Interestingly, the four patents in question cover ways of initiating a secure connection via DNS - nothing about video transcoding or low latency communication, which was my first guess.
I don't understand. If "all four of VirnetX’s patents have been found invalid by the patent office" as Apple claims, why hasn't the case been dismissed?
(i think it's a BS ruling, but it is a final appeals court ruling on the validity of the patents).
As for the PTO finding them invalid:
If you look at the file wrappers of these patents, you will see what apple means is "someone has requested review of these patents by the PTO, and they have initially been found invalid".
(Apple's request to review validity was in fact, denied)
> So as usual, Apple is lying/misleading people here. At least 'technically'.
No. Apple are arguing that the patents are invalid. They aren't sayin they have been found invalid already. The TechCrunch article said "All four of VirnetX’s patents have been found invalid by the patent office"
I don't get this. Is there some paid off official there? Different standards? Why is it such a great place to win patent troll suits - which seem to get overturned in higher courts? Is the idea that a win there will stop the defendant from trying to appeal?
It's the judges and the court - somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US. This is a part of the country which has very little, so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater. It's a federal court, so the same laws apply as anywhere else, but there's enough wiggle room in the way those laws are written to allow this kind of "bad faith" interpretation. The solution is for congress to tighten up the laws, but that won't happen anytime soon.
The idea isn't just that a win there will discourage an appeal, but that the court will hear cases that most other courts would dismiss out of hand based on obvious prior art, vague claims, or USPTO investigation results. So the defendant is tied up in a court case, which includes an expensive jury trial. Worse still, the jury is so biased that they're all but guaranteed to loose the case. Most savvy defendents would choose to settle in that situation - which is all the patent-holder actually wants.
> somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US.
Different courts form slightly different interpretations. There's a reason that the 2nd Circuit is the most liberal court. This court happens to be the most pro-plaintiff patent court you can find. It's not surprising the plaintiffs file there.
> This is a part of the country which has very little
Have you ever been there?
> so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater.
Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river?
> the jury is so biased
Make whatever claims you want about the court, but if as you claim this area is a backwater with nothing going for it, how exactly is the local populace educated enough about the finer points of patent litigation to be biased?
This is a stupid decision but the mental gymnastics you're going through to try to make it fault of the area is impressive.
>Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river?
Yes. Lawyers have to eat, and they get paid enough to eat well. They need a place to stay, and they get paid enough to stay at a nice hotel. They need coffee, they need an airport, they need a rental car that needs gas. Your argument is that having people come to your city doesn't add to the local economy, but the fact that whole cities are built on tourism proves otherwise.
It's more than that. I used to work at company that turned patent troll. They actually paid "folks on the ground" who essentially lived there (part of that may have been pure corruption with campaign funds sent to judges re-election campaigns).
And that was a small company. Multiply that by 1000x and then add the defense payoffs from big corps...
The thing is that East Texas no longer has a monopoly on this - more jurisdictions are opening up to handling patent litigation (not sure what's driving that).
Although I think this kind of story is plausible in general, it may be worth pointing out that Federal judges, who hear patent cases, are always appointed (at a national level) and never elected, unlike local judges. So they don't have election campaigns to contribute to.
Samsung built an ICE RINK right next to the courthouse. They did that because they thought pouring money into town would help sway the jury pool in their favor.
> But why do patent plaintiffs, especially trolls, see it as such a favorable forum? Partly, the district's relatively rapid litigation timetable can put pressure on defendants to settle. But other local practices in the Eastern District also favor patentees. And, in our view, they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the governing Federal Rules, and work to mask the consistent refusal by the courts in the Eastern District to end meritless cases before trial.
No Federal judge has ever been fired due to a reduction in the number of positions on the judge's court. (It's quite possible that a decreased caseload could result in fewer new judicial confirmations, but that affects would-be judges, not presently-serving judges.)
I don't think it's a coincidence there is that there is a ice skating rink right in front of the courthouse in Marshall, Texas with giant Samsung logos all over it (relevant John Oliver clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA#t=7m53s) .
