word Internet, PC, or Cellular Device has been added to them.  There needs to be greater scrutiny with these software software patents so ideas, inventions, and solutions that are truly unique are actually provided patents.  Some software patents are truly unique, specific, and valid, while others are just vague in hopes of being able to cash in on new trends and technology to do the same old things.

  • Reply 56 of 56
    So dumb.... pocket change to Apple, and yet they shouldn't pay a single penny of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.