Can someone explain how a patent suit even begins? I’m assuming apple has some patent for their chip, and the opposing company also has their own which conflicts.
Is there a problem in how our system is issuing patents? Are they not validated ahead of time to avoid infringement?
The USPTO is a joke. That's the main reason. Patents are being granted on very general ideas. A patent holder can make all kinds of statements saying their patent is similar to another patent and juries filled with non technical people make the judgment. It's a total joke. As for the other company in this lawsuit, they do not make any products, I doubt they ever have. The current incarnation of this company simply buys patents and uses them against companies who actually build things. This is just one of the problems with the USPTO. It was created to help inventors protect their investment in unique products. This has been abused for decades.
Here's what the first patent says: A multiprocessing system comprising: multiple processors mounted on a single die; and multiple operating systems residing in a memory connected to said multiple processors, wherein each of said multiple processors executes an operating system of said multiple operating systems, and two or more of said multiple processors are capable of simultaneously executing two or more operating systems of said multiple operating systems.
Every single computer does this and has done this practically since computers were developed. This patent was developed in the Silicon Valley of CA. HP was and is a computer company but I have to wonder why they sold this particular patent when it could be a part of every other patent HP ever created. Patents almost always refer to other patents so I have to wonder if HP felt this patent was out of date and no longer viable in any product, being superseded by other patents.
edit: One more thing. Apple has been making computerized devices since the 1980s and if HP had thought Apple was infringing on this patent HP would have sued Apple. If they did, Apple would have changed how they designed computers to not infringe this patent and Sonrai would have no reason to sue Apple.
Your first post. Would you mind telling us what your old name was? If this is actually the first time you've visited AI, welcome.
Lets not forget Apple chips are ARM based. I would think ARM would have a lot to say about this.
This patent doesn't have anything to do with a specific manufacturer, it has all to do with multiprocessors. I did a quick search of the first page and neither intel or arm were mentioned. I also downloaded the actual patent and non of the artwork mentions any company.
Correct. They had already filed infringement claims against Texas Instruments, Samsung, Lenovo, Google, and AMD. Apple was just the most recent.
There is nothing illegal with any company that "exhibits patent-troll like behaviour." Designating them with the demeaning word "trolls" shows bias. In a free market there are many speculative ways to make money, and obtaining patents and testing them in court is a legal and valid way to make money. Apple itself probably buys patents by buying companies that own patents, which is also a form of speculating in the patent trade. It's actually smart behaviour. I've never seen AppleInsider criticize Apple for buying companies with patents, for the patents. What's the difference? Why the double standard?
When Apple bought 17,000 patents from Intel two years ago, AppleInsider didn't call Apple a "troll" but rather suggested it was smart of Apple to purchase them.
There is no double standard. The difference is that Apple makes products with its patents, It does not buy them just to litigate. The term is well defined as shown below and if the term fits a company then it should be used to describe the company.
pat·ent troll noun DEROGATORY•INFORMAL
a company that obtains the rights to one or more patents in order to profit by means of licensing or litigation, rather than by producing its own goods or services.
"patent trolls are quashing the next, nascent wave of tech innovation"
No they're not. If your innovation steals from someone else it is not innovation
Can someone explain how a patent suit even begins? I’m assuming apple has some patent for their chip, and the opposing company also has their own which conflicts.
Is there a problem in how our system is issuing patents? Are they not validated ahead of time to avoid infringement?
The USPTO is a joke. That's the main reason. Patents are being granted on very general ideas. A patent holder can make all kinds of statements saying their patent is similar to another patent and juries filled with non technical people make the judgment. It's a total joke. As for the other company in this lawsuit, they do not make any products, I doubt they ever have. The current incarnation of this company simply buys patents and uses them against companies who actually build things. This is just one of the problems with the USPTO. It was created to help inventors protect their investment in unique products. This has been abused for decades.