The Presidential aka executive branch does not have that kind of direct authority in the United States. At best, the executive can start a criminal investigation, which case must be made before the court branch; the laws that were broken were set by the legislative branch.
Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption.
> Courts in the US are given an extremely high degree of independence, in the goal of limiting corruption.
And exactly the opposite ended up happening in this case, isn't it? Corruption is a world-wide problem, but I don't know how widespread it is in developed countries. And its the same problem, people sitting at the top don't have authority to curb the ground-level corruption. Here in India at least, the government has started implementing something called Lokpal:
It is an agency which works at the ground-level to curb the corruption both in the private and public sectors (and also the ministry). A question arose, however, that what happens if the Lokpal people itself went corrupt? And that's why the concept of decentralization was introduced. The central Indian agency, CBI can check the corruption in Lokpal, and of course, the courts have authority over both CBI and Lokpal. Thus, decentralization is at least, the present way of stopping corruption here.
Right, I remember the controversy over Lokpal, I was following India news more then. Developed countries tend to have less overt corruption and more implicit corruption; the populace simply doesn't stand for open bribes. Chicago is probably the most overt location in the US for corruption; elsewhere it tends to look very much like "rotating door" policies, as well as police looking the other way for important people.
The Supreme Court's job is to issue smackdowns on appeals courts, and they have been doing so rather consistently. EFF is lobbying the lower federal courts at the moment. See this story for details: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/eff-asks-appeals-...
But yeah, the President is actually quite weak. The President can't do shit about this problem.
Well, only Congress can impeach federal judges. So POTUS can't do anything in that regard, but POTUS administers the Patent Office. Obama could write one little letter telling them to mark all new patents and all old patents up for review as invalid. I believe this can be done without the approval of congress. I imagine there would be a lawsuit immediately from various parties. My best guess is that SCOTUS would be forced to uphold this executive order.
In fact, Obama has done this, but not to such an extreme degree.
Obama issued five executive orders on patent reform last summer. Among other things, they require the Patent and Trademark Office to stop issuing overly broad patents, and to force patent applicants to provide more details on what invention they are claiming. One of the orders opens up patent applications for public scrutiny — crowdsourcing — while they are in the approval stage, to help examiners locate prior art and assist with analyzing patent claims.
patents.stackexchange.com is the answer to this. As you mentioned crowdsourcing as a means to scrutinize the patents, this website is exactly doing that. I hope someone on the jury panel at least refers to this website before awarding the patent trolls their victories.
Congress definitely has the power, but so does the federal court system. I think its more beneficial to push the federal courts to attack the East Texas problem.
NPR: This American Life did an excellent episode about patent trolls where they cover east Texas and what it is about it that makes it so lucrative to file the suit there. Here is the episode transcript: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/t...
The audio of the show can be listened to there as well. Apologies on not giving a summary. I normally would, but it has been a while since I listened to it and I don't want to misrepresent it.
Indeed, it's been a huge bonanza for the local residents as big corporations have rolled into town and spent millions on PR (often as close to the courthouse as they can get). Everyone in town is courted (forgive the pun) to try and see corporations in the best possible light, just in case they turn up on a jury in a case against $BIGCORP at a later date.
Great place for camping (45 minutes north-west near Gilmer, TX has an awesome OHV aka off-roading park). It's also got fairly mild weather (though doesn't freeze as often as I would've expected): http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/gilmer/texas/united-sta...
Anyways, no pro-Marshall or anything. The idea of East Texas being a poor-ish "backwater" isn't far off the mark. But if you like nature and goofin' off, it's a real nice place to do it.
This is speculative, but these patent filings were probably part of a patent filing strategy that helped justify the employment of a what was likely a decent number of engineers by the original owner.
According to the inventors' employer's website at the time of filing of these patents:
"Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a Fortune 500 company, is the largest employee-owned research and engineering company in the nation. We provide information technology and systems integration solutions worldwide."
Almost as much as the $1B Apple was originally supposed to win from Samsung for equally silly patents. (It's since been slashed down to a tenth of that, but still.)
