And on and on. Does anyone here really think these patent suits help develop technologies or add to the bottom line of anyone but lawyers? IMO, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Samsung, HTC and a few other big players should all agree to sit down and form a group that agrees not to sue each other, work things out within the group as needed, and to share patents to keep others at bay to avoid patent infringement claims against other group members.
actually they are all investors in the biggest patent troll of all, Intellectual Ventures
If it is the Intel CPU that is infringing on the patents, why are they suing Apple?
Because that's where pockets run deepest. Apple is the Marianas Trench of deep pockets. Patent trolls have to start there if they are looking for a payday.
Write your local Democrat to get on board with the Republicans, who have been touting tort reform for years, and let's get this done!
Ummm.... the Republican idea of "reform" is preventing or even eliminating class action lawsuits, and capping damages. Take a peek at the following:
"The Tennessee General Assembly approved HB 2008 that places a cap of $750,000 on non-economic damages such as pain and emotional suffering and a $500,000 cap on economic or punitive damages. The bill also places a $1 million cap on catastrophic cases, a cap that would apply in instances where a person became paralyzed, burned, blinded, suffered an amputation or otherwise died leaving behind minor children."
"The bill was Haslam?s legislative centerpiece in his first year in office and part of his campaign promise to make Tennessee more attractive to businesses."
Now read the end of the last line again, "....to make Tennessee more attractive to businesses."
Bingo. To Republicans, "tort reform" would be like the bankruptcy "reform" laws passed recently, choked full of rules benefitting the banks and the credit card industry. Tort reform would be little more than a corporate wish list, designed to make life easier and less expensive for them.
It would not benefit the public in any way, shape, or form.
You're getting sick of it because these tech sites find it necessary to post every story about it.
Not publishing it doesn't make the problem go away, and I think that's part of the point. If we don't know it's a problem, then it is more certain that nothing will be done about it.
Write your local Democrat to get on board with the Republicans, who have been touting tort reform for years, and let's get this done!
So called "tort reform" -- especially the kind being pushed by the right -- is not the answer to this problem, for at least a couple of reasons.
First of all, the problem is not with the legal system, the problem is with the patent system. As long as patents are granted for things they ought not be, and those patents are upheld, "loser pays" won't accomplish anything toward stopping suits such as this because the bogus patent holders won't be the losers.
Secondly, the kind of "tort reform" Republicans have been pushing for has nothing to do with this. Republican "tort reform" is simply an effort to strip citizens of their right to seek meaningful redress through the courts, and make damages a predictable and small business expense.
This is good for unethical corporations and insurance companies, but not for anyone else.
Write your local Democrat to get on board with the Republicans, who have been touting tort reform for years, and let's get this done!
/
/
So that companies don't have to ever do anything that consumers want or need? Sarcasm? I mean, republic reform wouldn't change this problem from what I understand of it... Did you mean to say have the republicans cut the budget to courts that hands consumer vs companys? Did you mean just cut all te courts? Explain please...
Think you need to read up on the internal combustion engine if you think Ford invented it....
Who said they needed to invent it. They just need a shell company to submit a sufficiently vague patent on it whether they invented it or not. Then they can sue. Doesn't matter if it is actually valid or not. Don't let reasonableness get in the way of legal procedural correctness.
Secondly, the kind of "tort reform" Republicans have been pushing for has nothing to do with this. Republican "tort reform" is simply an effort to strip citizens of their right to seek meaningful redress through the courts, and make damages a predictable and small business expense.
This is good for unethical corporations and insurance companies, but not for anyone else.
Hear! Hear!
A pox on those who would seek an end to $54 million lawsuits against dry cleaners for losing a pair of pants!
Not publishing it doesn't make the problem go away, and I think that's part of the point. If we don't know it's a problem, then it is more certain that nothing will be done about it.
I agree. While I don't like the publicity given to them much myself, the problem needs to be dealt with and can only be seen as a big problem through publicity. Microsoft seem to be taking some much needed action in this area:
Patent Trolls are euphemistically known as NPEs (non-practising entities) but IMO, if you own a piece of paper that states an idea belongs to you yet requires a tangible product to manifest its benefit, then being an NPE in most cases should invalidate your exclusive ownership of it.
