I did not ignore them. I specifically chose the point that Apple buys patents and uses them as legal leverage with no intention of using the tech itself.
I'd say list several since you stated it as a multiple, but I'll settle for just one patent they bought and then sued others for using with no intention of ever using the tech themselves.
I'd say several since you stated it as a multiple, but I'll settle for one patent they bought and then sued others for using with no intention of ever using the tech themselves.
Indeed - as far as I know the only patent that they've asserted against rivals so far that was bought was from BT and they certainly use at least one claim on it, because it covers the use of accelerometers to detect orientation.
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.
That's a ridiculous definition.
Even if a company buys a patent with full intent to use it and spends a small fortune on R&D to try to implement it, not all patents turn out to be practical. If something turns out to not be practical (or if you find a better way to do it), it's silly to call the company a patent troll simply because they didn't implement a specific patent.
And even if you decide that there's a better way to do something, you have the right to keep others from practicing your patent.
You can't use patents as a defensive measure against a troll. Trolls don't build products. Defensive patents are used against competitors that actually build products and who sue you and claim you are infringing their patents. My main guess Apple bought the Nortel patents is 1) to defend itself against Motorola that holds a lot of wi-fi patents, and 2) to make it harder for Google to defend Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
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.
If Apple actually had to pay eight million dollars to another company then that tells me that they were indeed guilty of infringing on that other companies patent or patents. I don't believe that any company should be allowed to do and get away with that, even if they are a very large and very powerful company such as Apple. Apple used to be the little guy who had to compete with a giant like Microsoft. It seems to me that Apple is becoming more and more like Microsoft every day. They might have more money than the U.S. government, but Karma has a way of biting you in the a$$ eventually! Remember the famous 1984 ad? Somebody is gonna use that ad against them one day and put Steve Jobs' face on that big television screen.
If Apple actually had to pay eight million dollars to another company then that tells me that they were indeed guilty of infringing on that other companies patent or patents. I don't believe that any company should be allowed to do and get away with that, even if they are a very large and very powerful company such as Apple. Apple used to be the little guy who had to compete with a giant like Microsoft. It seems to me that Apple is becoming more and more like Microsoft every day. They might have more money than the U.S. government, but Karma has a way of biting you in the a$$ eventually! Remember the famous 1984 ad? Somebody is gonna use that ad against them one day and put Steve Jobs' face on that big television screen.
No. Based on cloudgazer's interpretation, this patent like most of the patents Apple gets accused of infringing is total bullshit. What Personal Audio did was somehow get the government to grant them a patent solely for the idea that a device could store and utilize a playlist. Which is absurd. It's like patenting the idea of pouring coffee into a cup. Personal Audio did not invent the playlist; sixteen year old girls making mix tapes for their boyfriends did. Personal Audio did not invent the iPod. Personal Audio did not invent how dynamic playlists work. Personal Audio did not invent anything. They just patented an idea that's pure common sense. Again, like patenting the act of pouring coffee into a cup.
Apple sues companies when they blatantly rip off original ideas that did not exist before Apple did them (like the "swipe to unlock" feature introduced in iOS devices). Companies sue Apple when they've some how managed to patent things you wouldn't even imagine are patentable.
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
A 'Patent troll' is an entity who doesn't make a product based on a patent they own but then sues a company who makes a product that they claim violates the patent they own. If an entity actually has products based on their patents then they are defending their patent when they sue. The courts decide whether a violation has occurred or not.
Show me one lawsuit that Apple has filed for a patent violation that Apple actually doesn't have a product based on.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I'd say list several since you stated it as a multiple, but I'll settle for just one patent they bought and then sued others for using with no intention of ever using the tech themselves.
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.
Rumours. Outsider speculation and insider leaks fall into the category of hearsay and therefore cannot be given substantial credibility, until and if the actors in question do in fact demonstrate the use supposed. And to extrapolate that in the heavily litigious landscape that Apple and the others operate there needs to be a single source of attack to justify the purchase and use of these patents seems a bit specious to me. You may as well say (for example) that in a pitched field battle that artillery pieces can only used against established installations and not cavalry or infantry - which clearly is poor use of resources - whether defensive or offensive.
