Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday February 25, 2015 @03:21AM from the or-remit-821,110-iphones dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Smartflash LLC has won a patent lawsuit against Apple over DRM and technology relating to the storage of downloaded songs, games, and videos on iTunes. Apple must now pay $532.9 million in damages. An Apple spokesperson did not hesitate to imply Smartflash is a patent troll: "Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented. We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take this fight up through the court system." The trial happened in the same court that decided Apple owed VirnetX $368 million over FaceTime-related patents back in 2012.

186 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Patent reform will never happen by halivar · 2015-02-25 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unless the big fish start feeling the pain of the current patent regime. If patent trolls get too greedy, they may undo themselves.
1. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Just wait for the TPP and TTIP... you think it's bad *now*, you have no idea.
2. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Penguinisto · 2015-02-25 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  centered on a group of Republican judges.
  Yeah! Take the latest federal judge in good ol' Marshall TX, Judge James Rodney Gilstrap - he was nominated by that great champion and bastion of the Republican party... err, Barack Obama. He was confirmed by the Senate in 2011, when the joint was run by that other massive bastion of conservative GOP morality, err, Sen. Harry Reid. :/
  Here's an idea - how about you do some, I dunno, research, before you spout partisan politics.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
3. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Penguinisto · 2015-02-25 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Just wait for the TPP and TTIP... you think it's bad *now*, you have no idea.
  s'okay, I'm all stocked up for popcorn on that one.
  Although, wouldn't it just save us some time if we just nuked East Texas from orbit?
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
4. Re:Patent reform will never happen by TheReaperD · 2015-02-25 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  Although, wouldn't it just save us some time if we just nuked East Texas from orbit?
  Why should we limit it to East Texas?
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
5. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Penguinisto · 2015-02-25 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Because I want to save a few warheads for parts of California (specifically Sacramento, parts of LA County...)
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
6. Re:Patent reform will never happen by jythie · 2015-02-25 04:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The big fish in tech would already like to see reform, the problem is other industries. Biotech has a much better lobby, is linked to a less visible but larger industry, and has come out in strong opposition to any changes that might make the system a bit saner. So the patent trolls can pick on tech all they like and not fear policies changing.
7. Re:Patent reform will never happen by penguinoid · 2015-02-25 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If patent trolls get too greedy, they may undo themselves.
  Seems to me that if someone were serious about promoting patent reform, they would become a patent troll to undeniably drive the point home. I used to be upset at patent trolls, but now that I've thought about it the problem has never been the people who choose to most obviously abuse the patent system, but rather that the patent system is designed so that such abuse is possible. The real damage is caused not by the patent trolls, but by productive corporations who's random assortment of obvious patents will be used to sue any competitors into oblivion, thus discouraging anyone from even trying.
  The real mark of the brokenness of our patent system is not patent trolls, but rather that most engineers are forbidden from looking at patents.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
8. Re:Patent reform will never happen by space_jake · 2015-02-25 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  With all the discussions behind closed doors, we literally have no idea.
9. Re:Patent reform will never happen by tlhIngan · 2015-02-25 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Unless the big fish start feeling the pain of the current patent regime. If patent trolls get too greedy, they may undo themselves.
  Not likely. Patent trolling has been going on for CENTURIES. It's NOT a new thing. in fact, abusing the patent system has been worse in the past than it is right now. Sure it seems like a lot, but remember, you're on a tech website and tech is where a lot of patent fights are right now in the past 30 years. But since the 19th century, there have been tons of patents and patent wars and patent trolls.
  Way back when, it was sewing machines. There were so many patents filed related to sewing machines that it ended up in a stalemate as no one could actually make a sewing machine without violating someone's patent somewhere.
  And yes, many patents overlapped then as well.
  To counter this, a conglomerate went out and bought up many of the patents (eventually becoming Singer) so people could go to one place to buy licenses for a set of patents and make sewing machines. Probably one of the first patent pools around, and this was an era where FRAND didn't exist. So you ended up with a huge corporate entity that basically holds everything sewing machine related to which you paid license fees for.
  Then there were vehicles... the internal combustion engine was highly patented and the current Otto cycle engines we use today was patented, avoided, etc. Then other aspects of the car were patented, avoided, sued over, etc.
  Then there was the case of intermittent windshield wipers (invented about a half dozen times), but the modern version would be by Robert Kearns who did a fully solid-state version, and offered it to the Ford Motor Company who copied the ideas and made their own, resulting in a massive patent litigation that spanned 26 separate car manufacturers and lasted until the mid 90s through appeals and the Supreme Court.
  Yes, you can imagine that in the 90s when intermittent wipers were basically almost standard, patent litigation was STILL going on about it.
10. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Bonzoli · 2015-02-25 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  I think Apple could get its big boy pants on and fix the patent system. Problem is they used it against Samsung, they do not want if fixed. So its just the cost of doing business for them.
11. Re:Patent reform will never happen by microhax · 2015-02-25 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  What if someone figures out a way to patent patent trolling?
12. Re:Patent reform will never happen by macs4all · 2015-02-25 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  I think Apple could get its big boy pants on and fix the patent system. Problem is they used it against Samsung, they do not want if fixed. So its just the cost of doing business for them.
  Um, this is WAY different than Apple v. Samsung v. Apple v. Samsung v...
  