There will be circumstances as always where one rule doesn't fit all such as, if you invent a fusion reactor or part of a microprocessor design whose implementation is deemed to be sufficiently beyond your means, then ownership of a certain idea would be perfectly reasonable.
The ones that are not reasonable are the generic ideas whose owners have no plans to implement them but milk profits such as the Lodsys people going after developers using in-app purchasing. The sooner rewards are stopped for the lazy and greedy, the better off we'll be.
First post here, been a lurker for a while, not a troll.... just found this discussion interesting...
Anyone actually go to the plantiffs (group doing the suing) web site and see what they do or find out who they are? They are far from the common 'Patent troll' companies like Lodsys. These guys actually have licensing deals with major players like Samsung and have IP's that make income on their own merit.
Yeah, on face value I totally thought it was in the same boat as a Lodsys (or that company that sued RIM a while back), but after reading up on them, they seem to be more along the line of what ARM was like very early on. ARM doesn't or didn't produce anything and was set up to license out their RISC proc technology, IIRC. If that's the case, then they should totally go after anyone that wants to steal their IP, especially when actual licenses are readily available.
They are far from the common 'Patent troll' companies like Lodsys. These guys actually have licensing deals with major players like Samsung and have IP's that make income on their own merit.
Just a note, Lodsys also has licensing deals with major players, like Apple.
Comments
Coming Soon: Ford sues Ferrari over their use of the Internal Combustion engine.
Think you need to read up on the internal combustion engine if you think Ford invented it....
Tort Reform, if the company suing loses, they pay bigtime. that would slow this crap down.
Here's the problem: Congress is essentially made up of lawyers. Lawyers get paid regardless of which side they're on in a lawsuit. Ergo..
And on and on. Does anyone here really think these patent suits help develop technologies or add to the bottom line of anyone but lawyers? IMO, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Samsung, HTC and a few other big players should all agree to sit down and form a group that agrees not to sue each other, work things out within the group as needed, and to share patents to keep others at bay to avoid patent infringement claims against other group members.
actually they are all investors in the biggest patent troll of all, Intellectual Ventures
Um.....
If it is the Intel CPU that is infringing on the patents, why are they suing Apple?
Because that's where pockets run deepest. Apple is the Marianas Trench of deep pockets. Patent trolls have to start there if they are looking for a payday.
Write your local Democrat to get on board with the Republicans, who have been touting tort reform for years, and let's get this done!
Ummm.... the Republican idea of "reform" is preventing or even eliminating class action lawsuits, and capping damages. Take a peek at the following:
"The Tennessee General Assembly approved HB 2008 that places a cap of $750,000 on non-economic damages such as pain and emotional suffering and a $500,000 cap on economic or punitive damages. The bill also places a $1 million cap on catastrophic cases, a cap that would apply in instances where a person became paralyzed, burned, blinded, suffered an amputation or otherwise died leaving behind minor children."
"The bill was Haslam?s legislative centerpiece in his first year in office and part of his campaign promise to make Tennessee more attractive to businesses."
Now read the end of the last line again, "....to make Tennessee more attractive to businesses."
Bingo. To Republicans, "tort reform" would be like the bankruptcy "reform" laws passed recently, choked full of rules benefitting the banks and the credit card industry. Tort reform would be little more than a corporate wish list, designed to make life easier and less expensive for them.
It would not benefit the public in any way, shape, or form.
You're getting sick of it because these tech sites find it necessary to post every story about it.
Not publishing it doesn't make the problem go away, and I think that's part of the point. If we don't know it's a problem, then it is more certain that nothing will be done about it.
Write your local Democrat to get on board with the Republicans, who have been touting tort reform for years, and let's get this done!
So called "tort reform" -- especially the kind being pushed by the right -- is not the answer to this problem, for at least a couple of reasons.
First of all, the problem is not with the legal system, the problem is with the patent system. As long as patents are granted for things they ought not be, and those patents are upheld, "loser pays" won't accomplish anything toward stopping suits such as this because the bogus patent holders won't be the losers.
