Apple and Intel sue to stop 'serial nuisance suits'

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion
The two technology firms Apple and Intel have jointly filed a suit against Fortress Investment Group, alleging that the organization's stockpiling of patents to use in legal cases violates antitrust laws.

Apple Park


Apple and Intel have together filed a lawsuit against Fortress Investment Group, an organization owned by Softbank, claiming that its repeated patent litigation violates US antitrust laws.

"Apple has suffered economic harm in the form of litigation costs and diversion of resources away from innovation to respond to these entities' serial nuisance suits," Apple said in the complaint seen by Reuters.

Reportedly, Apple is claiming that Fortress and related firms such as Uniloc USA and Uniloc Luxembourg, have filed at least 25 lawsuits.

"[Uniloc USA and Uniloc Luxembourg] have have disclosed that they believe they are entitled to damages of between $1.41 and $2.75 per Apple product, for total damages in the range of $375 to $732 million," said Apple.

"The apparent precision of the per-unit damages request is a facade," Apple continues. "Uniloc USA and Uniloc Luxembourg simply adopted the amounts that Apple sought from Samsung in litigation for Apple's patents."

Neither Intel nor Fortress have commented. However, Intel had previously filed a similar suit against Fortress in October, which it withdrew in order to join Apple in this new case.

Fortress did respond to that prior Intel suit, however.

"[We are] confident in our business practices and our legal position and view this lawsuit as meritless," a Fortress spokesperson told Reuters.