Given the size and potential profitablity of the fields of endevour here, would you have Apple be any less agressive in controlling the playing field where ever possible? How much is "enough" success to justify sitting back and letting your competitors command key aspects of the market? How well has that worked out for Sony Ericksson or Motorola? Or perhaps going back a few decades, the American automakers?
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).
You seem to have the background to speak well to these posts - much appreciated.
If Apple actually had to pay eight million dollars to another company then that tells me that they were indeed guilty of infringing on that other companies patent or patents. I don't believe that any company should be allowed to do and get away with that, even if they are a very large and very powerful company such as Apple. Apple used to be the little guy who had to compete with a giant like Microsoft. It seems to me that Apple is becoming more and more like Microsoft every day. They might have more money than the U.S. government, but Karma has a way of biting you in the a$$ eventually! Remember the famous 1984 ad? Somebody is gonna use that ad against them one day and put Steve Jobs' face on that big television screen.
If you read upthread you will see waldo's analysis of the situation. Apple spends millions on licensing and more millions on defending their own IP. You will note that the company in question had been defunct (as in out of business, not operating, etc.) and was re-activated and made operational just 2 months before filing the patent challenges in court. In effect the patent-holders had left the patents to molder in a file cabinet while they were out of business, read about the varied success by patent trolls in trying to pry a few million and reactivated themselves to try and win some millions out of Apple's kitty, Credit the court with granting only 10% of the original demand to the litigants. And you just really need to give up with the whole "Apple is getting more like Microsoft everyday" You categorically don't know what Microsoft is like, you obviously don't really know what Apple is like, or you would not be making such obviously silly statements like that. Smallness doesn't make you any more noble than poorness does. And for the record someone obviously more creative than you put Steve Jobs face in the video quite a while ago - check it out in youtube if you are so inclined.
Your "big bad Apple" meme is really very meaningless. Size and scale are meaningless as determiners of morality. But if they were you would be a candidate for countless murder charges for slapping at and killing mosquitos, whose only crime was simply trying to suck a little of your blood in order to sustain their livelihood. You have plenty of blood to give - probably too much and shouldn't have begrudged those poor destitute being their fair share of your surplus. See how totally ridiculous the whole meme is?
Rumours. Outsider speculation and insider leaks fall into the category of hearsay and therefore cannot be given substantial credibility, until and if the actors in question do in fact demonstrate the use supposed.
Right - but the person I was responding to was assuming as fact with no basis whatsoever that the patents would not be owned by Apple. Since the rumours that say otherwise turned out to be very close to the correct numbers in terms of Apple's payment it would seem at least as reasonable to believe them at this point as the entirely arbitrary idea that the patents are somehow going to remain the property of the bid-co.
Quote:
And to extrapolate that in the heavily litigious landscape that Apple and the others operate there needs to be a single source of attack to justify the purchase and use of these patents seems a bit specious to me. You may as well say (for example) that in a pitched field battle that artillery pieces can only used against established installations and not cavalry or infantry - which clearly is poor use of resources - whether defensive or offensive.
Erm your analogy seems entirely specious to me. When a business spends almost 3 billion dollars for a set of patent that cannot be asserted against 4 of the major players in the market, you have to assume that they are intended to be asserted against one of the others. Unless you think Apple is terrified of WebOS this only really leaves Android, and since Google has no significant offensive arsenal the intent is unlikely to be defensive. In this instance the presence of the Cavalry and the Infantry in the bid-co means you certainly can't turn the artillery onto them.
Quote:
Given the size and potential profitablity of the fields of endevour here, would you have Apple be any less agressive in controlling the playing field where ever possible? How much is "enough" success to justify sitting back and letting your competitors command key aspects of the market? How well has that worked out for Sony Ericksson or Motorola? Or perhaps going back a few decades, the American automakers?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Stopped kicking your dog? Ceased sexual relations with vegetables? Asking me to answer to opinions which I've never expressed is equally ridiculous.