  That was a classic Patent Infringement suit. Both parties have employees, make and sell products, have R&D Departments, regularly file Patents on innovations (no flaming!) that they at least PERCEIVE in good conscience that they created from their own efforts, and for the express purpose (most of the time, at least) of incorporating into a REAL Product.
  
  VERY different from a Patent Troll scenario; and it's high time our Patent System was modified to somehow reconcile the difference, BUT without creating a set of laws that effectively excludes the little guy, who may have come up with an perfectly valid and "Patentable" idea; but does not YET have a way to monetize it (which I acknowledge is actually a pretty tall order, legalese-wise).
13. Re:Patent reform will never happen by lgw · 2015-02-25 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  Don't mess with Texas.
  But I think even Texans will make an exception for ... unfortunate events ... should they occur in a limited portion of East Texas. That might clear the bar on the "he needed killin'" defense.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
14. Re:Patent reform will never happen by lgw · 2015-02-25 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I think they want it fixed (Samsung makes actual products), they just lack the commitment to the American political system. Apple can afford to be the biggest donor to every Senator and Congressman. Every one, and all their opponents, for that matter. Apple just needs to decide this is important.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
15. Re:Patent reform will never happen by St.Creed · 2015-02-25 07:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The real mark of the brokenness of our patent system is not patent trolls, but rather that most engineers are forbidden from looking at patents.
  Sad but true. The patent system works so much against the original idea behind it, it needs to be taken behind the barn and shot.
  On another note, I find it even more offensive that the best way to write the most patents the quickest is to sit on standardization committees. That's a well-known abuse that's completely ignored by ISO and other organizations. Because getting the big organizations onboard means a viable standard, and they won't come on-board unless they can kill off the competitors who weren't in the room.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
16. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Cederic · 2015-02-25 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry but abusive litigation based on facile patents is abusive litigation. Doesn't matter whether it's done to or by Apple, the patents are still complete bullshit and their use for extortion is abuse and needs to be derided.
17. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Apple have been using a patent troll company (Rockstar) to go after Samsung and other companies
18. Re:Patent reform will never happen by macs4all · 2015-02-25 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but abusive litigation based on facile patents is abusive litigation. Doesn't matter whether it's done to or by Apple, the patents are still complete bullshit and their use for extortion is abuse and needs to be derided.
  Still not Patent TROLLING, sorry.
19. Re:Patent reform will never happen by macs4all · 2015-02-25 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Apple have been using a patent troll company (Rockstar) to go after Samsung and other companies
  Apple is FAR from the only holder of the Rockstar Patents (Nortel Patents).
  
  And I don't think they have relied on those to sue Samsung for most of what they have sued over.
  
  And what about Samsung? They have filed retaliatory Patent suits against Apple, and they aren't a member of Rockstar.
  
  Haters gotta hate.
20. Re:Patent reform will never happen by mlts · 2015-02-25 08:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  One of the best examples of abuses of patent reform is part of the history of refrigeration.
  Refrigeration, and air conditioning as we know it was locked down for over 25 years because the ice industry was gigantic, purchased patents or had them granted (a metal tube with stuff flowing through it that chances phase, for example), which effectively blocked the refrigerator from becoming a household appliance until after World War 1.
21. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Dishevel · 2015-02-25 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair though Apple was doing it because Samsung was succeeding in the marketplace.
  Not because a black squarish phone that you use fingers on the screen was something no one else could think of.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
22. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Never let facts get in the way of a finely crafted political tirade! And your momma too!
23. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Seems to me that if someone were serious about promoting patent reform, they would become a patent troll to undeniably drive the point home.
  I have always wondered if that was the point of Intellectual Ventures. Peter Detkin, attributed with evangelizing the pejorative term "patent troll", is one of the four founders of Intellectual Ventures. Part of me thinks that the whole exercise of IV is to break the system enough to cause reform, as well as get paid a ton of money to do so.
24. Re:Patent reform will never happen by macs4all · 2015-02-25 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair though Apple was doing it because Samsung was succeeding in the marketplace.
  Not because a black squarish phone that you use fingers on the screen was something no one else could think of.
  But isn't it funny that no one else did, until...?
25. Re:Patent reform will never happen by TheReaperD · 2015-02-25 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that... X-(
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
26. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  The 'inventor' does create things. He has a game studio and implemented his 'innovation' before there was an iPhone or an AppStore in games for the Playstation. Other companies are paying for his 'invention'. The company that is rewarded the half billion dollar is an American shell company that only holds the American patents and has no employees. This is done because the inventor isn't American, and his game studio isn't American. I don't know how it works with patents, but I think it's extremely difficult to hold and defend American patents as an European company or to even hire a attorney to defend your company.
  