Fortress's Uniloc company most recently filed suit against Apple in September for alleged patent violation over a system for upgrading software on devices.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    SoundJudgmentSoundJudgment Posts: 187member
    Finally! Taking action on these Patent-Hounds is the right thing to do.
    chaickaolssupadav03StrangeDaysflyingdp1stRayz2016watto_cobrawilliamlondoneyeakel
  • Reply 2 of 19
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,360member
    No matter what the system is, from taxes to patents to college admissions to product warranty claims to insurance claims to ... whatever, smart and/or devious people always find a way to game the system to their advantage. It’s a survival trait that’s deeply baked into the human condition. Whether it’s good or bad depends on which side of the exploitation equation you find yourself living on. Sometimes you’re the mole and sometimes your the mole whacker. 
    JaiOh81lkruppsupadav03beowulfschmidtpscooter63watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 3 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    Excellent move.
    chaickaolssupadav03flyingdpwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 4 of 19
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,913member
    This must stop otherwise companies can not continue innovating, developing good products for rest of humanity.  It is not black and white but the patent laws should be if either you or company is innovator so entitled to protect your intellectual property. But, if you are a investor or a group who buy and sell patents than they are considered product/item(not IP) owner so can not sue others for infringement. What about cross licensing and a company wants to buy patent/s from someone or a company. It is complicated but somehow such patent brokers must be stopped suing genuine product developing companies.
    edited November 2019 olssupadav03watto_cobraeyeakeljony0
  • Reply 5 of 19
    docbburkdocbburk Posts: 109member
    They birdied the lead.  This group is owned by SoftBank.  SoftBank is the company that pledged to invest 10 billion in US tech development.  They have their hands buried in tech and this screams ANTITRUST VIOLATION.  Let’s buy up all the patents we can to sue as many tech firms as possible, to get money from each item they produce.  I have a feeling SoftBank knows exactly what is going on.  This needs investigated thoroughly.  
    supadav03flyingdpRayz2016watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 6 of 19
    joogabahjoogabah Posts: 139member
    dewme said:
    No matter what the system is, from taxes to patents to college admissions to product warranty claims to insurance claims to ... whatever, smart and/or devious people always find a way to game the system to their advantage. It’s a survival trait that’s deeply baked into the human condition. Whether it’s good or bad depends on which side of the exploitation equation you find yourself living on. Sometimes you’re the mole and sometimes your the mole whacker. 
    It’s not baked into the human condition or everyone would do it.  It’s baked into the capitalist “self interest” doctrine.  Humans are the most profoundly cooperative and social species on the planet. And then there are a small minority of intra-species predators who vary in number from society to society.  How to cure it?  Firstly, eliminate the primary cause: deprivation or the threat of it without wealth. Cause even if you can pay your bills today who says you won’t be destitute tomorrow.  The ethos and inertia doesn’t go away even with great wealth.   That is is the SOCIAL condition from which this sort of behavior springs.  People need a basic level of security and we live in a time of super abundance and waste that could easily be marshaled to ameliorate this.  
    sandorsupadav03StrangeDaysflyingdpwatto_cobrawilliamlondonorthorim
  • Reply 7 of 19
    roakeroake Posts: 811member
    joogabah said:
    dewme said:
    No matter what the system is, from taxes to patents to college admissions to product warranty claims to insurance claims to ... whatever, smart and/or devious people always find a way to game the system to their advantage. It’s a survival trait that’s deeply baked into the human condition. Whether it’s good or bad depends on which side of the exploitation equation you find yourself living on. Sometimes you’re the mole and sometimes your the mole whacker. 
    It’s not baked into the human condition or everyone would do it.  It’s baked into the capitalist “self interest” doctrine.  Humans are the most profoundly cooperative and social species on the planet. And then there are a small minority of intra-species predators who vary in number from society to society.  How to cure it?  Firstly, eliminate the primary cause: deprivation or the threat of it without wealth. Cause even if you can pay your bills today who says you won’t be destitute tomorrow.  The ethos and inertia doesn’t go away even with great wealth.   That is is the SOCIAL condition from which this sort of behavior springs.  People need a basic level of security and we live in a time of super abundance and waste that could easily be marshaled to ameliorate this.  
    Millennial much?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 8 of 19
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,885member
    roake said:
    joogabah said:
    dewme said:
    No matter what the system is, from taxes to patents to college admissions to product warranty claims to insurance claims to ... whatever, smart and/or devious people always find a way to game the system to their advantage. It’s a survival trait that’s deeply baked into the human condition. Whether it’s good or bad depends on which side of the exploitation equation you find yourself living on. Sometimes you’re the mole and sometimes your the mole whacker. 
    It’s not baked into the human condition or everyone would do it.  It’s baked into the capitalist “self interest” doctrine.  Humans are the most profoundly cooperative and social species on the planet. And then there are a small minority of intra-species predators who vary in number from society to society.  How to cure it?  Firstly, eliminate the primary cause: deprivation or the threat of it without wealth. Cause even if you can pay your bills today who says you won’t be destitute tomorrow.  The ethos and inertia doesn’t go away even with great wealth.   That is is the SOCIAL condition from which this sort of behavior springs.  People need a basic level of security and we live in a time of super abundance and waste that could easily be marshaled to ameliorate this.  
    Millennial much?
    Don't know if he/she is millennial, but he's certainly exhibiting more wisdom and depth than you.
    StrangeDaysflyingdpFileMakerFellerwilliamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 19
    65026502 Posts: 380member
    wood1208 said:
    This must stop otherwise companies can not continue innovating, developing good products for rest of humanity.  It is not black and white but the patent laws should be if either you or company is innovator so entitled to protect your intellectual property. But, if you are a investor or a group who buy and sell patents than they are considered product/item(not IP) owner so can not sue others for infringement. What about cross licensing and a company wants to buy patent/s from someone or a company. It is complicated but somehow such patent brokers must be stopped suing genuine product developing companies.
    Well, it is called intellectual property and it is property that can be bought and sold and has an inherent value. Sometimes you can invent something but don't have the means to commercialize it so you sell your invention to a company that can. The second company still has the right to enforce the IP. While I am against frivolous lawsuits, if people own intellectual property (regardless on how they got it, inventor or bought it) they have the right to defend it. In fact, in some cases, if you don't defend it, you lose your exclusivity rights to it. 
    13485watto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 10 of 19
    rotateleftbyterotateleftbyte Posts: 1,630member
    docbburk said:
    They birdied the lead.  This group is owned by SoftBank.  SoftBank is the company that pledged to invest 10 billion in US tech development.  They have their hands buried in tech and this screams ANTITRUST VIOLATION.  Let’s buy up all the patents we can to sue as many tech firms as possible, to get money from each item they produce.  I have a feeling SoftBank knows exactly what is going on.  This needs investigated thoroughly.  
    Don't forget that Softbank also owns ARM. I dread to think what would happen to APPL stock if Softbank revoked Apple's ARM Licenses.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 19
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,876member
    6502 said:
    wood1208 said:
    This must stop otherwise companies can not continue innovating, developing good products for rest of humanity.  It is not black and white but the patent laws should be if either you or company is innovator so entitled to protect your intellectual property. But, if you are a investor or a group who buy and sell patents than they are considered product/item(not IP) owner so can not sue others for infringement. What about cross licensing and a company wants to buy patent/s from someone or a company. It is complicated but somehow such patent brokers must be stopped suing genuine product developing companies.
    Well, it is called intellectual property and it is property that can be bought and sold and has an inherent value. Sometimes you can invent something but don't have the means to commercialize it so you sell your invention to a company that can. The second company still has the right to enforce the IP. While I am against frivolous lawsuits, if people own intellectual property (regardless on how they got it, inventor or bought it) they have the right to defend it. In fact, in some cases, if you don't defend it, you lose your exclusivity rights to it. 
    Much of software patents are bunk, as very often a software patent is an attempt to patent a vague idea rather than an implementation. In software, implementations are code. And code is protected via copyright. Thus, there are many software devs who believing awarding software patents is the root problem. 
    watto_cobrawilliamlondoneyeakel
  • Reply 12 of 19
    1st1st Posts: 443member
    should do the same for some of those activator shareholder proposals.... Good Apple and  Intel with strong backbones ;-).  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 19
    65026502 Posts: 380member
    6502 said:
    wood1208 said:
    This must stop otherwise companies can not continue innovating, developing good products for rest of humanity.  It is not black and white but the patent laws should be if either you or company is innovator so entitled to protect your intellectual property. But, if you are a investor or a group who buy and sell patents than they are considered product/item(not IP) owner so can not sue others for infringement. What about cross licensing and a company wants to buy patent/s from someone or a company. It is complicated but somehow such patent brokers must be stopped suing genuine product developing companies.
    Well, it is called intellectual property and it is property that can be bought and sold and has an inherent value. Sometimes you can invent something but don't have the means to commercialize it so you sell your invention to a company that can. The second company still has the right to enforce the IP. While I am against frivolous lawsuits, if people own intellectual property (regardless on how they got it, inventor or bought it) they have the right to defend it. In fact, in some cases, if you don't defend it, you lose your exclusivity rights to it. 
    Much of software patents are bunk, as very often a software patent is an attempt to patent a vague idea rather than an implementation. In software, implementations are code. And code is protected via copyright. Thus, there are many software devs who believing awarding software patents is the root problem. 
    Well, that's your opinion and it is up to the courts to decide validity. And, you do not have to implement a patent to apply for one. I've applied for several prophetic patents that have been granted but never implemented.