Here's what the first patent says: A multiprocessing system comprising: multiple processors mounted on a single die; and multiple operating systems residing in a memory connected to said multiple processors, wherein each of said multiple processors executes an operating system of said multiple operating systems, and two or more of said multiple processors are capable of simultaneously executing two or more operating systems of said multiple operating systems.
Every single computer does this and has done this practically since computers were developed. This patent was developed in the Silicon Valley of CA. HP was and is a computer company but I have to wonder why they sold this particular patent when it could be a part of every other patent HP ever created. Patents almost always refer to other patents so I have to wonder if HP felt this patent was out of date and no longer viable in any product, being superseded by other patents.
edit: One more thing. Apple has been making computerized devices since the 1980s and if HP had thought Apple was infringing on this patent HP would have sued Apple. If they did, Apple would have changed how they designed computers to not infringe this patent and Sonrai would have no reason to sue Apple.
Your first post. Would you mind telling us what your old name was? If this is actually the first time you've visited AI, welcome.
I thought 22July laid it out very clearly. The USPTO follows the same principles and processes as every other patent office in the world. Patents are not "granted on general ideas". If one never reads past the patent abstract, one won't know that the key components of a patent are the claims.
The invention has to be patentable, useful, novel (unique), and non-obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. To most who deal with patents (inventors, assignees and attorneys, and internet denizens, for instance) inventions are all obvious once you see exactly how it's done right there in black and white. Not so much beforehand. Hence the mistaken notion that patents are granted on "general ideas".
Further, you will find nothing in any patent regulations that requires an inventor to follow a granted patent with self-funded and directed manufacturing. If I spend years and all my money on an invention, if I can't actually manufacture it, is the invention then supposed to be free for everyone else to profit from? Sorry, no; you'll get your chance in 20 years, or you can license it. If I invent an anti-gravity platform and get it patented (assuming you can prove it works) but it takes billions of dollars to make it commercially, why should I be prevented from selling it to Elon Musk, who obviously throws billions at any idea that strikes his hyperactive whimsy nerve? I invented it, own it and can build it, sell it and defend it, Musk can own it, build it, sell it. and defend it, just like me, once the check clears, obviously.
Every single time "patent troll" is bandied about in this arena, it should be accompanied by a statement that a patent is just a form of property, and for a limited time you can sit on it, build it, sell it, or even buy other inventions and do the same thing with them. Most buyers then want to license the property they now own, and sometimes they have to bring suit to motivate someone. If as a defendant you feel the requested license is for an invalid patent, like Apple always does, you litigate. Otherwise you license it and move on. Benefits and drawbacks to each method.
Let's step outside the Applesphere for a minute. We're a small biotech group and have patented a bunch of things but for the most part we don't manufacture them. Instead we license / assign them to multi-national corporations, which then manufacture them. No litigation, no big guys using the invention without a license, no Troll appellations. Just business. This is how it usually works. It seems as if many posters here think every patent goes to court, and feel it's all so unfair. Most patents ARE NOT litigated, so there are few "non-technical juries" making judgements, Eastern District of Texas excluded. Bunch of Gohmerts in 10 gallon hats from the bench on down.
Putting aside for the moment how the current laws are written, I think the natural feeling most people have is that societally, we move forward and we improve things through innovation. So entities that file their own patents - or buy patents in the areas of their practice producing good or services - are, from a macro perspective, viewed much more favorably than a person or business that acquires patents with no ability to produce goods or services that are the basis for innovation.
Ultimately there should be a way to distinguish between individuals/companies that are awarded patents for through the organic development of ideas vs "NPE's that transactionally acquire patents purely for the mechanism of legal leverage. And while I have less issue if a practicing entity buys a patent that they don't use right away (the development of products or service is dependent upon lots of factors, the synthesis and timing of which can be long and complicated), perhaps there should also be a stale date for patents that are not leveraged after a certain number of years (5, 7 10... )
Quite complicated, but the point is the current process needs to better protect the actual or real potential of patent use vs the legal umbrella NPE's do hide under.