Is it too much to say "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
What would you do if you were Apple? Would VirnetX have refused to go after them just because Apple had not gone after Samsung for "equally silly" patents?
Seems like what you really want to say is "don't hate the player, hate the game."
>Instead of everyone joining in the patent suing racket, these big players should be lobbying for the laws to be changed
Except you have to do both - if you ignore the racket you are much more exposed to lawsuits. Patents are used defensively between companies like Apple and Samsung, and if you give up that defense while trying to change the laws you are severely exposed. Tough balancing act..
The flip side of it is that I don't think we're likely to see these laws change until the current 2 party corrupt system is torn apart. Congress is completely bought and sold on both sides of the aisle and their owners like the current system (more laws = more lawsuits = more $$ for lawyers).
The problem as I see it is: patents exist to allow innovators to get paid for their inventions (setting aside the USPTO not being able to do its job correctly due to under-funding and granting bad patents), patents therefore have a monetary value, however that monetary value in fact scales with the monetary resources of the company it's held by (i.e. small companies cannot legally afford to enforce patent claims against behemoths that decide to fight), therefore there is a market incentive to create patent trolls (which increase the value of all patents by pooling them and amortizing prosecution cost/risk over a larger number of patents).
It would seem like if you instead pooled patents in a co-op arrangement, retaining ownership by their original creators, but pooling them with others for efficiency / risk purposes and to obtain the necessary scale for optimal enforcement. Then work out some amiable proceed-sharing method on the backend.
Win/win, and reducing the incentive for patent troll companies by providing an alternative. (Caveat: bad patents still need to be fixed at the USPTO source via additional funding / subject matter expert examiner requirements)
Is something like this at all feasible legally? Or does something prevent the batching together of patents from various actual owners under a single legal proceeding?
> The problem as I see it is: patents exist to allow innovators to get paid for their inventions
That is not why patents exist. Patents exist for the good of mankind to convince innovators to share their trade secrets with the public. Paying those innovators is not the goal, it is the means by which the goal is achieved, making the inventions public. You've confused the carrot for the end goal.
Anyone wanting to think about how to fix patents needs to first understand what the goal is, and paying inventors is not the goal.
If there were any worldwide system of incentivization and value that was non-monetary, I'd be inclined to agree with you. As the world exists, paying inventors == convincing innovators to share their trade secrets with the public.
I didn't say paying them wasn't a valid means of achieving the goal, I'm merely pointing out that making the inventions public is the goal, paying them is merely a means of achieving that goal. To lose sight of the goal leads to making bad decisions. Thinking the goal of patents is to pay inventors for example, could lead to a far more screwed up system that doesn't benefit the public. We want to progress human knowledge, not make inventors rich; the latter achieves the former currently, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so if better means are found to achieve it.
Both reasons are the goal of the patent system. And seeing how shitty patent specs are it seems like encouraging invention is probably the bigger goal.
Why not a bounty amongst the industry for whoever takes a patent troll to court and wins?
The way it works now is that most defendants want to settle because the legal costs are too high for the defendant, and the patent trolls know this. If the defendants pooled their money for anyone who took them to court and won (not even a full patent co-op, which has its own challenges) - would that change how the patent trolls did their math - and diminish their ability to sue many parties?
I was looking at it the other way: how to disincentivize selling patents to trolls by increasing value to smaller companies, but I suppose it is equally valid on the other side.
I think the biggest problem with fighting patent trolls after they've acquired the patents is that they're not really businesses. So you win... who's to say they'll pay? They have a lot of organizational options available to them that actual, functioning businesses likely do not.
Aka don't fight a battle on terrain where your opponent has greater flexibility than you
I'd be more inclined to fight the actual trolls politically. A) They don't create jobs, B) they've got relatively small financial reserves compared to a larger functioning business, and C) they probably fly flag-of-convenience corporate registration with minimal interaction with the state (not that that's probably rare)
I have an even better idea. Why not the industry just maintain a blacklist of trolls? The said troll will not get any support in the IT industry wherever he goes across the USA. From hardware to software to networking, the troll will be deprived of services. Not just that, the tech blogs in the industry can also defame the trolls, so one day that understand the consequences and think thrice before trolling.