    https://www.bitlaw.com/guidance/patent/when-to-file-a-patent-application.html
    "You do not have to actually make or implement your invention before you file for patent protection. Many valuable inventions are protected by patents even before the first working prototype is constructed. However, you are allowed to file for a patent application before implementation only if you can describe your invention in sufficient detail that a person having ordinary skill in your technology is able to create your product “without undue experimentation.” "
    williamlondon
  • Reply 14 of 19
    65026502 Posts: 380member
    rotateleftbyte said:
    docbburk said:
    They birdied the lead.  This group is owned by SoftBank.  SoftBank is the company that pledged to invest 10 billion in US tech development.  They have their hands buried in tech and this screams ANTITRUST VIOLATION.  Let’s buy up all the patents we can to sue as many tech firms as possible, to get money from each item they produce.  I have a feeling SoftBank knows exactly what is going on.  This needs investigated thoroughly.  
    Don't forget that Softbank also owns ARM. I dread to think what would happen to APPL stock if Softbank revoked Apple's ARM Licenses.
    Since they use ARM chips in a majority of their devices, I'm sure Apple has an iron clad license agreement and is not at risk at losing it (Apple has plenty of highly paid lawyers). They would have to disclose that in their 10Q filings as a significant risk to their business. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 19
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,876member
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    wood1208 said:
    This must stop otherwise companies can not continue innovating, developing good products for rest of humanity.  It is not black and white but the patent laws should be if either you or company is innovator so entitled to protect your intellectual property. But, if you are a investor or a group who buy and sell patents than they are considered product/item(not IP) owner so can not sue others for infringement. What about cross licensing and a company wants to buy patent/s from someone or a company. It is complicated but somehow such patent brokers must be stopped suing genuine product developing companies.
    Well, it is called intellectual property and it is property that can be bought and sold and has an inherent value. Sometimes you can invent something but don't have the means to commercialize it so you sell your invention to a company that can. The second company still has the right to enforce the IP. While I am against frivolous lawsuits, if people own intellectual property (regardless on how they got it, inventor or bought it) they have the right to defend it. In fact, in some cases, if you don't defend it, you lose your exclusivity rights to it. 
    Much of software patents are bunk, as very often a software patent is an attempt to patent a vague idea rather than an implementation. In software, implementations are code. And code is protected via copyright. Thus, there are many software devs who believing awarding software patents is the root problem. 
    Well, that's your opinion and it is up to the courts to decide validity. And, you do not have to implement a patent to apply for one. I've applied for several prophetic patents that have been granted but never implemented.