  Now, do I think his inventions are really that innovative? No, I do not. But this is a problem with the patent system and how easy frivolous patents are granted.
  
  Do I think Apple should pay the company for patent infringement? Yes, I do think so. It's not because Apple is a large company that they can get away with infringing patents, while small companies do have to pay.
  
  Do they deserve to pay such a large sum of money? I don't think so, the damage isn't that big since the vast majority of people don't buy an iPhone for the 2-3 apps that infringe the patent, they buy an iPhone to make phone calls.
  
  But this time it's not a case of a patent troll vs a company that actually creates things. It's about a small company that creates things and actually wins a lawsuit against a very big company with deep pockets that implements technology invented by this small company.
  
  Do not be surprised there are companies outside the US who try to gain some market share in the US with the products they invent and create.
  
  note: Again, I don't know how it works with patents, but I know it is very difficult for a foreign artist to protect his/her work when an American artist copies his/her work. An old friend of mine had this problem. His eighties electro song was an underground hit in our country and surrounding countries. Some records ended up in the US, imported by a specialized techno record stores. His record ended up in the collection of someone who was a DJ and would become a producer. 30 years later his record was remixed into a more modern hip hop/deep house, whatever you call the new style of music, and became a world wide hit.
  This was clearly a case of stealing: taking music from someone else and claiming it your own.
  What was the result when he started asking questions about this? His old 80's song was seen as a copyright infringement on the mid 2000's song and it was forbidden to be played. Why? His song was never released in the US and he should have payed the RIAA back in the 80's if he wanted to have his song protected by American copyright law.
  He didn't even try to get money out of the artist, he just tried to have a chance to release his track in his own (more modern) version with the same record company that now made lots of money with the copy. He just wanted to indirectly profit from the succes of the one who copied his song.
27. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Smurf · 2015-02-25 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, but as you well said Judge James Rodney Gilstrap serves at the Marshall division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. But TFA clearly states, the case took place at the Tyler division, which is served by District Judges Leonard Davis and Michael H. Schneider, Sr., both of whom, along with Chief Judge Ron Clark were appointed by George H. W. Bush (not that who appointed a judge at that level has as much significance as it does for Supreme Court Justices).
  Here's an idea - how about you do some, I dunno, decent research, before you spout veiled partisan politics.
28. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Rakarra · 2015-02-25 18:19 · Score: 2
  
  you brainless twatwaffle
  It's unfair that this was nominated down. I love insults that are totally nonsensical, yet brilliant.
29. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Rakarra · 2015-02-25 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  VERY different from a Patent Troll scenario;
  This is not a Slashdot-friendly sentiment, and I'm feeling dirty for just suggesting it, but why isn't a patent troll entitled to patent enforcement? The original patent filer sold it. They got compensated. Why is it better if the original patent holder sues another company rather than they sell it to someone else, and that person/company does the suing? The original filer sold the patent and received the value of it, including the value of settlements if another company infringed.
30. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Rakarra · 2015-02-25 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  And what about Samsung? They have filed retaliatory Patent suits against Apple, and they aren't a member of Rockstar.
  The patent system is the cold war. Most of the time, large companies have a patent war chest potent enough to discourage patent lawsuits. No one wants mutually-assured destruction. The ones who get screwed are the smaller companies (Latin America/Eastern Europe) who don't have a war chest they can use to fend off the bigger companies. So they get pushed around a lot. The exception would be the patent trolls. Like a terrorist cell that just got their hands on a nuke, the patent troll doesn't have anything other than the patent, so they don't particularly care about retaliation.
31. Re:Patent reform will never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  Hate to burst your bubble but the monopolistic assholes known as Apple have been stealing tech for years then patenting it, then taking credit for creating it. Just because a company patents something doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot, Apple has done this from it very beginning and continues to do it mow. In fact a number of companies that patent something probably stole it from someone or some University, or research group, ect..
  I find some irony in them calling out an entity as a patent troll, and yet Apple is the one that patent rounded corners on their phones, then went around suing any and every company that had a similar design for their hand held devices whether that be a smartphone or tablet.
  There needs to be reform on the patent system without a doubt, but that should include what can and cannot be patentable. I can almost promise you because its a billion dollar company they get the most ludicrous patent approvals, not only that but they can get them within months. I sense some bribes taking place.
32. Re:Patent reform will never happen by RuffMasterD · 2015-02-25 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Dammit. Commenting to undo 'Troll' mod. Sorry.
  
