That's all three addressed. Now you can try again.
In your opinion, would it be a fair penalty for Apple to have major products lines banned from sale in the US over a relatively minor piece of IP they were proven to infringe in a "large, complex product"? If not, why not.
-The U.S. Eastern District of Texas is the most popular troll stomping ground in United States. This is fairly common knowledge, and if you can't pick up on why it's significant, I can't help you.
-IP developed in-house - as it is used by Apple - serves to protect the ideas that go into making their stuff. Purchasing IP is a practice popularized by patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures. Again, if you cannot distinguish between the value of protections afforded to those that create things versus the practices of entities that purchase things for the sole purpose of exploiting it against others for financial gain, I can't help you.
-I don't know what patent of the 4 you're referring to, but they were all filed by Apple.
-The U.S. Eastern District of Texas is the most popular troll stomping ground in United States. This is fairly common knowledge, and if you can't pick up on why it's significant, I can't help you.
-IP developed in-house - as it is used by Apple - serves to protect the ideas that go into making their stuff. Purchasing IP is a practice popularized by patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures. Again, if you cannot distinguish between the value of protections afforded to those that create things versus the practices of entities that purchase things for the sole purpose of exploiting it against others for financial gain, I can't help you.
-I don't know what patent of the 4 you're referring to, but they were all filed by Apple.
Never mind. Besides the fact you can't explain why the place of filing makes the IP less valid, why purchased IP shouldn't be protected and know that Siri was purchased technology and patents, you're plainly avoiding the only real question I asked in post 26:
In your opinion would banning the sale of major product lines from Apple be an appropriate remedy for infringing on another's IP if it's simply a small part of a "large, complex product"? Apple's counsel would say it is not, which I agree with.
I'm fairly certain I already know your opinion as much as you're trying to avoid giving it. You're the one that brought up the question about it back in post 18.
As for your last comment about NPE's sole purpose being the exploitation of others for financial gain, can I take that as your declaration that they don't deserve the same protection of their IP as product producers?
Geesh, you can't accuse VirnetX of not staying on point. Within a day of winning this judgement against Apple they've come back with another lawsuit. This one claims willful infringement by Apple's latest products including the iPhone 5 and iPod Touch 5th Gen, iPad Mini and any Apple product running Mountain Lion.
I appreciate the comments and replies. Obviously can't believe everything that is posted on the Internet these days but what I was referring to an entire MIS department and marketing team making determinations to go with other products. As far as the Henry Ford comment, it was an exaggerated statement and no reason to point out the accuracies of the statement. The reason that example was given is the very fact as you indicated, that you laugh because everyone uses the same analogy. Point being, 'everyone' meaning a lot of people use that analogy so what does that tell you? It is everyone giving opinion using an analogy to describe a business practice they aren't happy about. Some use the term karma as in the latest news just today:
That article cites links to business week, which has a few more details. It mentions several patents being under review. If many of those claims on corresponding patents do not make it through the review process, it would affect damages against Apple. It also has little impact on the functionality of the OS.
From business week:
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis, who is presiding over the Apple and Cisco cases, on Feb. 26 upheld the jury verdict against Apple. Davis denied a VirnetX request for an order to limit Apple’s ability to provide virtual private networks on its products.
Comments
For the amusement of those who like to cite Henry Ford as a potential patentee of the automobile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._Selden
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
A suit in Texas (or perhaps Germany) makes the claimed IP less valid? Please explain.
Home-grown vs. purchased IP makes one more valid than the other? Please explain
Apple is only suing over IP they developed themselves in-house? Check again.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/apple-wins-us-preliminary-injunction.html
That's all three addressed. Now you can try again.
In your opinion, would it be a fair penalty for Apple to have major products lines banned from sale in the US over a relatively minor piece of IP they were proven to infringe in a "large, complex product"? If not, why not.
-The U.S. Eastern District of Texas is the most popular troll stomping ground in United States. This is fairly common knowledge, and if you can't pick up on why it's significant, I can't help you.
-IP developed in-house - as it is used by Apple - serves to protect the ideas that go into making their stuff. Purchasing IP is a practice popularized by patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures. Again, if you cannot distinguish between the value of protections afforded to those that create things versus the practices of entities that purchase things for the sole purpose of exploiting it against others for financial gain, I can't help you.
-I don't know what patent of the 4 you're referring to, but they were all filed by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMacadvocate
-The U.S. Eastern District of Texas is the most popular troll stomping ground in United States. This is fairly common knowledge, and if you can't pick up on why it's significant, I can't help you.
-IP developed in-house - as it is used by Apple - serves to protect the ideas that go into making their stuff. Purchasing IP is a practice popularized by patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures. Again, if you cannot distinguish between the value of protections afforded to those that create things versus the practices of entities that purchase things for the sole purpose of exploiting it against others for financial gain, I can't help you.
-I don't know what patent of the 4 you're referring to, but they were all filed by Apple.
Never mind. Besides the fact you can't explain why the place of filing makes the IP less valid, why purchased IP shouldn't be protected and know that Siri was purchased technology and patents, you're plainly avoiding the only real question I asked in post 26:
In your opinion would banning the sale of major product lines from Apple be an appropriate remedy for infringing on another's IP if it's simply a small part of a "large, complex product"? Apple's counsel would say it is not, which I agree with.
I'm fairly certain I already know your opinion as much as you're trying to avoid giving it. You're the one that brought up the question about it back in post 18.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154120/apple-loses-virnetx-patent-trial-ordered-to-pay-368m#post_2228622
As for your last comment about NPE's sole purpose being the exploitation of others for financial gain, can I take that as your declaration that they don't deserve the same protection of their IP as product producers?
Geesh, you can't accuse VirnetX of not staying on point. Within a day of winning this judgement against Apple they've come back with another lawsuit. This one claims willful infringement by Apple's latest products including the iPhone 5 and iPod Touch 5th Gen, iPad Mini and any Apple product running Mountain Lion.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112701451/Apple-Virtenx
I appreciate the comments and replies. Obviously can't believe everything that is posted on the Internet these days but what I was referring to an entire MIS department and marketing team making determinations to go with other products. As far as the Henry Ford comment, it was an exaggerated statement and no reason to point out the accuracies of the statement. The reason that example was given is the very fact as you indicated, that you laugh because everyone uses the same analogy. Point being, 'everyone' meaning a lot of people use that analogy so what does that tell you? It is everyone giving opinion using an analogy to describe a business practice they aren't happy about. Some use the term karma as in the latest news just today:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html
I wish things could change but it seems the direction is clear and unfortunate but thanks for the replies anyway.
Cisco won.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/cisco-beats-patent-troll-virnetx-which-sought-258-million-over-vpn-patent/
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Cisco won.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/cisco-beats-patent-troll-virnetx-which-sought-258-million-over-vpn-patent/
So how can that be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So how can that be?
That article cites links to business week, which has a few more details. It mentions several patents being under review. If many of those claims on corresponding patents do not make it through the review process, it would affect damages against Apple. It also has little impact on the functionality of the OS.
From business week:
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis, who is presiding over the Apple and Cisco cases, on Feb. 26 upheld the jury verdict against Apple. Davis denied a VirnetX request for an order to limit Apple’s ability to provide virtual private networks on its products.