Apple to pay $8M in damages over iPod playlist patent suit

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 129
    joelsaltjoelsalt Posts: 827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    You reckon 1/10th of $8,000,000 is "$80k" do you?



    As for your username...



    he said 1/10 of 1/10. Reading is FUNdamental
  • Reply 42 of 129
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,639member
    deleted
  • Reply 43 of 129
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post


    Banishing East Texas is next in the agenda I believe. Anybody currently residing there that is not part of the courthouse are ought to be safe at this point.



    Lets hope they get their wish to secede
  • Reply 44 of 129
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Not sure that is correct. Apple bought Fingerworks, which was a pioneer in multi-touch. It was formed in 1998. It was awarded many patents between 2006 and 2007. Apple would now own these patents.



    Fingerworks had actual shipping products that used a pretty comprehensive set of multi-touch commands.



    The CEO of Fingerworks, who is now an Apple engineer, wrote a dissertation in 1999 on many of the concepts incorporated in both Fingerwork and Apple products. He was also credited with the multi-touch patents awarded to Apple in 2008.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Actually I think there was prior art on pinch to zoom. It was done back in 2006 at least



    http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_de...uchscreen.html



  • Reply 45 of 129
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,628member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


    Edison patented the light bulb, and Michelin the tire, unless I'm mistaken, and both were amazing inventions. What you are essentially saying is "if some invention is really useful, it should not be patented". This is not how you favor research.



    The problem is not what you can patent, it's effectively deciding how much money you can make from a patent that you don't use. I think none, but that's my personal opinion and I won't force it upon anyone... yet. (I am honing my taking-over-the-world plan).



    Edison didn't patent the IDEA of the light bulb, he patented a specific implementation of a light bulb using a vacuum, tungsten, glass, etc. Michelin didn't invent the IDEA of a tire ("a round device that's firm but also somewhat squishy that fits over a hub to give a transportation device a smoother ride"), they implemented and built a specific tire design and (although I don't remember if the following is accurate) invented the process of vulcanization.



    These patent troll companies get away with patenting obvious ideas. They get to patent choosing items from a list, or skipping over some items and choosing a different item??? I still maintain that Amazon should NEVER have gotten a patent for one-click (which Apple licensed from them). Saving someone's address in a file should not have been a patentable idea. Saving and retrieving data has been around since the first databases.



    If this playlist company developed a new type of mouse or physical control that enabled this in a new way, they deserve a patent. But patents were never supposed to be issued for ideas, only for the implementation of ideas. Otherwise, I could patent the "idea" of flying cars, holographic TV displays, cars that run on sewer water and traveling through time.



    If the copyright office worked like the patent office, you'd have "copyright trolls" who would copyright the idea of a western or romantic comedy or war movie or whatever genre you can name. But we don't permit that and there is a high standard for copyright infringement suits. You really have to show that specific phrases were used, so Alex Haley lost a copyright infringement lawsuit over Roots, because his researchers apparently copied some descriptions of a fence construction verbatim out of another book, but J.K. Rowling has won all of the lawsuits against her by authors who had written stories about child wizards before she did.
  • Reply 46 of 129
    drowdrow Posts: 126member
    give it back to mexico.
  • Reply 47 of 129
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:

    Patents belonging to people would only be worthless if they didn't actually use them. That's the whole point of my proposition.



    You understand that patents don't enforce themselves right? To enforce them requires a lawsuit, a very expensive one generally, which puts it well outside the means of most individuals. The easiest way an individual can profit from a patent is by selling it, or by granting an exclusive license to it - which would amount to the same thing - and would fall afoul of your hypothetical draconian regulations.



    Sorry but keep dreaming.
  • Reply 48 of 129
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    Michelin ...invented the process of vulcanization.



    Nope - that was Goodyear. Oh and Edison wasn't tungsten, that came later.
  • Reply 49 of 129
    Forget whether East Texas or a specific judge is the problem. Patents are real and whether you like software patents, patents that are obvious, etc. it will not stop the continuous leeching by one party/person against another.



    The REAL problem in this is that suing someone in the US has minimal consequences to the person suing. If they lose, they have to pay only their lawyers (and associated costs of course). It is a gamble that many choose to take, especially lawyers who gamble on a case and do it for "free" but take half to three quarters of the winnings if they win.



    If the loser in such a suit had to pay the winner their legal fees and associated costs, then they have a lot more to lose in taking someone to trial. Add in a percentage of what they were wanting in the first place, and it gives one pause before continuing.



    Change this one thing, and I think you would see a lot less lawsuits. However, since most politicians are lawyers, I doubt you would ever see this coming into effect in the US. It would be lawyers cutting their own pocketbook from their grasp, and where money is concerned, this would be a non-starter.
  • Reply 50 of 129
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    You are somewhat correct that the person suing generally loses very little if he or she loses. You are incorrect about some other things though.