  --
  Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
33. Re:Patent reform will never happen by david_thornley · 2015-02-26 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  The question is, saner in what way? Patent law has a considerably different effect on the pharma industry than the electronics industry.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
34. Re:Patent reform will never happen by lsatenstein · 2015-02-27 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  centered on a group of Republican judges.
  Yeah! Take the latest federal judge in good ol' Marshall TX, Judge James Rodney Gilstrap - he was nominated by that great champion and bastion of the Republican party... err, Barack Obama. He was confirmed by the Senate in 2011, when the joint was run by that other massive bastion of conservative GOP morality, err, Sen. Harry Reid. :/
  Here's an idea - how about you do some, I dunno, research, before you spout partisan politics.
  When all countries other than the USA abolish patents, as Russia has done, the question will be "Should American Companies remain hostage to patents?". A solution would be to become a non-American company, or to abolish patents that are really algorithms for copyright.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Live by the sword... by AmiMoJo · 2015-02-25 03:23 · Score: 5, Informative

... die by the sword. Apple loves abusing patents and is one of the companies behind Rockstar.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
1. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, poor, poor Apple.
2. Re:Live by the sword... by darkmeridian · 2015-02-25 03:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Apple files a bunch of crazy patents and design patents (such as for the curves of their phone) but at least they sell products. Trolls that simply buy up patents to sue people with are a much worse problem because they aren't contributing anything to society. They are basically rent-seekers who glom off the efforts of others.
  Just the same, I agree with you 100% that Apple bought into the game, made the game expensive, and then now cannot complain about the game.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
3. Re:Live by the sword... by spire3661 · 2015-02-25 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The vast majority of Apple's patent s are due to the tech environment ripening, not actual innovation. They are just as much a patent troll as they company they are accusing of being a troll. Just because Apple makes product doesnt make them less so. IN fact the whole 'IP holder must make the product' is shitty reasoning at best.
  
  --
  Good-bye
4. Re:Live by the sword... by fustakrakich · 2015-02-25 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  What "sword"? This is pure entertainment. They'll all end up at the pub together, having a nice big celebration. I am beginning to believe that these kind of lawsuits are more of a tax avoidance or money laundering scheme. There is no other logic to them.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
5. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  You'll be the first to whine when Foofle gets to pay for the same patents.
6. Re:Live by the sword... by Penguinisto · 2015-02-25 04:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  To be fair, two things:
  1) Most of Apple's patents are on hardware, and design patents aren't uncommon at all among big corps that make and sell tangible stuff (see also the Auto industry).
  2) Apple got this way because they were IP-raped pretty hard in their early years (with Microsoft being among the more notable thieves).
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
7. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  'Overrated' the cowardly moderator says, but is it wrong?
  *crickets*
8. Re:Live by the sword... by UncleGizmo · 2015-02-25 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  To be clear, from TFA, the patent developer founded Smartflash as a holding company for his patents. So although Smartflash technically had "no employees..." It wasn't a troll in the clearest sense.
  
  --
  Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
9. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  Modded informative for citing (such as for the curves of their phone). This non-news story was posted to get you to post this and you did. I'm sure lots of other posts that didn't make the cut went for the curves.
  Does me pointing that out get me modded as troll? It's getting old dude, very, very old.
  Lots of other people get it right, the problem isn't apple, it's non-practicing patent holders that aren't a person.
  You come up with an idea and patent it, I get you might not have the money. A company shouldn't be able to do that. You're not a company if you don't have any employees and aren't making something.
10. Re:Live by the sword... by penguinoid · 2015-02-25 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Live by the sword, die by the sword.
  I believe you meant, "How do you like them Apples?"
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
11. Re:Live by the sword... by alvinrod · 2015-02-25 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The reason they and every other company file all of these crazy patents is because it's much, much harder to sue them if they can pull out their own patent in the trial. At that point the other company now has to prove that a patent granted by the patent office, which basically says that this patent is a unique and different implementation than any other existing patented implementations, is somehow invalid. Good luck with that.
  