Comments
I did not ignore them. I specifically chose the point that Apple buys patents and uses them as legal leverage with no intention of using the tech itself.
I'd say list several since you stated it as a multiple, but I'll settle for just one patent they bought and then sued others for using with no intention of ever using the tech themselves.
I'd say several since you stated it as a multiple, but I'll settle for one patent they bought and then sued others for using with no intention of ever using the tech themselves.
Indeed - as far as I know the only patent that they've asserted against rivals so far that was bought was from BT and they certainly use at least one claim on it, because it covers the use of accelerometers to detect orientation.
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.
That's a ridiculous definition.
Even if a company buys a patent with full intent to use it and spends a small fortune on R&D to try to implement it, not all patents turn out to be practical. If something turns out to not be practical (or if you find a better way to do it), it's silly to call the company a patent troll simply because they didn't implement a specific patent.
And even if you decide that there's a better way to do something, you have the right to keep others from practicing your patent.
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.
If Apple actually had to pay eight million dollars to another company then that tells me that they were indeed guilty of infringing on that other companies patent or patents. I don't believe that any company should be allowed to do and get away with that, even if they are a very large and very powerful company such as Apple. Apple used to be the little guy who had to compete with a giant like Microsoft. It seems to me that Apple is becoming more and more like Microsoft every day. They might have more money than the U.S. government, but Karma has a way of biting you in the a$$ eventually! Remember the famous 1984 ad? Somebody is gonna use that ad against them one day and put Steve Jobs' face on that big television screen.
No. Based on cloudgazer's interpretation, this patent like most of the patents Apple gets accused of infringing is total bullshit. What Personal Audio did was somehow get the government to grant them a patent solely for the idea that a device could store and utilize a playlist. Which is absurd. It's like patenting the idea of pouring coffee into a cup. Personal Audio did not invent the playlist; sixteen year old girls making mix tapes for their boyfriends did. Personal Audio did not invent the iPod. Personal Audio did not invent how dynamic playlists work. Personal Audio did not invent anything. They just patented an idea that's pure common sense. Again, like patenting the act of pouring coffee into a cup.
Apple sues companies when they blatantly rip off original ideas that did not exist before Apple did them (like the "swipe to unlock" feature introduced in iOS devices). Companies sue Apple when they've some how managed to patent things you wouldn't even imagine are patentable.
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
A 'Patent troll' is an entity who doesn't make a product based on a patent they own but then sues a company who makes a product that they claim violates the patent they own. If an entity actually has products based on their patents then they are defending their patent when they sue. The courts decide whether a violation has occurred or not.
Show me one lawsuit that Apple has filed for a patent violation that Apple actually doesn't have a product based on.
You can't use patents as a defensive measure against a troll. Trolls don't build products.
I know, the person to whom I was responding was saying that Apple bid on the nortel patents to stop them falling into the hands of a troll.
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.
I'd say list several since you stated it as a multiple, but I'll settle for just one patent they bought and then sued others for using with no intention of ever using the tech themselves.
I agree with solipsism, show me one example.
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.
Rumours. Outsider speculation and insider leaks fall into the category of hearsay and therefore cannot be given substantial credibility, until and if the actors in question do in fact demonstrate the use supposed. And to extrapolate that in the heavily litigious landscape that Apple and the others operate there needs to be a single source of attack to justify the purchase and use of these patents seems a bit specious to me. You may as well say (for example) that in a pitched field battle that artillery pieces can only used against established installations and not cavalry or infantry - which clearly is poor use of resources - whether defensive or offensive.
Given the size and potential profitablity of the fields of endevour here, would you have Apple be any less agressive in controlling the playing field where ever possible? How much is "enough" success to justify sitting back and letting your competitors command key aspects of the market? How well has that worked out for Sony Ericksson or Motorola? Or perhaps going back a few decades, the American automakers?
