Court blocks Personal Audio from pursuing further damages from Apple

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 76
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,608member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    Ummm...Apple is in the process (along with other companies) of buying up patents. Those patents will have to be then defended, so Apple fall into catagory 1:



    " - Purchases a patent, then sues another company. claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[7]"



    The difference is Apple generally does not try to earn licensing revenue from other companies. They might be pursuing the patents for defensive purposes, or to bet better FRAND terms by cross licensing those patents. They MAY be trying to add cost to Android devices to offset the 'free' OS, but that is generally uncharacteristic.



    With the iPhone, they have to do something. Their competitors all start to look like iPhones in one way or another. Claiming the form is a natural evolution of the minimalist phone is disingenuous-- look at what HTC and Samsung made in 2006. This damages Apple.
  • Reply 42 of 76
    ezduzitezduzit Posts: 158member
    in reality, 'personal audio' really lost their lawsuit.



    a pyrrhic victory, where the headlines say one thing and the bottom line says something else, in this case. an $8 million award will not come close to paying their legal bills for a couple years of litigation and now apple can coast around without worrying about more litigation from this group of claimants.



    and if the product is good and apple uses it a lot, they can send a thank you note to 'personal audio' using a stamped envelope.
  • Reply 43 of 76
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    Ummm...Apple is in the process (along with other companies) of buying up patents. Those patents will have to be then defended, so Apple fall into catagory 1:



    " - Purchases a patent, then sues another company. claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[7]"



    Conveniently you ignored the following two points. Apple manufactures products with the patents they buy, and they also file more patents directly, than they buy up!
  • Reply 44 of 76
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tawilson View Post


    Conveniently you ignored the following two points. Apple manufactures products with the patents they buy, and they also file more patents directly, than they buy up!



    Um, once the nortel purchase has gone through the second of those two things probably won't be true.
  • Reply 45 of 76
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Um, once the nortel purchase has gone through the second of those two things probably won't be true.



    Really, Apple won't exclusively own the patents. And Apple will still manufacture products that use said patents anyway, so no the point won't be true.



    the Nortel patent purchase, by those involved, was purely a defensive measure. Rather than being sued by some patent troll who is going to do nothing but hold on to the patents and sue!
  • Reply 46 of 76
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tawilson View Post


    Really, Apple won't exclusively own the patents. And Apple will still manufacture products that use said patents anyway, so no the point won't be true.



    the Nortel patent purchase, by those involved, was purely a defensive measure. Rather than being sued by some patent troll who is going to do nothing but hold on to the patents and sue!



    Actually the rumours are that the majority will indeed be assigned to Apple, though the other participants will get licenses. And the Nortel purchase wasn't a defensive play against a troll, because no potential troll was even bidding, no potential troll could even afford 900mil let alone 4.5Billion. A defensive play against other market participants perhaps, or an offensive play more likely - but not a defensive play against NPEs.
  • Reply 47 of 76
    old-wizold-wiz Posts: 194member
    to slip an envelope to the judge.
  • Reply 48 of 76
    vexorgvexorg Posts: 69member
    For anyone interested in the subject of patent trolls, check out last week's episode of "This American Life" which does a pretty good story on the subject. It is available for download or streaming.



    See http://www.thisamericanlife.org . The episode in question is number 441.
  • Reply 49 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aknabi View Post


    When Apple files it's "making sure they protect their innovation" if someone else does it's trolling...



    Apple is one of the worst patent trolls, but of course Apple can do nothing but magical good in fanboi world



  • Reply 50 of 76
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    I figured an internet troll would recognize a patent troll. Apparently not. It seems they only see the world in .varying degrees of trollness.
  • Reply 51 of 76
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,603member
    Wi aw that dosh Apple ur a michty targit fur aw thir cunts oot thir wi fuk aw talent tae mak shit thim sels.
  • Reply 52 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Actually it sounds like it's a little more complicated than that. Had PA been granted an injunction, and then negotiated a license specific to the ipods they perhaps could have gone and litigated again on different products, However they were instead granted damages, and the judge determined that those damages constituted payment for a license to the patents in perpetuity.



    PA was not going to get an injunction against Apple. The legal criteria were not present. PA is not a patent troll company, but one consisting of the original inventors and patent owners. However, this company was never able to commercialize this patent and ceased to exist about 1998. They reincorporated PA in Texas two months before filing suit against Apple, likely because of the Texas bench reputation for favoring patent holders.



    However, an injunction will not be issued unless it is proved that the plaintiff suffered irreparable harm, and the harm suffered could not be adequately compensated by money damages. Another criterion must be met for an injunction to be issued -- that the public interest not be disserved by an injunction.



    I do not know if the plaintiff actually requested injunctive relief, but they certainly knew such relief would be highly unlikely. Thus, they must therefore have known their relief would be in the form of money damages.



