Can't Apple just appeal the ruling in some other court?
Yes, and they are likely to lose the appeal. I suspect the real purpose of the appeal is to argue that the damages are excessive, not that they don't infringe. They may get lucky on infringement, but it doesn't appear to be their best argument.
This troll needs to be stopped now. You got your money, don't expect anymore. Companies that have no products should not be able to sue period. This should be illegal. If you don't have products then you don't have damages because you don't have anything your losing by not having anything to sell period.
This troll needs to be stopped now. You got your money, don't expect anymore. Companies that have no products should not be able to sue period. This should be illegal. If you don't have products then you don't have damages because you don't have anything your losing by not having anything to sell period.
I guess you didn't read my comment about the intermittent wipers. One can't always build the product they patented without help.
This troll needs to be stopped now. You got your money, don't expect anymore. Companies that have no products should not be able to sue period. This should be illegal. If you don't have products then you don't have damages because you don't have anything your losing by not having anything to sell period.
By extension companies that do not use the patent themselves for any product should not be able to sue someone else since they aren't "losing by not having something to sell". Would that be accurate?
No the USPTO would never allow a claim to a climbing route. It isn't patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because a climbing route is naturally occurring. Software IS NOT naturally occuring.
Naturally occurring pharmacologically active substances found in plants have been patented. The DEA has even patented cannabinoids as an antioxidant and neuro-protectant.
As a non-practicing entity, the firm operates solely through patent licensing and litigation.
I see. So they are exaclty like ARM Holdings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
By extension companies that do not use the patent themselves for any product should not be able to sue someone else since they aren't "losing by not having something to sell". Would that be accurate?
So two people can't have the same intellectual idea at different times and the only one who actually gets it patented even if they never license it or demonstrate the idea wins? Doesn't make sense. From what others have said the patents are very general in wording. Apple has a very specific design. How does the general one even relate? It's like patenting a piece of metal and saying it applies to everything made of metal, even though the patent owner never made anything out of metal.
Have you ever read a patent claim? Patents are by their very nature are specific. You don't claim a "product" in a patent, you claim an invention. The iPhone is a product and it is made up of hundreds of inventions.
Naturally occurring pharmacologically active substances found in plants have been patented. The DEA has even patented cannabinoids as an antioxidant and neuro-protectant.
Can you point us to a patent?
If you investigate further, you will probably find that the cannabinoids, antioxidants, and neuro-protectants were isolated from their natural environment. So for instance, the claim may be to "an extract". And no, "extracts" with high concentrations of a neuro-protectant do not exist in nature. And if you want to use the cannabinoid in its natural state, the patent wouldn't prevent you from doing so. (and neither will the state of Colorado).
Secondly, your argument is off point. My point was that software is not naturally occurring. Do you disagree?
And finally, do you really believe that the patent office would grant a patent on a climbing route? Really? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really believe that. If you do, you are either misinformed or a f'ing idiot. I'll bet you $10,000 you can't get a patent allowed to a naturally occurring climbing route.
This troll needs to be stopped now. You got your money, don't expect anymore. Companies that have no products should not be able to sue period. This should be illegal. If you don't have products then you don't have damages because you don't have anything your losing by not having anything to sell period.
You're wrong. The damage comes from the inability to exclusively license someone else. Companies pay for patents to obtain exclusivity. If someone is infringing the patent and the patent holder can't stop them, then the patent holder is damaged by his or her inability to provide exclusivity to a potential purchaser.
And this damage is not trivial. The only right granted by a patent is "the right to exclude." If you vitiate that right, the patent holder is left with nothing.
Our patent system has been around and working fine for 200+ years. Our strong patent system is one of the pillars of our high technology society. And yes, even in the 1800's people like Thomas Edison bought up patents from non-practicing entities.
You anti-patent idiots rant about a subject you know nothing about. If this anti-patent sentiment continues, we risk shooting the goose that lays the golden egg.
Apple has $180 billion dollars in the bank and doesn't have a clue how to spend it all. And you are telling me that it is unfair for them to pay for intellectual property they infringe? That's messed up. Apple has the right to defend themselves, but why do you attack the patent system when they lose?
If Apple infringes, they should pay. It shouldn't matter one iota whether the patent owner makes a product or not. If Apple doesn't want to pay a royalty, they can take the feature out of their products. Nobody is forcing Apple to sell infringing products.
Where's the love for the legal system that made Apple possible? Do you want a patent system like Russia or Saudi Arabia? Because with all the bitching going on, that's where were headed.