Will membership in a patent co-op protect against a patent troll?
- A patent troll has no products, which could infringe on a co-op's patents - So they can still sue you without risk of retaliation.
- A patent troll often has a financial structure designed to protect any assets that it wins through lawsuits (For instance, maybe if they win a lawsuit they could immediately pay a dividend to shareholders). So even if you win a lawsuit against them the main assets they hold are dodgy patents.
Defecting being an optimal play is something that could be addressed via co-op rules.
But that's my entire point. Currently, selling out to a patent troll (ignoring patents obtained from bankruptcies) is honestly the smartest move if you're a small company with a great patent. We should give such a company more socially-beneficial alternatives.
The system is already severely broken, so this wont make things any worse for individuals and small organizations. It's just shifting of power from one patent troll to another. Apple is not a traditional patent troll, in that they actually build and sell things, but they do spend inordinate amounts of money subverting the system and patenting things that never should have been patentable.
The large companies seem to be constantly in patent battles, often with each other, both as plaintiffs and as defendants. They win some and lose some. Since this is unproductive activity, due to lawyer bills and the diversion of attention from their core businesses, it simply must be a net loss for those players.
Why don't they call each other up, declare a truce, and cooperate in lobbying Congress to fix (i.e. largely repeal) patent law?
Large companies are not endangered by patent lawsuits, not even from trolls. They have enough power to fight most suits and even when they lose it's not a big sting. Patent portfolios allow the giants to consolidate their position and defend against competition from smaller companies. Economies of scale in terms of lawyers is what small companies don't have and giants aren't shy about threatening smaller players who may pose a threat (although they usually just buy them out).
Now this Patent Troll has even more ammunition to shakedown companies in future whilst encouraging creation of even more low-life leeching NPE's.
Clearly Patent Trolls adds negative value, harms progress and increases cost of business - how long will this legal racketeering be allowed to continue?
This is an extremely narrow patent that doesn't do anything like claiming all uses of null pointer exceptions. It just claims what strikes me as a rather minor optimization on how attempts to dereference a null pointer can be detected. It surprises me a little that it was considered worth patenting, but I guess it is fairly general in that it could be used in a lot of language implementations. The benefit is hardly worth writing home about, though.
I have a modest proposal to get rid of these patent trolls and these ridiculous settlements that typically are decided by a jury of West Texas farmers.
Patents ought to be designated a non-transferrable property. Inventors may create a trust that receives patent revenues, and direct those revenues to any entity they please (their own company, their heirs, another company, a charity, etc.) but would not be able to actually sell the patents to any other company or individual.
Then, patent holding companies would evaporate, and the revenue for ideas would go to those who created the ideas. If a company created many patents, say, Kodak, then goes out of business, it would leave behind a trust that would continue to receive revenue on those patents until they expired. If you choose not to, you can forfeit the patent and then it becomes public domain.
Can we just please abolish patents? Not just software patents, all of them. Can anyone give me an example of a patent issued in the last twenty years for a novel invention that then proved wildly successful and either protected the inventor from competition or even more importantly led to a lawsuit where the creator successfully beat a large company trying to copy their idea? And even if you can - is the exception outweighing the social cost of the insanity that is our immense tumor of IP lawsuits and intellectual creativity restriction that comes with it?
Fundamentally the courts are today rigged entirely for those who can afford the best lawyers and fight in a quagmire the longest. Even if you do invent something original, these large companies know they can just bleed you dry in court and ignore your patents anyway.
Yet I do not personally see anyone not being inventive or trying new ideas in the absence of a working patent system to protect their monopoly rights to their ideas. Is anyone today waking up the morning thinking "I'm not going to try new ideas because I won't be able to defend patents I file for them against megacorps". I highly doubt that. The people that create the things that are most valuable to us are products of environments that enable them to conduct the research in the first place (IE, they often don't have to do day labor to survive, or can live very comfortably on reduced work hours) rather than incentivizing "inventors" as a discipline that uses the profits of a state granted monopoly to sustain their business.