    PA asked for $85M but the court found that the typical value for such a patent would be closer to 1/10th that amount. PA's previous incarnation had shown that the naked patent had little value by itself (because they could commercialize it years before). Only when combined with other Apple innovations could the PA patent add value. The process here for determining damages is public (legal) knowledge, so he outcome should have been easily predicted.



    Maybe it's just a case of 20/20 hindsight, but the plaintiff did not listen to their lawyers or the lawyers did a poor job of predicting the outcome of the trial in advance (a key skill attorneys must present).
  • Reply 53 of 76
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post


    Wi aw that dosh Apple ur a michty targit fur aw thir cunts oot thir wi fuk aw talent tae mak shit thim sels.



    Oh, is it Arbitrarily Remove Consonants Day already? Totally forgot...
  • Reply 54 of 76
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post


    PA is not a patent troll company, but one consisting of the original inventors and patent owners. However, this company was never able to commercialize this patent and ceased to exist about 1998. They reincorporated PA in Texas two months before filing suit against Apple, likely because of the Texas bench reputation for favoring patent holders.



    While that may make them a poor troll, they are nevertheless a troll, especially given the terrible quality of the patent.
  • Reply 55 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jr_b View Post


    Awesome news. Everyone is wanting to get a piece of the $75 billion in cash Apple has in reserves.



    they are just trying to protect their business and apple is doing the same by suing samsung and htc. scary part is google bought some selective patents to protect their business. so if apple doesn't stop idiotic attack to others by suing for patent infringement google will soon start to attack with apple's policy
  • Reply 56 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    The difference is Apple generally does not try to earn licensing revenue from other companies. They might be pursuing the patents for defensive purposes, or to bet better FRAND terms by cross licensing those patents. They MAY be trying to add cost to Android devices to offset the 'free' OS, but that is generally uncharacteristic.



    With the iPhone, they have to do something. Their competitors all start to look like iPhones in one way or another. Claiming the form is a natural evolution of the minimalist phone is disingenuous-- look at what HTC and Samsung made in 2006. This damages Apple.





    apple copied outlook of lg prada

    apple copied the name iPhone from Cisco



    don't be blind
  • Reply 57 of 76
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post


    PA was not going to get an injunction against Apple. The legal criteria were not present. PA is not a patent troll company, but one consisting of the original inventors and patent owners. However, this company was never able to commercialize this patent and ceased to exist about 1998. They reincorporated PA in Texas two months before filing suit against Apple, likely because of the Texas bench reputation for favoring patent holders.



    However, an injunction will not be issued unless it is proved that the plaintiff suffered irreparable harm, and the harm suffered could not be adequately compensated by money damages. Another criterion must be met for an injunction to be issued -- that the public interest not be disserved by an injunction.



    I do not know if the plaintiff actually requested injunctive relief, but they certainly knew such relief would be highly unlikely. Thus, they must therefore have known their relief would be in the form of money damages.



    PA asked for $85M but the court found that the typical value for such a patent would be closer to 1/10th that amount. PA's previous incarnation had shown that the naked patent had little value by itself (because they could commercialize it years before). Only when combined with other Apple innovations could the PA patent add value. The process here for determining damages is public (legal) knowledge, so he outcome should have been easily predicted.



    Maybe it's just a case of 20/20 hindsight, but the plaintiff did not listen to their lawyers or the lawyers did a poor job of predicting the outcome of the trial in advance (a key skill attorneys must present).



    Appreciate your educated and pragmatic legal insights into trial practice. Look forward to your commentary in future threads on legal disputes.
  • Reply 58 of 76
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post


    apple copied outlook of lg prada

    apple copied the name iPhone from Cisco



    don't be blind



    Are the trolls even trying anymore? The only sham around here is you.
  • Reply 59 of 76
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    The difference is Apple generally does not try to earn licensing revenue from other companies. They might be pursuing the patents for defensive purposes, or to bet better FRAND terms by cross licensing those patents. They MAY be trying to add cost to Android devices to offset the 'free' OS, but that is generally uncharacteristic.



    With the iPhone, they have to do something. Their competitors all start to look like iPhones in one way or another. Claiming the form is a natural evolution of the minimalist phone is disingenuous-- look at what HTC and Samsung made in 2006. This damages Apple.



    I am aware that Apple isn't necessarily suing outright, but they are still twisting the legal system to take advantage of the weaknesses of the patent system. If they did not invent the item mentioned in the patent they purchased, but then turn around and use it in a legal battle as leverage, they are no better than any other patent troll.
  • Reply 60 of 76
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tawilson View Post


    Conveniently you ignored the following two points. Apple manufactures products with the patents they buy, and they also file more patents directly, than they buy up!



    I did not "conveniently" ignore them. I specifically chose the point that Apple buys patents and sometimes uses them as legal leverage with no intention of using the tech itself. That therefore invalidates the idea that ALL the patents they buy are used to make products. It is also irrelevant how many patents Apple files. That doesn't change the fact that Apple is just a guilty of buying patents to be used against other companies. Apple is hardly the only company guilty of this nonsense, but they are guilty of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.