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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
See http://www.thisamericanlife.org . The episode in question is number 441.
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
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).
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...
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.