Our patent system has been around and working fine for 200+ years. Our strong patent system is one of the pillars of our high technology society. And yes, even in the 1800's people like Thomas Edison bought up patents from non-practicing entities. You anti-patent idiots rant about a subject you know nothing about. If this anti-patent sentiment continues, we risk shooting the goose that lays the golden egg. Apple has $180 billion dollars in the bank and doesn't have a clue how to spend it all. And you are telling me that it is unfair for them to pay for intellectual property they infringe? That's messed up. Apple has the right to defend themselves, but why do you attack the patent system when they lose?
If Apple infringes, they should pay. It shouldn't matter one iota whether the patent owner makes a product or not. If Apple doesn't want to pay a royalty, they can take the feature out of their products. Nobody is forcing Apple to sell infringing products.
Where's the love for the legal system that made Apple possible? Do you want a patent system like Russia or Saudi Arabia? Because with all the bitching going on, that's where were headed.
The patent system is broken.
How is it fair that one inventor invents something but does nothing with it while another inventor invents the same thing (not knowing of the first inventor) but actually does something only to be sued.
How is it fair that one inventor invents something but does nothing with it while another inventor invents the same thing (not knowing of the first inventor) but actually does something only to be sued.
The Patent Office (USPTO) used to use another method that required far more investigation and mediation to sort out who was the actual inventor, but everyone screamed that method was unfair, so they now grant patents on a "first to file" basis.
If I filed for a patent application five minutes before Apple did and the patents covered the same process, I'd own the patent. It's a race against time now, so rest assured businesses have departments dedicated to nothing but creating patents all day long as a competitive measure.
If you investigate further, you will probably find that the cannabinoids, antioxidants, and neuro-protectants were isolated from their natural environment. So for instance, the claim may be to "an extract". And no, "extracts" with high concentrations of a neuro-protectant do not exist in nature. And if you want to use the cannabinoid in its natural state, the patent wouldn't prevent you from doing so. (and neither will the state of Colorado).
Secondly, your argument is off point. My point was that software is not naturally occurring. Do you disagree?
And finally, do you really believe that the patent office would grant a patent on a climbing route? Really? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really believe that. If you do, you are either misinformed or a f'ing idiot. I'll bet you $10,000 you can't get a patent allowed to a naturally occurring climbing route.
Their claim seems to be a patenting of the use of cannabinoids as drugs for:
Quote:
The present invention concerns pharmaceutical compounds and compositions that are useful as tissue protectants, such as neuroprotectants and cardioprotectants. The compounds and compositions may be used, for example, in the treatment of acute ischemic neurological insults or chronic neurodegenerative diseases.
The patent is for the use of the named natural substances for particular purposes, so it is in effect a patent on particular uses of naturally occurring substances. A bit like patenting the use of aluminium to make things from, whether alloyed with any other metals or not. The aluminium wouldn't be patented but using it for most things would be.
The interesting thing about the cannabis patent is that people have been claiming medicinal uses for ages, yet the US government has denied that such benefits exist. It might be interesting to see if this patent could be invalidated due to prior-art " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Personally I am utterly opposed to the idea of patenting a use for something which is naturally occurring. I would go so far as to say it's immoral.
Do you think, and therefore are? If so, how do you manage that without some form of natural occurring software?
No I do not think a climbing route would be patentable.
Saying this is pretending that the concept of a pure research lab is worthless. it's essentially limiting the right to enterprise to people who have enough capital to operate an Industry Model, e.g. "products, employees, jobs, US presence".
It's quite obvious why this would be detrimental to the USA in the long (or even medium) run. If this was grounds for companies to automatically win, you would witness instant brain drain to Europe or Canada. However, it's unlikely to happen, because this is not "the truth", it's just "Apple's PR", which they are perfectly entitled to do in a free country like America. (Note it is not even a lawyer, but "a spokesperson for the company" who expressed this statement.)
I absolutely agree with you, but there has to be some balance. As someone who has had ideas patented I can tell you the process is icky. You start with something that is very specific and unique and after a patent attorney gets involved they keep pushing you to change the language to something more and more board and ambiguous until it resembles nothing of your original idea but in their eyes it is now more valuable because it has a higher likelihood of being infringed upon. Many very successful patents are for very simple ideas. Brain farts that people get on the way home from work or while tinkering in the garage. And those things deserve to be patented and licensed if the inventor can't produce them. What I don't agree with is the trend of taking real world process that are neither novel or unique and breaking them up in little boxes on paper and appending "on a computer" or "on the internet" to them and being awarded a patent.
