It is pretty odd that these no-name patent holding companies can spring up and then win verdicts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where are the big tech companies when these patents are for sale. Instead, they buy up huge patent portfolios that turn out to be pretty much worthless in court. Just ask Google.
How would Google know if their patents are worthless in court? They've not ever sued anyone over them.
So...with all of these incumbent players holding all of these patents - many of them standards essential - what is the entry price per device for a new manufacturer to get into the smartphone business?
Ignoring the costs of hardware and software, what are they on the hook for strictly in licensing fees? I get the feeling that it's extremely prohibitive just looking at all of these patent suits over technologies and features that many of us would consider obvious at this point... (I.e. Pinch to zoom, add to cart, shape of device, VPN, video conferencing, etc, etc)
Has this judgement gone thru "least salable unit" analysis, or an analysis of what percentage of an iPhone's value results from having this single feature, out of the hundreds of features and thousands of patents on iPhones, just by Apple?
Doesn't really matter as a recent Fed Appeals Court decision (CSIRO v. Cisco) tossed out the "smallest salable unit" requirement that Apple and others have sometimes argued for. Real world negotiations carry more weight.
Thanx for that info to follow on the patent blogs -- it's an interesting and subtle decision that doesn't completely overturn the old notion of "apportionment", but rather supplements it. What really struck me is that upon remand, the jury instructions said that Apple "did not contest" patent validity insofar as its applicability to FaceTime v1. It's incredulous that Apple would actually stipulate that anywhere. It appears this stems from some behind-the-scenes goof-up , whereby Apple certainly contests the patent validity, but didn't file some petitions "in time": http://www.law360.com/articles/625286/fed-circ-grants-apple-s-request-to-nix-virnetx-royalty. If this technicality is unappealable, that is a hugely costly gaffe.
No matter what he was bragging about in the car, the Xerox stuff wasn't stolen; it was paid for with one million dollars of pre-IPO Apple stock. I wonder how much that stock would be worth today?
No, it was not paid for. If it were, when Xerox later sued for the theft, Apple could simply have produced proof of the license or sale and the case would have gone POOF. Instead, they argued that it wasn't protectable. And since we had sane patent laws at the time pertaining to software, Apple won. Kind of ironic when you look at Apple today.
Apple paid for a tour. By that logic, I can now remake the latest Star Wars movie because I paid to see it. No one who claims it was paid for has ever been able to produce any evidence of a sale or licensing agreement. That's because there was none. Xerox would not have sued if they'd sold or licensed the GUI to Apple. Apple stole the idea.
Yes according to the law.. VirnetX has a patent(s), and it was willfully (according to the courts) infringed on by Apple.
But the real story here is how horribly broken software patents are in general. Software patents put a large dampener on technological progression / innovation. The system needs a rework, and a rework quite soon.
Neither of those articles provide any proof. It's all anecdotal, much like the original quote.
What's anecdotal about it? The evidence is from the Xerox folk who were actually there, and certainly explains why Xerox didn't sue.
Xerox DID sue. You clearly don't know the history. And when they sued, Apple did NOT produce a sale or license agreement which would have ended the trial then and there. They rather argued that the elements weren't protectable.
I just downloaded the jury form Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 31362 and was wondering if anyone can tell me why it is dated by the foreman as February 3, 2015 if the verdict was actually February 3 2016 ?
What's anecdotal about it? The evidence is from the Xerox folk who were actually there, and certainly explains why Xerox didn't sue.
Xerox DID sue. You clearly don't know the history. And when they sued, Apple did NOT produce a sale or license agreement which would have ended the trial then and there. They rather argued that the elements weren't protectable.
and some good reading on the implications and the importance of PARC's work, how the Apple connection happened, and the importance of what Apple did with it. http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html
Comments
of these patents - many of them standards essential - what is the entry price per device for a new manufacturer to get into the smartphone business?
Ignoring the costs of hardware and software, what are they on the hook for strictly in licensing fees? I get the feeling that it's extremely prohibitive just looking at all of these patent suits over technologies and features that many of us would consider obvious at this point... (I.e. Pinch to zoom, add to cart, shape of device, VPN, video conferencing, etc, etc)
Guess Apple thought the same thing and look where it got them.
Apple paid for a tour. By that logic, I can now remake the latest Star Wars movie because I paid to see it. No one who claims it was paid for has ever been able to produce any evidence of a sale or licensing agreement. That's because there was none. Xerox would not have sued if they'd sold or licensed the GUI to Apple. Apple stole the idea.
Software patents need to die. The coding needs to be protected by copyright, that's it.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
Apple didn't need to produce ANYTHING at that point, because the case was thrown out for having exceeded the statute of limitations.
Xerox just wanted to get in on the coat tails of the Apple-Microsoft lawsuit, but never had a leg of their own to stand on.
A truly comprehensive overview of what actually happened, and what came from where:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/10/xerox-parc-the-apple-inc-macintosh-innovator-duplicator-litigator
and some good reading on the implications and the importance of PARC's work, how the Apple connection happened, and the importance of what Apple did with it.
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html