    First, lawyers do not take half if they win. In most states that would be illegal. The percentage usually ranges from 25 to 33 percent plus cost (e.g. filing fees). Second, most lawyers are not going to take a case unless either they think there is a strong chance to win or settle. From a Plaintiff's perspective there might not be much work in suing somebody, from a lawyer's perspective, however, there is a lot work and associated cost. Who wants to put in all that time and not get paid?



    Further, if Judges are doing their jobs properly fraudulent cases don't make it very far in the system. In such cases, judges also generally have discretion to award costs to the prevailing party.



    In my view, loser pays as a general premise is a bad system because 1) it favors the rich, and 2) it improperly assumes the judicial system is fair. On the State level, it is common for judges to ignore the law and rule in favor of who they like better. They know most people can't afford to appeal, and if they do, so what? There is no consequence for a judge ignoring the law and ruling however he or she sees fit. Corporations also hire very expensive lawyers who can rack up costs easily without even doing very much. Do we really want to live in a system where regular folks can't have their voice heard because they are afraid of being forced into bankruptcy if they lose? I don't.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Reginald View Post


    The REAL problem in this is that suing someone in the US has minimal consequences to the person suing. If they lose, they have to pay only their lawyers (and associated costs of course). It is a gamble that many choose to take, especially lawyers who gamble on a case and do it for "free" but take half to three quarters of the winnings if they win.



    If the loser in such a suit had to pay the winner their legal fees and associated costs, then they have a lot more to lose in taking someone to trial. Add in a percentage of what they were wanting in the first place, and it gives one pause before continuing.



    Change this one thing, and I think you would see a lot less lawsuits. However, since most politicians are lawyers, I doubt you would ever see this coming into effect in the US. It would be lawyers cutting their own pocketbook from their grasp, and where money is concerned, this would be a non-starter.



  • Reply 51 of 129
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Reginald View Post


    Forget whether East Texas or a specific judge is the problem. Patents are real and whether you like software patents, patents that are obvious, etc. it will not stop the continuous leeching by one party/person against another.



    The REAL problem in this is that suing someone in the US has minimal consequences to the person suing. If they lose, they have to pay only their lawyers (and associated costs of course). It is a gamble that many choose to take, especially lawyers who gamble on a case and do it for "free" but take half to three quarters of the winnings if they win.



    If the loser in such a suit had to pay the winner their legal fees and associated costs, then they have a lot more to lose in taking someone to trial. Add in a percentage of what they were wanting in the first place, and it gives one pause before continuing.



    Change this one thing, and I think you would see a lot less lawsuits. However, since most politicians are lawyers, I doubt you would ever see this coming into effect in the US. It would be lawyers cutting their own pocketbook from their grasp, and where money is concerned, this would be a non-starter.



    Well, there's certainly an ethical dilemma about lawyers going to congress and writing the laws, since they've shown themselves susceptible to writing some very self-serving laws. But IIRC, your solution was actually written into law many years ago, and then very quickly overturned as unconstitutional. Like P J O'Rourke said, the law of unintended consequences is the only law that congress always passes. It was felt to restrict access to the courts by the disadvantaged, since the barrier to litigation would be raised much higher. Sometimes a little guy suing a big guy is just a twerp looking for a big payday. Sometimes the little guy was actually wronged. Make it so that court decisions are just, and fairness will follow. Allow the decisions to be unjust, and no other solution will make the greater process just.



    So if we find a place like the East Texas court system that seems so biased, the correct remedy is to solve the problem of its bias. Preferably with a bulldozer and a very, very large pile of dirt.
  • Reply 52 of 129
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    You reckon 1/10th of $8,000,000 is "$80k" do you?



    As for your username...



    This might explain Ireland's recent financial woes as someone else pointed out that the product of 1/10 x 1/10 is 1/100 of 8 Million and thus, 80k.
  • Reply 53 of 129
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Why should I spend money on R&D if I can simply copy what someone else did?



    I think you quoted Samsung's corporate slogan.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    Lets hope they get their wish to secede



    As long as they give the U.S. all its assets presently in Texas, and/or assumes its portion of the national debt.
  • Reply 54 of 129
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post


    he said 1/10 of 1/10. Reading is FUNdamental



    Mea Culpa
  • Reply 55 of 129
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    You reckon 1/10th of $8,000,000 is "$80k" do you?



    As for your username...



    Is it really too much trouble to read and comprehend?



    The original post was: "I'd live happily on 1/10th of 1/10th of that payout."



    1/10 of 1/10 of $8,000,000 is, indeed, $80,000.
  • Reply 56 of 129
    _hawkeye__hawkeye_ Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    This is actually a good example of the reverse of your argument.