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).
You seem to have the background to speak well to these posts - much appreciated.
If Apple actually had to pay eight million dollars to another company then that tells me that they were indeed guilty of infringing on that other companies patent or patents. I don't believe that any company should be allowed to do and get away with that, even if they are a very large and very powerful company such as Apple. Apple used to be the little guy who had to compete with a giant like Microsoft. It seems to me that Apple is becoming more and more like Microsoft every day. They might have more money than the U.S. government, but Karma has a way of biting you in the a$$ eventually! Remember the famous 1984 ad? Somebody is gonna use that ad against them one day and put Steve Jobs' face on that big television screen.
If you read upthread you will see waldo's analysis of the situation. Apple spends millions on licensing and more millions on defending their own IP. You will note that the company in question had been defunct (as in out of business, not operating, etc.) and was re-activated and made operational just 2 months before filing the patent challenges in court. In effect the patent-holders had left the patents to molder in a file cabinet while they were out of business, read about the varied success by patent trolls in trying to pry a few million and reactivated themselves to try and win some millions out of Apple's kitty, Credit the court with granting only 10% of the original demand to the litigants. And you just really need to give up with the whole "Apple is getting more like Microsoft everyday" You categorically don't know what Microsoft is like, you obviously don't really know what Apple is like, or you would not be making such obviously silly statements like that. Smallness doesn't make you any more noble than poorness does. And for the record someone obviously more creative than you put Steve Jobs face in the video quite a while ago - check it out in youtube if you are so inclined.
Your "big bad Apple" meme is really very meaningless. Size and scale are meaningless as determiners of morality. But if they were you would be a candidate for countless murder charges for slapping at and killing mosquitos, whose only crime was simply trying to suck a little of your blood in order to sustain their livelihood. You have plenty of blood to give - probably too much and shouldn't have begrudged those poor destitute being their fair share of your surplus. See how totally ridiculous the whole meme is?
Rumours. Outsider speculation and insider leaks fall into the category of hearsay and therefore cannot be given substantial credibility, until and if the actors in question do in fact demonstrate the use supposed.
Right - but the person I was responding to was assuming as fact with no basis whatsoever that the patents would not be owned by Apple. Since the rumours that say otherwise turned out to be very close to the correct numbers in terms of Apple's payment it would seem at least as reasonable to believe them at this point as the entirely arbitrary idea that the patents are somehow going to remain the property of the bid-co.
And to extrapolate that in the heavily litigious landscape that Apple and the others operate there needs to be a single source of attack to justify the purchase and use of these patents seems a bit specious to me. You may as well say (for example) that in a pitched field battle that artillery pieces can only used against established installations and not cavalry or infantry - which clearly is poor use of resources - whether defensive or offensive.
Erm your analogy seems entirely specious to me. When a business spends almost 3 billion dollars for a set of patent that cannot be asserted against 4 of the major players in the market, you have to assume that they are intended to be asserted against one of the others. Unless you think Apple is terrified of WebOS this only really leaves Android, and since Google has no significant offensive arsenal the intent is unlikely to be defensive. In this instance the presence of the Cavalry and the Infantry in the bid-co means you certainly can't turn the artillery onto them.
Given the size and potential profitablity of the fields of endevour here, would you have Apple be any less agressive in controlling the playing field where ever possible? How much is "enough" success to justify sitting back and letting your competitors command key aspects of the market? How well has that worked out for Sony Ericksson or Motorola? Or perhaps going back a few decades, the American automakers?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Stopped kicking your dog? Ceased sexual relations with vegetables? Asking me to answer to opinions which I've never expressed is equally ridiculous.
So what to do when the court blocks you from going after Apple iTunes directly (again)? Why go after the iTunes content creators themselves silly boy.
http://news.priorsmart.com/personal-audio-v-ace-broadcasting-network-l7qv/
http://news.priorsmart.com/personal-audio-v-howstuffworkscom-l7qw/
At least 'HowStuffWorks" has been given another subject to cover.