I mean, even when huge megacorps come up with novel ideas, their competitors will sick lawyers on it and find the closest approximation they can get while having the highest probability of defeating a patent violation lawsuit. And I really hope we are not writing IP law for the sole benefit of international corporations to fund an entire industry of lawyers to waste money arguing about the infringing width of a progress bar.
Big pharma, for all its flaws, does in fact provide value.
And drug research & development absolutely relies on patents. If you spend half a billion (or more) developing a drug and generic drug manufacturers can immediately sell it for a few cents a pill, how do you recoup your investment?
Currently, drug research is recouped through sales to consumers of the drug. Often, drugs researched and approved today are targeting extremely dire ailments, or are alternatives to those with allergies to common popular remedies.
It is important to not just consider the position of a pharmaceutical research corporations impact on the economy but the broader picture. Their research is often subsidized by the dying and suffering, or in the era of the PPACA it might be subsidized in part by a corporation that has to spread out that burden broadly to all healthcare subscribers.
The poor are sicker, on average, than the rich. Their reduced access to medicine makes their complications work, and the environments they are forced into often cause their more illness.
The drug R&D system we have now disproportionately extracts its funding from everyone above medicaid (and even on medicaid you can only get partial drug coverage) and anyone below a reasonable standard of living.
There are multiple ways to intervene into this system to produce as much research as we have now with an alternative funding model.
Since the majority of the consumers of these drugs are on national healthcare programs (usually medicare or medicaid - old or poor) we could simply transition to expansive national funding programs for private research, or public drug R&D. The revenue barely shifts hands then, but the problem becomes that the state is an awful judge of value and as demonstrated by NASA or the DoD is a terrible judge of what deserves funding or how much to give.
The other consequence is that since IP and patents are pure fiction in reality and must be constructed as a state institution to enforce, countries like China and India can just ignore US patents on drugs, instead manufacturing and distributing the fruits of American and European labor (since we end up paying the overpriced patent prices) abroad for no cost.
Is it worth aggressively pursuing research when the least able to afford it often ends up having to pay for it? How do we know that competitive drug research would not be done through institutional and charitable funding, like how a ton of other research works? Even in the absence of patents, there are upstart costs to building and manufacturing drugs. And within the drug industry, people often ignore that the most central reason why pharma R&D needs to spend so much ludicrous money is because of the FDA regulations involving getting their drugs approved. If drugs were more deregulated - less of a problem in the information age, when research can easily be distributed and problems broadcast internationally within minutes of discovery - we could dramatically cut the costs of research such that traditional manufacturing models, that have worked for years, could work the same for making pills.
Personally, I think a combination of substantive deregulation (you could still have FDA approval, and even a law where doctors need to notify consumers when they are prescribing experimental drugs and the risks involved, but they would not be mandatory to start selling and profiting), research prizes, public funding, private charity (a lot of cancer research is charitable, and almost any ailment of great duress also gets incredible amounts of charitable research funding) and the recognition that using a guaranteed monopoly only enforced in the western world disproportionately hurts the sick, and thus hurts the elderly and poor who either have to pay partials under state coverage or have to pay entirely out of pocket.
Small but important quibble from a Texan's viewpoint: these settlements are being decided in East Texas which is over 500 miles from anywhere in West Texas (imagine the distance from Cincinnati to NYC), and I think the juries there have more people in poverty than farmers.
But if we don't have software patents, how else will we incentivize mega-corporations like amazon to invent innovative new technologies like a 1-click checkout button?
You make a fair point. In fact, if we had even stronger software patents, facebook would have had to wait 20 years after the invention of myspace. A world with no facebook? Valhalla? It seems I need to rethink my position.
I think you've misdiagnosed the problems. They have little to do with transferability.