Secondly, the kind of "tort reform" Republicans have been pushing for has nothing to do with this. Republican "tort reform" is simply an effort to strip citizens of their right to seek meaningful redress through the courts, and make damages a predictable and small business expense.
This is good for unethical corporations and insurance companies, but not for anyone else.
Write your local Democrat to get on board with the Republicans, who have been touting tort reform for years, and let's get this done!
/
/
So that companies don't have to ever do anything that consumers want or need? Sarcasm? I mean, republic reform wouldn't change this problem from what I understand of it... Did you mean to say have the republicans cut the budget to courts that hands consumer vs companys? Did you mean just cut all te courts? Explain please...
Think you need to read up on the internal combustion engine if you think Ford invented it....
Who said they needed to invent it. They just need a shell company to submit a sufficiently vague patent on it whether they invented it or not. Then they can sue. Doesn't matter if it is actually valid or not. Don't let reasonableness get in the way of legal procedural correctness.
Secondly, the kind of "tort reform" Republicans have been pushing for has nothing to do with this. Republican "tort reform" is simply an effort to strip citizens of their right to seek meaningful redress through the courts, and make damages a predictable and small business expense.
This is good for unethical corporations and insurance companies, but not for anyone else.
Hear! Hear!
A pox on those who would seek an end to $54 million lawsuits against dry cleaners for losing a pair of pants!
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/tearful...ory?id=3269485
Those bastards had the audacity to claim "Satisfaction guaranteed"!
You're getting sick of it because these tech sites find it necessary to post every story about it.
I think that's more like it - If companies go out of business and such, report then. I'm getting patent lawsuit fatigue : D
Coming Soon: Ford sues Ferrari over their use of the Internal Combustion engine.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Not publishing it doesn't make the problem go away, and I think that's part of the point. If we don't know it's a problem, then it is more certain that nothing will be done about it.
I agree. While I don't like the publicity given to them much myself, the problem needs to be dealt with and can only be seen as a big problem through publicity. Microsoft seem to be taking some much needed action in this area:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/m...ay-patent-tro/
Patent Trolls are euphemistically known as NPEs (non-practising entities) but IMO, if you own a piece of paper that states an idea belongs to you yet requires a tangible product to manifest its benefit, then being an NPE in most cases should invalidate your exclusive ownership of it.
There will be circumstances as always where one rule doesn't fit all such as, if you invent a fusion reactor or part of a microprocessor design whose implementation is deemed to be sufficiently beyond your means, then ownership of a certain idea would be perfectly reasonable.
The ones that are not reasonable are the generic ideas whose owners have no plans to implement them but milk profits such as the Lodsys people going after developers using in-app purchasing. The sooner rewards are stopped for the lazy and greedy, the better off we'll be.
What the frak is that?
Coming Soon: Ford sues Ferrari over their use of the Internal Combustion engine.
LOL Ford already sued Ferrari once for the use of the "F150" brand. As if it's possible to confuse a Ferrari with a Ford truck.
Anyone actually go to the plantiffs (group doing the suing) web site and see what they do or find out who they are? They are far from the common 'Patent troll' companies like Lodsys. These guys actually have licensing deals with major players like Samsung and have IP's that make income on their own merit.
Yeah, on face value I totally thought it was in the same boat as a Lodsys (or that company that sued RIM a while back), but after reading up on them, they seem to be more along the line of what ARM was like very early on. ARM doesn't or didn't produce anything and was set up to license out their RISC proc technology, IIRC. If that's the case, then they should totally go after anyone that wants to steal their IP, especially when actual licenses are readily available.
Just my $.02
They are far from the common 'Patent troll' companies like Lodsys. These guys actually have licensing deals with major players like Samsung and have IP's that make income on their own merit.
Just a note, Lodsys also has licensing deals with major players, like Apple.
1. it seems to be for hardware, not software. And these folks manufacture stuff.
2. It's not filed in the Eastern District of Texas, which is the preferred locale for patent trolling (and some non-trolls as well, to be fair)
3. It is filed in Western District of Pennsylvania which is, golly gosh, where they do business
Let's wait and see how this one goes.