  There is no buying into the game or not. Either you play it with a good strategy or you get rolled over and learn to play smarter the next time if you don't want to lose. Agreeing or disagreeing with the rules won't change them, and since next to no politicians really care about patent reform or have any understanding of it at all, it would take a lot of money to lobby for a reasonable change, which assumes that anyone opposed won't spend just as much if not more to make your efforts useless.
12. Re:Live by the sword... by Em+Adespoton · 2015-02-25 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Apple files a bunch of crazy patents and design patents (such as for the curves of their phone) but at least they sell products. Trolls that simply buy up patents to sue people with are a much worse problem because they aren't contributing anything to society. They are basically rent-seekers who glom off the efforts of others.
  Just the same, I agree with you 100% that Apple bought into the game, made the game expensive, and then now cannot complain about the game.
  I'm going to play Troll's Advocate for a moment. We always talk about how patent trolls contribute nothing to society. However, they DO buy the patents, which means the original holders get money from them that they can invest into something useful themselves, when otherwise they may have gone bankrupt. And the patents in a troll's portfolio are generally more solid than the ones in megacorps' war chests, because they are planning to use them in court, not just to wave around to threaten competitors. So they've got actual inventions they use, and if they truly paid the original inventors, that means Apple & co. DIDN'T.
  So if the patent is unoriginal, it should be thrown out. If it isn't, Apple had no right to just steamroll over someone else's invention and force them to make back their lost money by selling their patent to someone who could afford the litigation fees.
  Yeah, kind of a stretch, but we don't really get that side of the argument on here much, so I thought it was worth a try :)
13. Re:Live by the sword... by AmiMoJo · 2015-02-25 05:56 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Most of Apple's patents are on hardware
  Most of Apple's hardware designs are ripped off from other places. Slide to unlock is centuries old and other phones did it first on a touch screen. Their tablets look almost exactly like Samsung photo frames released years earlier. Much of their other hardware looks like Braun products from the 70s and 80s, the kind of stuff Jobs would have lusted after when he was young.
  
  Apple got this way because they were IP-raped pretty hard in their early years
  We have all hard Steve Jobs talk about how Apple used to shamelessly stead good ideas. That's the way it should be. Apple, and Jobs in particular, turned nasty in later life. They could use patents defensively, but instead they use them to stifle competition with nonsense claims that defy common sense. Normal people who are raped do not then become rapists because they had a bad experience.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
14. Re: Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  You were talking about a corporation, why did you use an analogy of human behavior? Not comparable at all.
15. Re:Live by the sword... by macs4all · 2015-02-25 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  They are just as much a patent troll as they company they are accusing of being a troll.
  O RLY?
  
  Name me ONE instance where Apple has DIRECTLY (Rockstar doesn't count; especially since they are FAR from alone in that "venture") filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit that DIDN'T involve either an already-announced Apple Product, or at least one that was in Development.
16. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  You should talk to APL's holding companies in their tax evasion scheme - you know, funneling all the sales of things through Ireland I think it was?
  No products, no useful employees, etc.
17. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  So lets see if I read this correctly. Not counting the company Apple has do their dirty work in the world of patent trolling......
  And at any rate, nobody is claiming Apple doing this on products they are developing/releasing. It's stuff like slide to unlock, where products were on the market 5 years prior, using exactly what Apple patented, yet somehow that little fact wasn't considered important in granting or defending against said patent.
18. Re:Live by the sword... by Cederic · 2015-02-25 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
19. Re:Live by the sword... by Cederic · 2015-02-25 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  You come up with an idea and patent it, I get you might not have the money. A company shouldn't be able to do that.
  
  Why not?
  Why can't I set up a company whose job is R&D, and earn income from licensing the inventions I come up with. This is surely a sensible choice for people that can't be arsed with supply chain logistics, sales and all the shit that comes with it.
  What's different to that in setting up a company that doesn't do R&D, but does purchase rights to the inventions that other people create. Same business but this time we've also cut out the people and facilities management necessary for R&D.
  If a patent is legitimate, is innovative, represents a technology advance that people want to copy, then it has value. That value can be realised through licensing or through manufacture. Why should manufacturers be the only people allowed to profit from patents?
20. Re:Live by the sword... by macs4all · 2015-02-25 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  So lets see if I read this correctly. Not counting the company Apple has do their dirty work in the world of patent trolling......
  And at any rate, nobody is claiming Apple doing this on products they are developing/releasing. It's stuff like slide to unlock, where products were on the market 5 years prior, using exactly what Apple patented, yet somehow that little fact wasn't considered important in granting or defending against said patent.
  How is that Patent TROLLING?
  
  Maybe a bullshit decision; but Apple wasn't TROLLING with that.
  
  I don't think "Patent Trolling" means what you think it means.
21. Re:Live by the sword... by macs4all · 2015-02-25 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
  Sorry, no it isn't.
  