    https://www.bitlaw.com/guidance/patent/when-to-file-a-patent-application.html
    "You do not have to actually make or implement your invention before you file for patent protection. Many valuable inventions are protected by patents even before the first working prototype is constructed. However, you are allowed to file for a patent application before implementation only if you can describe your invention in sufficient detail that a person having ordinary skill in your technology is able to create your product “without undue experimentation.” "
    This idea was pre-code and doesn’t apply well to software. Sure, if you designed on paper exactly how your cotton mill is going to work, that is valid because you had to design the physical implementation on paper despite not manufacturing it. But software is different by nature. Here patents are erroneously awarded for ideas separated from specific implementation detail. This is why we have patent trolls suing Apple and whoever for ideas like “network transportation of packets carrying a compressed video transmission over networking protocols” etc etc. In software, my implementation (written code) can be entirely different than yours for the exact same idea.

    Software isn’t like physical inventions. The analogy breaks down and what worked for physical machinery doesn’t work for software. Thus the argument that software should only be protected via copyright and not patents.
    edited November 2019 williamlondoneyeakel
  • Reply 16 of 19
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    This is a ludicrous tactic for both Apple and Intel to take. In violation of antitrust for amassing patents? Absurd.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    65026502 Posts: 380member
    StrangeDays said:
    6502 said:
    6502 said:
    wood1208 said:
    This must stop otherwise companies can not continue innovating, developing good products for rest of humanity.  It is not black and white but the patent laws should be if either you or company is innovator so entitled to protect your intellectual property. But, if you are a investor or a group who buy and sell patents than they are considered product/item(not IP) owner so can not sue others for infringement. What about cross licensing and a company wants to buy patent/s from someone or a company. It is complicated but somehow such patent brokers must be stopped suing genuine product developing companies.
    Well, it is called intellectual property and it is property that can be bought and sold and has an inherent value. Sometimes you can invent something but don't have the means to commercialize it so you sell your invention to a company that can. The second company still has the right to enforce the IP. While I am against frivolous lawsuits, if people own intellectual property (regardless on how they got it, inventor or bought it) they have the right to defend it. In fact, in some cases, if you don't defend it, you lose your exclusivity rights to it. 
    Much of software patents are bunk, as very often a software patent is an attempt to patent a vague idea rather than an implementation. In software, implementations are code. And code is protected via copyright. Thus, there are many software devs who believing awarding software patents is the root problem. 
    Well, that's your opinion and it is up to the courts to decide validity. And, you do not have to implement a patent to apply for one. I've applied for several prophetic patents that have been granted but never implemented.

    https://www.bitlaw.com/guidance/patent/when-to-file-a-patent-application.html
    "You do not have to actually make or implement your invention before you file for patent protection. Many valuable inventions are protected by patents even before the first working prototype is constructed. However, you are allowed to file for a patent application before implementation only if you can describe your invention in sufficient detail that a person having ordinary skill in your technology is able to create your product “without undue experimentation.” "
    This idea was pre-code and doesn’t apply well to software. Sure, if you designed on paper exactly how your cotton mill is going to work, that is valid because you had to design the physical implementation on paper despite not manufacturing it. But software is different by nature. Here patents are erroneously awarded for ideas separated from specific implementation detail. This is why we have patent trolls suing Apple and whoever for ideas like “network transportation of packets carrying a compressed video transmission over networking protocols” etc etc. In software, my implementation (written code) can be entirely different than yours for the exact same idea.

    Software isn’t like physical inventions. The analogy breaks down and what worked for physical machinery doesn’t work for software. Thus the argument that software should only be protected via copyright and not patents.
    Copyrights are a form of IP and can be protected too. In fact, there is no time limit on copyrights and they can be enforced forever (as long as you pay fees and enforce your copyright) whereas patents are only good for 20 yrs.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 19
    studiomusicstudiomusic Posts: 653member
    6502 said:
    Copyrights are a form of IP and can be protected too. In fact, there is no time limit on copyrights and they can be enforced forever (as long as you pay fees and enforce your copyright) whereas patents are only good for 20 yrs.
    Copyrights for work-for-hire (like coding most likely would be) expire 120 years after creation or 95 years after the first publication - whichever is shorter.
    Still much better than patents.
Sign In or Register to comment.