Perhaps there's a parallel that can be drawn with the share market. Shares issued by a company to raise funds are purchased by investors who expect the value of the company (and thus their shares) to increase. Those shares can subsequently be traded. Some people who buy shares from a market examine the capabilities of the company and make their purchasing decision based on the "fundamentals" - the real world performance of the company - and determine the worth of each share on this basis. Others will buy according to an analysis of the market itself rather than the company's attributes, seeing that a swathe of similar companies' shares have followed a particular price pattern. Trading shares based on these market behaviours ("technical" analysis) is usually performed at higher volume and with greater risk, but is generally viewed as more profitable than investing on the fundamentals.
Now, a share of a company is more closely related to "real" property than is a patent, but I don't see a difference between a trader of either asset because a company is just as intangible (the company can own tangible assets but by itself is a legal construct; the patent can describe a tangible asset but it too is merely a legal construct). If trading is legal and moral, and the asset in question is legal and moral, then whether or not the current owner of an asset is putting it to use is a moot question. If the owner is doing something to increase the value of their asset then a close examination of that activity should be undertaken - is it being conducted to improve the utility/marketability of the asset, or is the aim to influence the demand for that asset? The latter can be problematic ("pump and dump" schemes, for example) but not in every case.
From a theoretical perspective I like the patent system, but I am seeing potentially significant flaws in the implementation as speculators increase their activity, the complexity of inventions grows and regulatory funding fails to keep pace with demand.
There is no requirement under the patent system that the patent inventor needs to also be the manufacturer who produces the goods based on his patent. That is a myth. The whole patent system encourages innovation by allowing people who don't manufacture things to get rewarded from designing things without having to manufacture them. You don't need to build mousetraps to be able to patent one. You aren't a "troll" just because you are an inventor and not a manufacturer.
By saying, as you do, Appelsauce007, that only companies big enough to manufacture their patents are legitimate patent holders, you are undermining one of the great benefits of the patent system. Under your logic, if you bequeathed a patent to your child upon your death, your child would become "a patent troll" because they didn't produce their own goods or services based on the patent they inherited form you. That's wrong. I celebrate the fact that people can hold patents without being manufacturers, whereas you deride it.
Your points are valid, but let's test your actual position.
Do you support Apple hanging onto Lightning, or would you prefer that they fully move all of their products to USB-C?
I fail to see how the patent system "encourages" innovation when it clearly can be used to block the sale of products that supposedly use certain patents. Tons and tons of money is lost just battling patents when that same money and energy could be used moving the world forward. So yes, I agree that companies that hold patents solely to profit from them alone are trolls. They are not contributing to the world in any way.
Note, patent trolls are not the same as the inventors of those patents. The inventors are contributing to the world. Patent trolls are just trying to profit from the inventors' hard work.
Thank you for the opening compliment. Civility counts for a lot in life. I'll try to be as civil in return.
In your closing paragraph you said that inventors themselves are not trolls. That's great, but you failed to answer my question above which was: what happens when an inventor bequeaths his patent to an heir? Does the heir become a patent troll? After all, the heir didn't invent anything. Or what happens if the inventor willingly sells his patent to a non-manufacturing entity? Does the new owner of the patent become a "patent troll"? Basically you and Applesauce007 are saying that anyone who isn't the original inventor or a big manufacturer is automatically a "patent troll." Is it immoral for a legitimate inventor to sell his patent to some company that you call a "patent troll company"? There are so many questions like this - do you have any answers? How exactly would you stop "legitimate patent owners" from selling their patents to companies that you deem to be "patent troll companies"? Who is going to be the judge of which owners are legitimate buyers of patents and which ones are not?
If I purchase a copyright from some author, does that make me a "copyright troll"? Or if I purchase a trademark from the creator of the trademark, am I a "trademark troll"? Why can't I own something and retain the world's respect without being the original property creator?
As for your question about Lightning vs USB-C, I don't see any connection to these patent issues. And the truth is that I don't care what Apple does with its Lightning connectors, as long as all patents are honoured and paid for when used. What do you want me to say about Lightning vs USB-C? The only position that I have is that patents and copyrights and trademarks should all be "property," just like any other property that anyone can own. You can buy them from, or sell them to, anyone you want. Patents are no different from cars, homes or jewelry. Anyone can own them. And anyone can sell them to whomever they want.