    Edison didn't really so much "invent" the lightbulb as simply beat others to it. Everyone knew at the time that 'electrically lighted bulbs' were going to work. The basic idea and how it would work were already done. The only thing missing was what material could be used for the filament and lots of inventors were trying to figure that out. Edison just tried over and over and over again until he hit on the right material.



    The point is, it wasn't anything original, it wasn't even his idea. He just got there first and got the patent and froze out all the other inventors for years and years.



    He didn't really "deserve" to have exclusive rights on the lightbulb idea, but he ended up with them anyway. He didn't actually think of the idea, yet he is "the inventor of the lightbulb." And whose to say that one of the other ideas might not have been better?



    He probably didn't stifle much invention with the lightbulb patent, but he did with many of his other ideas. Patents can work to suppress ideas as much as they do to protect them. Especially since all copyright and patent law is basically skewed towards the needs and interests of business and not the actual inventors and creators.



    Back then, one couldn't patent ideas. One had to have something that worked first.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    These patent troll companies get away with patenting obvious ideas. They get to patent choosing items from a list, or skipping over some items and choosing a different item???



    It used to be that patents had to be something innovative, and couldn't be intuitively obviously.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    But patents were never supposed to be issued for ideas, only for the implementation of ideas. Otherwise, I could patent the "idea" of flying cars, holographic TV displays, cars that run on sewer water and traveling through time.



    Well, the problem with patenting cars that run on sewer water is the patent does you no good unless someone can realize the idea. Fortunately, patents don't last forever, so there's not an infinite window of opportunity for the trolls.



    But i agree. Patents shouldn't be issued for ideas. You used to have to have something to show.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    Alex Haley lost a copyright infringement lawsuit over Roots, because his researchers apparently copied some descriptions of a fence construction verbatim out of another book



    Um, it was more than "some descriptions of a fence construction." Try: Lifting the plot & main character, and over 80 whole passages (from The African, by Harold Courlander.)





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Reginald View Post


    The REAL problem in this is that suing someone in the US has minimal consequences to the person suing. If they lose, they have to pay only their lawyers (and associated costs of course).



    Unless, of course, the defendant can counter-sue.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Reginald View Post


    If the loser in such a suit had to pay the winner their legal fees and associated costs, then they have a lot more to lose in taking someone to trial. Add in a percentage of what they were wanting in the first place, and it gives one pause before continuing.



    Change this one thing, and I think you would see a lot less lawsuits.



    Unfortunately, it would also limit those with legitimate claims. So it's not a perfect solution. But i agree the system, as it is, is broken.
  • Reply 57 of 129
    drudru Posts: 43member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brentbordelon View Post


    I love how they say "inventions". These aren't inventions, they're ideas. I've got a million of em, just like everyone else.



    Getting a paper that says, basically, "FIRST!!!", shouldn't give you the right to sue someone who get's the same idea and actually makes it a reality.



    It's about to get worse if President Obama gets the "patent reform" bill he keeps demanding. Right now we have a "first to invent" system meaning if you can prove you invented something first, you get the patent.



    Under the proposal, it'll change to "first to file." This will favor large companies with deep pockets able to file early and often. Small businesses, entrepreneurs and start ups will be harmed. Just yesterday he claimed it'll create jobs.



    Big companies already file and amend and amend and amend again as a way to block competitors and extend the effective term of a patent.
  • Reply 58 of 129
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    as the $8 million damages award is relatively insubstantial for the company, which has more than $60 billion in cash reserves.



    Contrary to popular belief, Apple doesnt have "$60 billion in cash reserves" They have total securities asset that is equivalent to $60 billion.



    Their real cash/cash equivalent ( any assets that can be converted to cash within one period or one year, whichever is longer) is only around $15 billion.







    http://www.asymco.com/2011/04/26/2895/#idc-cover
  • Reply 59 of 129
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Contrary to popular belief, Apple doesnt have "$60 billion in cash reserves" They have total securities asset that is equivalent to $60 billion.



    Their real cash/cash equivalent ( any assets that can be converted to cash within one period or one year, whichever is longer) is only around $15 billion.







    http://www.asymco.com/2011/04/26/2895/#idc-cover



    Your definition is wrong. Short term and long term marketable securities can be converted to cash at any time. In some cases, there might be a small penalty to do that conversion on short notice, but marketable securities can, by definition, be converted to cash.
  • Reply 60 of 129
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Contrary to popular belief, Apple doesnt have "$60 billion in cash reserves" They have total securities asset that is equivalent to $60 billion.



    The key word is marketable. The bond markets are extremely liquid, even in this post credit crisis world. Apple could easily convert those funds to cash if it needed to, and the cost would be measured in basis points. Apple has very conservative investments.
Sign In or Register to comment.