1. Patents are a crap shoot.
2. No realistic means to recover legal fees if you do fight.
3. So it's a one-sided crap shoot.
You could say that being a NPE is a part of #2, but there are easier ways to fix it: just require posting a bond when suing for patent infringement. If you lose, some or all legal expenses will be deducted. If you win, you get the whole thing back.
>2. No realistic means to recover legal fees if you do fight. //
It's normal elsewhere to award costs to the defendant when the plaintiff/complainant is unsuccessful in a civil suit (particularly if the judge finds it lacks merit). AFAIU this doesn't happen in US courts - why on Earth not?
Oh well, I guess that's the loophole in my proposal.
But at least, a patent troll would have to buy an entire corporation rather than just its patent portfolio. Kodak, again: if let us say Toshiba wants Kodak's imaging patents, they'd have to buy Kodak in its entirety. At least this would raise the bar to acquiring patents.
I actually sort of like your proposal. Don't individuals have to file for patents and then employees buy it off them for like $1? If this is true, existing patents would fall into this loophole, but new patents could never end up in corporate hands since you can't buy a person.
Another issue I see is that patent trolls could just represent patent owners in litigation and charge high legal fees (or sign a contract that they receive all revenue for the patent).
No, if an employee produces something patent-worthy as part of employment, when they file the employee is listed as the inventor, but the employer is the assignee, so they own it from its inception. There's no "buy for $1" transfer.
anyway that won't work because.. you thought you were buying that software eh? Nope, you are just licensing it.. You thought you might buy a john deere tractor? Nope.. you just licensed the right to use it. sure, you might own the axle nuts but not the software that drives the engine. You say they can't sell the patent? Oh thats ok, they will just license it..
the real problem is that simple & obvious processes are granted patents by the US patent office, and that is what needs to be fixed first.
If this is the kind of impetus needed to set off patent reform, all the better. I would argue against the "Troll" label, it is a legal firm doing its job very well. The Troll bashers I assume would prefer the companies to just leave this $ to the infringes? Why? Is it somehow immoral to use the legal system for financial gain? No, it is not, not at all. I'd say good on them for finding the loop holes and driving their $600M lorrie straight through it to the bank. Don't say fuck the trolls, fuck the patent system in the US which Apple has used to the detriment of many young companies too, they are all playing the game.
Typically the 'troll' label is applied to companies like Virnetx because they produce nothing of value. They are strictly rent seekers - net negative economic value creators.
"It's a massive verdict for VirnetX, a company that has no products and makes its money solely through patent litigation."
Even that's selectively looking at the facts though. At some point they paid for those patents, and that theoretically put money in the pockets of creators, incentivizing them to create more.
That said, to my eyes it's clearly a subversion of the intended purpose of patents, and is societally damaging, so I see no problem with derogatory labeling of this behavior and those that take part in it. It's unfortunate, but it's an important part of getting consensus in a short time frame with a large populace.
That's not selectively looking at the facts at all. The facts are plain:
- company buys patents for the purpose of seeking rents
- company aggressively pursues others who are independently creating potentially valuable products to shake them down for rents
- company produces nothing of value with the patent except for increased wealth transfer by extracting value from others' work
That they [theoretically] put money in someone's pocket to get the patent in the first place does not change any of these facts. And calling attention to the behavior isn't selectively dealing with the facts. They exist purely for rent-seeking.
> That they [theoretically] put money in someone's pocket to get the patent in the first place does not change any of these facts.
Actually, depending on your definition of rent seeking, it either makes it rent-seeking or not, so it may affect those facts. Would inventors be incentivized to create as much if there wasn't a market for these types of patents? Even if you discounts the type of patents that trolls attempt to control as useless, can we say that those crappy patents didn't subsidize better inventions?
Now, I'm not defending patent trolls, just noting that it may be a mistake to assume there is no economic value to what they do, even though the net outcome is likely negative. The positive and negative consequences may not be entirely comparable, making this easy to overlook.
If they won in court against Apple, they're not a "patent troll". They invented something which Apple copied.
Apple has patented, and tried to enforce, the claim that they have the exclusive right to devices with a screen on the front and round corners.[1] They lost, but they're still litigating that.