When you said "I fail to see how the patent system "encourages" innovation when it clearly can be used to block the sale of products that supposedly use certain patents" I don't even know where to begin. The company that you call the "patent troll" is trying to get paid for patent that it owns, and is using the threat of "blocking sales" to force the patent violator to get paid. Surely you aren't suggesting that Apple shouldn't be required to pay up for patents that it's using without paying for them. The courts are the final arbiter for determining patent violations... do you have any problem with that? What exactly is wrong with the patent system in your opinion? In my opinion it is working exactly as intended and it's a fine system. I'm a very happy person with the current state of patent law... what changes to the law do you want to see?
I've grappled with the dichotomy presented by the need to protect intellectual property versus the scourge that the non-practicing entity lawsuits represent.
Perhaps the answer is to limit the royalties that can be demanded from patents that are not being applied (non-practicing) versus those that are applied in some product or service. This would give greater protection and rewards to those who own patents and are using the patented technology in their products, because damage from infringement is higher versus damage to a non-practicing patent holder. If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent. But if you haven't, and therefore also haven't brought a new product or service to market that allows society to benefit from the invention, then perhaps you shouldn't receive the same compensation for infringement.
There's perhaps a bit of precedent here in the FRAND royalty calculations for patents that are considered standards essential. The whole notion of SEP is that there's a greater good to society to allow multiple parties to utilize an invention as part of a standard and therefore it should be affordable for all to utilize the patented invention. Same here. Patented inventions that are sat upon don't benefit society, so there should be incentive to get those inventions into use.
To give time for a new patent holder to develop products and services around a patented invention, perhaps the first few years after the patent is granted, it can be exempt from the rules I'm suggesting here. The current status quo would remain in effect. But after, say, three years, if you haven't shown that the patent is being developed into a product or service, then licensing limitations go into effect so that the amount you may charge for your invention will be limited, ala FRAND-type pricing guidelines. So, if you don't intend to utilize a patented invention, either accept the lower royalty rates so that others can utilize it, or sell the patent to a company that will utilize it and therefore retain full royalty and infringement power over it.
I'm glad that you admit you are struggling to find rules that work for you. But here's your problem: you say, "If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent." This implies that the compensation is NOT to be determined by any agreement between the patent holder and the patent user, but by some third party whom you do not identify. Do you want the government or the courts determining how much a patent is "worth". Apparently you don't like the idea of a free market deciding what something is worth.
How about people who hold and own copyrights for books or music when they aren't aren't the original compose of the work. Do you want them to be compensated "less" because they didn't write the material? That's the same idea as making patent holders receive less money if they aren't the original creator or a manufacturer.
I just don't like it when people say that the free market isn't good enough, and that someone (never identified by the arguers) should be determining what everything is "worth."
I think you misunderstood my stance. Let's begin with your copyrighted book example. This doesn't really apply under my notion of providing lower rewards to ideas not implemented into a product or service. Under copyright law a book that is copyrighted already exists, so there's no period during which the idea or the copyright exists without the book (the product) also existing. The author has done his work to produce his manuscript or final published book and therefore, under my notion, deserves full protection and full unencumbered rights to sue for whatever the court may grant in damages. This would apply even if the book is not yet published, as the notion is that the copyright owner has done the work already.
Now back to a patented method. If you read my entire comment then you read that I would allow FRAND-like pricing on patents where the owner has not done work to productize the patented method. I wasn't writing the legal phrasing that would eventually become law so I wasn't being super detailed, but you may read my comment as covering the scenario where someone along the chain of ownership has invested resources not merely in acquiring the parent but in bringing the patented method to fruition in some form, product, service, basic research, etc.
My notion is that if a novel method has merely been patented and no future effort has been extended by either the parent originator or anyone along the chain of subsequent ownership, then the full rights to that patent would expire earlier than if the parent was being actively worked toward benefitting society.