I won't be at all surprised if Apple ends up eventually getting the patents invalidated, at least in part. They've so far filed 21 different business method review petitions attacking dozens of claims relating to Smartflash’s patents. Eight are already being investigated with the remainder either pending or awaiting review.
Another fun fact: While it's often mentioned that other companies request inter-partes reviews of patent claims, did you know Apple is the most aggressive user of those filings to challenge the validity of IP belonging to others? Even more so than Microsoft, Google or even Samsung by a wide margin, and have been for two years in a row.
I won't be at all surprised if Apple ends up eventually getting the patents invalidated, at least in part. They've so far filed 21 different business method review petitions attacking dozens of claims relating to Smartflash’s patents. Eight are already being investigated with the remainder either pending or awaiting review.
Another fun fact: While it's often mentioned that other companies request inter-partes reviews of patent claims, did you know Apple is the most aggressive user of those filings to challenge the validity of IP belonging to others? Even more so than Microsoft, Google or even Samsung by a wide margin, and have been for two years in a row.
Did you know Apple is one of the most sued companies on the planet? Defensive measures.
Comments
This troll needs to be stopped now. You got your money, don't expect anymore. Companies that have no products should not be able to sue period. This should be illegal. If you don't have products then you don't have damages because you don't have anything your losing by not having anything to sell period.
I guess you didn't read my comment about the intermittent wipers. One can't always build the product they patented without help.
No the USPTO would never allow a claim to a climbing route. It isn't patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because a climbing route is naturally occurring. Software IS NOT naturally occuring.
Naturally occurring pharmacologically active substances found in plants have been patented. The DEA has even patented cannabinoids as an antioxidant and neuro-protectant.
As for the rounded edge profile, that seems a near necessity dictated by the edge version
HEY, LOOK, EVERYONE! IT’S A ‘NATURAL PROGRESSION’!
As a non-practicing entity, the firm operates solely through patent licensing and litigation.
I see. So they are exaclty like ARM Holdings?
By extension companies that do not use the patent themselves for any product should not be able to sue someone else since they aren't "losing by not having something to sell". Would that be accurate?
Yes. **** ARM and their microarchitecture!
So two people can't have the same intellectual idea at different times and the only one who actually gets it patented even if they never license it or demonstrate the idea wins? Doesn't make sense. From what others have said the patents are very general in wording. Apple has a very specific design. How does the general one even relate? It's like patenting a piece of metal and saying it applies to everything made of metal, even though the patent owner never made anything out of metal.
Have you ever read a patent claim? Patents are by their very nature are specific. You don't claim a "product" in a patent, you claim an invention. The iPhone is a product and it is made up of hundreds of inventions.
Naturally occurring pharmacologically active substances found in plants have been patented. The DEA has even patented cannabinoids as an antioxidant and neuro-protectant.
Can you point us to a patent?
If you investigate further, you will probably find that the cannabinoids, antioxidants, and neuro-protectants were isolated from their natural environment. So for instance, the claim may be to "an extract". And no, "extracts" with high concentrations of a neuro-protectant do not exist in nature. And if you want to use the cannabinoid in its natural state, the patent wouldn't prevent you from doing so. (and neither will the state of Colorado).
Secondly, your argument is off point. My point was that software is not naturally occurring. Do you disagree?
And finally, do you really believe that the patent office would grant a patent on a climbing route? Really? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really believe that. If you do, you are either misinformed or a f'ing idiot. I'll bet you $10,000 you can't get a patent allowed to a naturally occurring climbing route.
This troll needs to be stopped now. You got your money, don't expect anymore. Companies that have no products should not be able to sue period. This should be illegal. If you don't have products then you don't have damages because you don't have anything your losing by not having anything to sell period.
You're wrong. The damage comes from the inability to exclusively license someone else. Companies pay for patents to obtain exclusivity. If someone is infringing the patent and the patent holder can't stop them, then the patent holder is damaged by his or her inability to provide exclusivity to a potential purchaser.
And this damage is not trivial. The only right granted by a patent is "the right to exclude." If you vitiate that right, the patent holder is left with nothing.
Our patent system has been around and working fine for 200+ years. Our strong patent system is one of the pillars of our high technology society. And yes, even in the 1800's people like Thomas Edison bought up patents from non-practicing entities.
You anti-patent idiots rant about a subject you know nothing about. If this anti-patent sentiment continues, we risk shooting the goose that lays the golden egg.