A company patented the concept of making toast well after toasters were on the market. Another patented recurring payments of online service long after that was normal. Another guy modified a patent to cover podcasting after podcasting was invented and in use.
Point being, something being patented != something being invented. It just means examiners agreed with the claims of a piece of paper then turned that into a piece of intellectual property. The wins then mean courts agreed that claims in that property match some other product to some degree. Neither means someone copied someone. Whether that's true varies on a case by case basis.
I think it's telling that many defendants develop their own, "infringing" tech without ever hearing of the plantiff or their patents. Hard to copy what you don't know exists. In science, we call it independent invention but patent system makes that impossible. Plus, on software patents, what programmers have you met who comb through patent databases to solve their day-to-day problems? I've never met one.
Concluding, patents are legal pronouncements that may or may not cover inventions. Rulings on copying may be right or bullshit. Copying is usually unknowing or independent invention because nobody solves problems with patent databases in our industry. I remember running into maybe 3 or 4 worth looking at in Google search solving a problem. One was novel but others patented ideas already in products or Comp Sci literature. Well-known ideas that were foundational to product success. (sighs)
Not at all. With how widely known patent trolling is, there's nothing inherent in a patent dispute victory that signifies the patent protects a valid invention and that the party suing isn't a troll. All it means is that the troll succeeded in their trolling. That's equivalent to suggesting that if a person was found not guilty of a crime they actually committed, they didn't actually commit it.
The legal system does not adjudicate reality.
PS: The rounded corners patent is equally offensive as those bought up and profited from by trolls in the courts. Patents don't intrinsically signify authentic invention. They should, but there are far too many counter examples to rely on such a claim.
Because courts adjudicate laws, and it's the laws that are broken. The alternative would be courts that just make up their own versions of the law, which has its own problems. Among those is the tendency for patent trolls (or their equivalents in other kinds of cases) bringing suit in whichever jurisdiction is friendliest to them, and there's entirely too much of that going on in East Texas already.
is it my or does 625 million seem a tad excessive for a feature of the phone that isn't totally central and probably is used by maybe 20% of phone users?
Apple has sold maybe 800million iOS devices. Say 400 million that support FaceTime. $1.50 per device. wow.
considering that apple is in itself a patent troll of the worst kind (buying companies with interesting patents, such as FingerWorks, and forbiding any and all licensing on those patents) i'm not even mad with this news.
That doesn't fit my understanding of Patent troll -- buying Patents, not making anything, then blanket suing companies to try and make a living. Not defending Apple's behavior as such, but it seems to not be the same thing.
Perhaps apple ABUSES patents (that's a different discussion I do not want to get into), but I prefer to reserve the term "patent troll" for those individuals or organizations that do not actually perform invention nor manufacture, sales and marketing of actual products.
That doesn't seem like a very useful distinction. Suppose new patent troll legislation comes along that would prevent enforcing a patent that isn't actively being used or developed (similar to trademarks). The trolls would just produce a cheap gizmo that depends on the patent in some way, and then blame the lack of sales on patent infringement. They'd colloquially still be called "trolls" based on a subjective judgment that they aren't really serious about selling the gizmo.
When someone calls Apple et al. a patent troll, I think it's from the perception that they 1) apply for overly broad or obvious patents, and 2) enforce the patents offensively. Also a very subjective definition, but it doesn't seem any worse than arbitrary "uses/plans to use" criteria.
That's a little bit too narrow. There are lots of companies out there that manufacture products but derive a large percentage of their revenue from patents. For example, the chips that Qualcomm makes have been described by some as a loss leader to hide and justify their very lucrative patent licensing business.
I use that term for companies judging from how useless the patent they are defending is. Like "slide to unlock", "rounded rectangles of the device" etc.
That is what I think. It's not a huge problem for Apple. It seems like to stay competitive in this market you have to play the troll's game and Apple has shown many times that it knows the game very well. In the end, it probably balances out. I'd like to see numbers on this.
The real issue is small players getting buried under legal fees.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...