By expire earlier I mean that, after a period of time (I threw out three years, could be four or two or six) the full rights to pursue damages from an infringing party would reduce to some sort of FRAND-type calculation of the patent's value.
You, or the party you sold your patent to, or any subsequent party they sell it to, all in combination should be required to show that the patent hasn't merely been sat on for years but that effort to put it in motion for the good of society have been expended and progress made. Or, after a grace period while this effort should have been underway has passed, the patent would no longer hold the same status as one where its owners expended effort to put it in motion.
Hope that clarifies. And yes, my notion in this regard borrows heavily from the FRAND and SEP structures that have already passed legal scrutiny. I'm merely introducing a new context within which these structures would apply to reform the patent system.
Putting aside for the moment how the current laws are written, I think the natural feeling most people have is that societally, we move forward and we improve things through innovation. So entities that file their own patents - or buy patents in the areas of their practice producing good or services - are, from a macro perspective, viewed much more favorably than a person or business that acquires patents with no ability to produce goods or services that are the basis for innovation.
Ultimately there should be a way to distinguish between individuals/companies that are awarded patents for through the organic development of ideas vs "NPE's that transactionally acquire patents purely for the mechanism of legal leverage. And while I have less issue if a practicing entity buys a patent that they don't use right away (the development of products or service is dependent upon lots of factors, the synthesis and timing of which can be long and complicated), perhaps there should also be a stale date for patents that are not leveraged after a certain number of years (5, 7 10... )
Quite complicated, but the point is the current process needs to better protect the actual or real potential of patent use vs the legal umbrella NPE's do hide under.
Your notion of a 'stale date' is a good description of the idea I've been pushing here four years in discussions about patent rights. You can see my comment on it a few comment back in this thread and also clarification in my comment immediately above this one.
Can someone explain how a patent suit even begins? I’m assuming apple has some patent for their chip, and the opposing company also has their own which conflicts.
Is there a problem in how our system is issuing patents? Are they not validated ahead of time to avoid infringement?
The USPTO is a joke. That's the main reason. Patents are being granted on very general ideas. A patent holder can make all kinds of statements saying their patent is similar to another patent and juries filled with non technical people make the judgment. It's a total joke. As for the other company in this lawsuit, they do not make any products, I doubt they ever have. The current incarnation of this company simply buys patents and uses them against companies who actually build things. This is just one of the problems with the USPTO. It was created to help inventors protect their investment in unique products. This has been abused for decades.
Here's what the first patent says: A multiprocessing system comprising: multiple processors mounted on a single die; and multiple operating systems residing in a memory connected to said multiple processors, wherein each of said multiple processors executes an operating system of said multiple operating systems, and two or more of said multiple processors are capable of simultaneously executing two or more operating systems of said multiple operating systems.
Every single computer does this and has done this practically since computers were developed. This patent was developed in the Silicon Valley of CA. HP was and is a computer company but I have to wonder why they sold this particular patent when it could be a part of every other patent HP ever created. Patents almost always refer to other patents so I have to wonder if HP felt this patent was out of date and no longer viable in any product, being superseded by other patents.
edit: One more thing. Apple has been making computerized devices since the 1980s and if HP had thought Apple was infringing on this patent HP would have sued Apple. If they did, Apple would have changed how they designed computers to not infringe this patent and Sonrai would have no reason to sue Apple.
Your first post. Would you mind telling us what your old name was? If this is actually the first time you've visited AI, welcome.
Lets not forget Apple chips are ARM based. I would think ARM would have a lot to say about this.
This patent doesn't have anything to do with a specific manufacturer, it has all to do with multiprocessors. I did a quick search of the first page and neither intel or arm were mentioned. I also downloaded the actual patent and non of the artwork mentions any company.
But they do use multiprocessors aka SOCs and AMD chips and the Adler lake Intel chips.
Comments
Distracting people from the issue with this "Patent troll" BS is just that: BS.