  For the reading impaired like you, here is a good definition of "Patent Trolling".
22. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  It could be argued that Apple is worse.
  Apple not only receive monetary gains from a successful suit, but they stop their competitors from shipping their products.
23. Re:Live by the sword... by pkinetics · 2015-02-25 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, we need to come up with a way to patent campaign financing and how their votes go. Throw in their extra marital affairs and we could have a winner.
24. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Appealing to wikipedia for authority on a community-defined term? -1
25. Re:Live by the sword... by Dishevel · 2015-02-25 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Let us say that if your patent suit has the sole purpose of stopping legitimate competition in spite of the fact you are using patents in a trollish manner, and are being a patent troll. If you offer no services or products then all you are is a patent troll.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
26. Re:Live by the sword... by Dishevel · 2015-02-25 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  They are patent trolling. They are not a patent troll.
  Trolling is the action they are taking, but by the fact that they also have a legit business they are not "A Patent Troll". They are a company that engages in patent trolling when it suits them.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
27. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  I might agree with you, were Apple not so bloody aggressive about going after people with their patents.
28. Re:Live by the sword... by hairyfeet · 2015-02-25 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  So MSFT going to Apple and saying "We'd like to buy a license to some of your IP" and Apple responding by saying "Sure! It'll cost you X amount" and MSFT paying it equals....thievery?
  That word...I don't think it means what you think it means.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
29. Re:Live by the sword... by AmiMoJo · 2015-02-25 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, Google uses patents defensively. Apple uses them offensively, to attack other companies and get their products either banned or crippled.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
30. Re:Live by the sword... by gnasher719 · 2015-02-25 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
  On the other hand, it was Samsung who was threatened by the EU with a 13 BILLION dollar fine if they didn't stop patent trolling.
  
  And it was Google through their purchase of Motorola who demanded 4 BILLION dollars from Microsoft for two MP3 related patents (I think they ended up paying Microsoft, as patent trolls should do).
31. Re:Live by the sword... by gnasher719 · 2015-02-25 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  No, Google uses patents defensively. Apple uses them offensively, to attack other companies and get their products either banned or crippled.
  Well, absolutely. Google is good and Apple is evil. Therefore any patents that Google uses are to fight evil and therefore good, while any patents that Apple uses are evil. That's the logic, isn't it?
  
  Now explain to me the four billion dollar lawsuit that Google lost against Microsoft. Was that defensive?
32. Re:Live by the sword... by macs4all · 2015-02-25 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Appealing to wikipedia for authority on a community-defined term? -1
  It just happened to have the most complete definition, so STFU, COWARD.
33. Re:Live by the sword... by macs4all · 2015-02-25 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  Let us say that if your patent suit has the sole purpose of stopping legitimate competition in spite of the fact you are using patents in a trollish manner, and are being a patent troll. If you offer no services or products then all you are is a patent troll.
  And so, how does that apply to Apple as a PLAINTIFF?
34. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  OK then, then lets use another term: Apple is patent system abuser, a patent bully, ...
35. Re:Live by the sword... by macs4all · 2015-02-25 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  OK then, then lets use another term: Apple is patent system abuser, a patent bully, ...
  ...and Samsung is...?
36. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  Dude. That isn't patent trolling. You can't be patent trolling if you have a viable product using said patents. Period. Every patent suit you hate apple for, they had a device using that patent. You are as wrong as wrong can be.
  deal with it
37. Re:Live by the sword... by i.kazmi · 2015-02-25 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it is....
  
  Common sense is not so common after all
38. Re:Live by the sword... by Rakarra · 2015-02-25 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  Let us say that if your patent suit has the sole purpose of stopping legitimate competition in spite of the fact you are using patents in a trollish manner, and are being a patent troll. If you offer no services or products then all you are is a patent troll.
  The -entire- point of a patent is to stop (or otherwise receive compensation for) "legitimate competition." A patent means "I invented this, only I can use it or lease/sell it."
39. Re:Live by the sword... by AmiMoJo · 2015-02-25 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Which lawsuit? Link?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
40. Re:Live by the sword... by david_thornley · 2015-02-26 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Regular patents and design patents are two different things. Don't confuse them. Design patents are more like trademarks, and trademark law and patent law are separate things.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
41. Re:Live by the sword... by Dishevel · 2015-02-26 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of their lawsuit was to hinder real competition through use of really crappy and broad patents. That is trollish.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
42. Re:Live by the sword... by Dishevel · 2015-02-26 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  I stated that Apple was not a patent troll. That they were just "being" one.
  I understand that it is different. You just have to really read what I posted. Apple has products. Therefore they can not technically be "Just a patent troll". They still though can use the patents they have in a trollish manner.
  Some of us are nothing but Apple haters. Some Apple defenders. Some can recognize that Apple has products, a right to make them and is still being a douche about their shit patents.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
43. Re:Live by the sword... by Dishevel · 2015-02-26 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that. But the patents they got approved even though "real", we can all admit are overly broad and crappy. The only reason they got approved is because that is how the patent office works. "Approve if possible and let the courts work it out."
  Except the courts are fucking stupid when it comes to tech and it takes years and millions of dollars to get a verdict.
  They are bullshit patents and we all know it.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
44. Re:Live by the sword... by david_thornley · 2015-02-26 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Apple doesn't hold patents covering slide-to-unlock, but rather a certain way to do slide-to-unlock. My Nook and my Nexus 7 both slide to unlock, but in ways that don't infringe Apple patents. Apple's patent covers a way to do something, not the thing itself, and that's the sort of thing that is patentable in other contexts, no problem. I don't think it should have been awarded a patent, for several reasons, but you're seriously misinterpreting the patent system here.
  I don't remember Samsung photo frames having rows of icons, to be honest, and IIRC that was part of Apple's design patent. The iPhone was a recognizable piece of hardware, and Apple had a legal right to keep it distinctive, as long as it didn't stop other people from making similar things with similar functionality that looked different.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Go patent trolls! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:25 · Score: 0