Apple has $180 billion dollars in the bank and doesn't have a clue how to spend it all. And you are telling me that it is unfair for them to pay for intellectual property they infringe? That's messed up. Apple has the right to defend themselves, but why do you attack the patent system when they lose?
If Apple infringes, they should pay. It shouldn't matter one iota whether the patent owner makes a product or not. If Apple doesn't want to pay a royalty, they can take the feature out of their products. Nobody is forcing Apple to sell infringing products.
Where's the love for the legal system that made Apple possible? Do you want a patent system like Russia or Saudi Arabia? Because with all the bitching going on, that's where were headed.
The patent system is broken.
How is it fair that one inventor invents something but does nothing with it while another inventor invents the same thing (not knowing of the first inventor) but actually does something only to be sued.
The patent system is broken.
How is it fair that one inventor invents something but does nothing with it while another inventor invents the same thing (not knowing of the first inventor) but actually does something only to be sued.
The Patent Office (USPTO) used to use another method that required far more investigation and mediation to sort out who was the actual inventor, but everyone screamed that method was unfair, so they now grant patents on a "first to file" basis.
If I filed for a patent application five minutes before Apple did and the patents covered the same process, I'd own the patent. It's a race against time now, so rest assured businesses have departments dedicated to nothing but creating patents all day long as a competitive measure.
Can you point us to a patent?
If you investigate further, you will probably find that the cannabinoids, antioxidants, and neuro-protectants were isolated from their natural environment. So for instance, the claim may be to "an extract". And no, "extracts" with high concentrations of a neuro-protectant do not exist in nature. And if you want to use the cannabinoid in its natural state, the patent wouldn't prevent you from doing so. (and neither will the state of Colorado).
Secondly, your argument is off point. My point was that software is not naturally occurring. Do you disagree?
And finally, do you really believe that the patent office would grant a patent on a climbing route? Really? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really believe that. If you do, you are either misinformed or a f'ing idiot. I'll bet you $10,000 you can't get a patent allowed to a naturally occurring climbing route.
Sure: US Patent 6630507
Their claim seems to be a patenting of the use of cannabinoids as drugs for:
The patent is for the use of the named natural substances for particular purposes, so it is in effect a patent on particular uses of naturally occurring substances. A bit like patenting the use of aluminium to make things from, whether alloyed with any other metals or not. The aluminium wouldn't be patented but using it for most things would be.
The interesting thing about the cannabis patent is that people have been claiming medicinal uses for ages, yet the US government has denied that such benefits exist. It might be interesting to see if this patent could be invalidated due to prior-art
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Personally I am utterly opposed to the idea of patenting a use for something which is naturally occurring. I would go so far as to say it's immoral.
Do you think, and therefore are? If so, how do you manage that without some form of natural occurring software?
No I do not think a climbing route would be patentable.
Saying this is pretending that the concept of a pure research lab is worthless. it's essentially limiting the right to enterprise to people who have enough capital to operate an Industry Model, e.g. "products, employees, jobs, US presence".
It's quite obvious why this would be detrimental to the USA in the long (or even medium) run. If this was grounds for companies to automatically win, you would witness instant brain drain to Europe or Canada. However, it's unlikely to happen, because this is not "the truth", it's just "Apple's PR", which they are perfectly entitled to do in a free country like America. (Note it is not even a lawyer, but "a spokesperson for the company" who expressed this statement.)
I absolutely agree with you, but there has to be some balance. As someone who has had ideas patented I can tell you the process is icky. You start with something that is very specific and unique and after a patent attorney gets involved they keep pushing you to change the language to something more and more board and ambiguous until it resembles nothing of your original idea but in their eyes it is now more valuable because it has a higher likelihood of being infringed upon. Many very successful patents are for very simple ideas. Brain farts that people get on the way home from work or while tinkering in the garage. And those things deserve to be patented and licensed if the inventor can't produce them. What I don't agree with is the trend of taking real world process that are neither novel or unique and breaking them up in little boxes on paper and appending "on a computer" or "on the internet" to them and being awarded a patent.
Another fun fact: While it's often mentioned that other companies request inter-partes reviews of patent claims, did you know Apple is the most aggressive user of those filings to challenge the validity of IP belonging to others? Even more so than Microsoft, Google or even Samsung by a wide margin, and have been for two years in a row.
Apple has $180 billion dollars in the bank and doesn't have a clue how to spend it all.
Thanks for telling us you know what Apple knows about its own money.
Thanks for telling us you know Apple infringed.
Maybe because they didn’t infringe? They usually don’t.
Did you know Apple is one of the most sued companies on the planet? Defensive measures.