The invention has to be patentable, useful, novel (unique), and non-obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. To most who deal with patents (inventors, assignees and attorneys, and internet denizens, for instance) inventions are all obvious once you see exactly how it's done right there in black and white. Not so much beforehand. Hence the mistaken notion that patents are granted on "general ideas".
Further, you will find nothing in any patent regulations that requires an inventor to follow a granted patent with self-funded and directed manufacturing. If I spend years and all my money on an invention, if I can't actually manufacture it, is the invention then supposed to be free for everyone else to profit from? Sorry, no; you'll get your chance in 20 years, or you can license it. If I invent an anti-gravity platform and get it patented (assuming you can prove it works) but it takes billions of dollars to make it commercially, why should I be prevented from selling it to Elon Musk, who obviously throws billions at any idea that strikes his hyperactive whimsy nerve? I invented it, own it and can build it, sell it and defend it, Musk can own it, build it, sell it. and defend it, just like me, once the check clears, obviously.
Every single time "patent troll" is bandied about in this arena, it should be accompanied by a statement that a patent is just a form of property, and for a limited time you can sit on it, build it, sell it, or even buy other inventions and do the same thing with them. Most buyers then want to license the property they now own, and sometimes they have to bring suit to motivate someone. If as a defendant you feel the requested license is for an invalid patent, like Apple always does, you litigate. Otherwise you license it and move on. Benefits and drawbacks to each method.
Let's step outside the Applesphere for a minute. We're a small biotech group and have patented a bunch of things but for the most part we don't manufacture them. Instead we license / assign them to multi-national corporations, which then manufacture them. No litigation, no big guys using the invention without a license, no Troll appellations. Just business. This is how it usually works. It seems as if many posters here think every patent goes to court, and feel it's all so unfair. Most patents ARE NOT litigated, so there are few "non-technical juries" making judgements, Eastern District of Texas excluded. Bunch of Gohmerts in 10 gallon hats from the bench on down.
Ultimately there should be a way to distinguish between individuals/companies that are awarded patents for through the organic development of ideas vs "NPE's that transactionally acquire patents purely for the mechanism of legal leverage. And while I have less issue if a practicing entity buys a patent that they don't use right away (the development of products or service is dependent upon lots of factors, the synthesis and timing of which can be long and complicated), perhaps there should also be a stale date for patents that are not leveraged after a certain number of years (5, 7 10... )
Quite complicated, but the point is the current process needs to better protect the actual or real potential of patent use vs the legal umbrella NPE's do hide under.
Now, a share of a company is more closely related to "real" property than is a patent, but I don't see a difference between a trader of either asset because a company is just as intangible (the company can own tangible assets but by itself is a legal construct; the patent can describe a tangible asset but it too is merely a legal construct). If trading is legal and moral, and the asset in question is legal and moral, then whether or not the current owner of an asset is putting it to use is a moot question. If the owner is doing something to increase the value of their asset then a close examination of that activity should be undertaken - is it being conducted to improve the utility/marketability of the asset, or is the aim to influence the demand for that asset? The latter can be problematic ("pump and dump" schemes, for example) but not in every case.
From a theoretical perspective I like the patent system, but I am seeing potentially significant flaws in the implementation as speculators increase their activity, the complexity of inventions grows and regulatory funding fails to keep pace with demand.
Now back to a patented method. If you read my entire comment then you read that I would allow FRAND-like pricing on patents where the owner has not done work to productize the patented method. I wasn't writing the legal phrasing that would eventually become law so I wasn't being super detailed, but you may read my comment as covering the scenario where someone along the chain of ownership has invested resources not merely in acquiring the parent but in bringing the patented method to fruition in some form, product, service, basic research, etc.
My notion is that if a novel method has merely been patented and no future effort has been extended by either the parent originator or anyone along the chain of subsequent ownership, then the full rights to that patent would expire earlier than if the parent was being actively worked toward benefitting society.
But they do use multiprocessors aka SOCs and AMD chips and the Adler lake Intel chips.