We normally hate you but we hate teh Applezz even more!
let me check what time it is by slashmydots · 2015-02-25 03:27 · Score: 2

Time to fire that judge.
patent by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:30 · Score: 0

live by the patent, die by the patent.
Good to point out since VirnetX was mentioned by sasparillascott · 2015-02-25 03:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

VirnetX, whom Apple lost a patent case to previously, had direct ties to the intelligence community of the U.S. Government - they sued to prevent Apple from using point to point encrypted communication with no encryption keys going to Apple (for their Facetime and iChat products - if memory serves)...afterward Apple was forced to change to a client server client model (where the encryption keys were held on Apple's servers - reachable via NSL's - the goal).

VirnetX also sued Microsoft and Cisco on these same patents. Just the NSA arranging the board so they could run it going forward. Software shouldn't have patents IMHO...simply because of the documented abuse of the U.S. government's proxy in these matters. Supposedly the NSA has other proxy patent holding companies as well.
1. Re:Good to point out since VirnetX was mentioned by tgeller · 2015-02-25 04:11 · Score: 2
  
  {Citation needed}
  
  --
  Tom Geller
2. Re:Good to point out since VirnetX was mentioned by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  Software shouldn't have patents in my opinion, because I feel it stifles innovation. However, copyright is another matter. "You can't rip off my code." should be sufficient. If another company works hard and uniquely creates something that does something, good for them, they shouldn't get sued.
Ooops... by Theaetetus · 2015-02-25 03:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Another Apple lawyer, Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview, told the jury there was no reason for Apple to pay royalties on the price of a phone when the dispute is over a single feature.
“It doesn’t make a lick of sense that one person would buy an iPhone and not make calls,” he told the jury. “People do not buy cell phones for the sole purpose of using apps.”
In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
1. Re:Ooops... by Enry · 2015-02-25 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
  Outside of kids, that's probably true.
2. Re:Ooops... by Theaetetus · 2015-02-25 03:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
  Outside of kids, that's probably true.
  Inside of kids, it's too dark to use one.
3. Re:Ooops... by goombah99 · 2015-02-25 04:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
  Outside of kids, that's probably true.
  Inside of kids, it's too dark to use one.
  Nah, the screen lights up just fine.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
4. Re:Ooops... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
  Outside of kids, that's probably true.
  Inside of kids, it's too dark to use one.
  The screen glows.
5. Re:Ooops... by David_Hart · 2015-02-25 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Another Apple lawyer, Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview, told the jury there was no reason for Apple to pay royalties on the price of a phone when the dispute is over a single feature.
  “It doesn’t make a lick of sense that one person would buy an iPhone and not make calls,” he told the jury. “People do not buy cell phones for the sole purpose of using apps.”
  In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
  IPod Touch sales would have gone up when Apple dropped the iPod classic (160GB) if there was a 128GB or 256GB version and if it was priced reasonably. Instead, Apple left iPod classic users high and dry....
  The 5th Gen is about 3 years old and the 6th Gen is expected by March or April of this year and supposedly will include a 128GB model.
6. Re:Ooops... by Enry · 2015-02-25 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I walked right into that one. Well played.
7. Re:Ooops... by unrtst · 2015-02-25 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Inside of kids, it's too moist to use one.
  FTFY. Also, It'd void your warranty and trigger the liquid contact indicators.
8. Re:Ooops... by JudgeFurious · 2015-02-25 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Along with local law enforcement.
  
  --
  Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
9. Re:Ooops... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
  But would people buy iPod Touches if they had 3/4G data capabilty but not GSM/[whatever else yanks use?
  The usage over here is strongly trending away from traditional talk (minutes often a small side note on the plans) in favour of texting/chatting apps, VOIPFacetime etc.
10. Re:Ooops... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2015-02-25 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it's a little too moist in there, seeing as how the human body is comprised of a lot of water.
  Not unless you've got a life proof case, of course.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
11. Re:Ooops... by pkinetics · 2015-02-25 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  it used to be kids swallowed marbles and coins and things of that sort. Then it became magnets. Now they are consuming ipod touches???
12. Re:Ooops... by Xyrus · 2015-02-25 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.
  Outside of kids, that's probably true.
  Inside of kids, it's too dark to use one.
  Yeah, but you get to hit them until they change their tune.
  
  --
  ~X~
Speaking of VernetX by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:36 · Score: 0

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/us-apple-virnetx-idUSKBN0HB20D20140916
Karma by bjdevil66 · 2015-02-25 03:37 · Score: 2

Yes, this is a patent troll, but Apple's been on both ends of these cases.
Case in point: A few years back, Burst.com had them by the short hairs over video streaming patents - probably worth billions today - and Apple got off with only paying $10 million.
You win some, you lose some...
1. Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Surely Smartflash LLC owns something with rounded corners. A cool coffee table, a cutting board, a Moleskine journal. Apple will nail them to the wall.
hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:43 · Score: 0

>> Another Apple lawyer, Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview, told the jury there was no reason for Apple to pay royalties on the price of a phone when the dispute is over a single feature.
âoeIt doesnâ(TM)t make a lick of sense that one person would buy an iPhone and not make calls,â he told the jury. âoePeople do not buy cell phones for the sole purpose of using apps.â
Hilarious. Nuff said.
"They are not a real company" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:43 · Score: 0

If you buy patents, then you paid for all the work that made those patents; you are real.
Companies ask for it by Sir+Holo · 2015-02-25 03:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

I am an independent inventor (and Uni. scientist by day). I have tried to sell a basket of CMOS-related patents for 10 years. All I ever hear is "not invented here."
Now, the big Corps. are suddenly "discovering" what I already patented 10 years ago. I have no choice but to sue, sue, sue.
They bring this on themselves.
1. Re:Companies ask for it by spire3661 · 2015-02-25 03:52 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  List your patents so that we may evaluate your claims.
  
  --
  Good-bye
2. Re:Companies ask for it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who represents patent holders in suits against these sorts of companies, I wonder how people think the system actually works and how they think it should work. People yell reform, reform, reform, but they tend to have no idea about how hard it is to actually win a patent case. Smartflash has already had to survive 7 validity challenges to their patents, and they have at least as many more before Apple will actually have to pay them. If they loose any one of those, then their patent is worthless. How many times should a patent holder have to win before it actually gets paid?
3. Re:Companies ask for it by Pinky's+Brain · 2015-02-25 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Were your ideas relevant 10 years ago? Or did you perceive some problems which are only becoming relevant now?
4. Re:Companies ask for it by Pinky's+Brain · 2015-02-25 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Infinity times.
5. Re:Companies ask for it by JaredOfEuropa · 2015-02-25 04:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Start reforming what can be patented. No software patents, and throw out the crap that is obviously not invention but intellectual property land-grabbing.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
6. Re:Companies ask for it by jbolden · 2015-02-25 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  You are right enforcement is difficult. The problem is upstream.
  1) We need to have a discussion if as a society we want software patents to exist at all. We may want to consider software to be more like a book and so simply not subject to patents at all.
  2) Assuming we do the rules regarding patenting math / code need to be tightened. Most people in the tech field what an innovation to have to be far greater to be worthy of a patent.
  3) For this to happen the patent office doesn't do enough research. They need to verify originality. Also going back to the policy that a patent requires submitting a functional prototype. They also can help out in determining if a violation is taking place in advance rather than this being a function of the courts.
  4) However they can't do this because there are too many patents. Patents are fundamentally too cheap. Patents need to be much much more expensive to pay for the research requires to enforce 1-3.
  5) There needs to be better good faith licensing terms like in Europe. Violations need to be sanely priced but easier to prove.
7. Re:Companies ask for it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Were your ideas relevant 10 years ago? Or did you perceive some problems which are only becoming relevant now?
  No.
8. Re:Companies ask for it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  The "reform reform reform" argument is typically that it shouldn't be possible to patent this kind of thing. The idea that selling a product to someone and only giving them access to it once they've paid is a new invention because you throw the word "software" into the mix is kinda ridiculous.
9. Re:Companies ask for it by dj245 · 2015-02-25 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Were your ideas relevant 10 years ago? Or did you perceive some problems which are only becoming relevant now?
  Maybe he invented a "better way to do things", which was ignored for some time because changing would have required breaking the inertia of proven technologies. Then when companies today are trying to shave 0.2s from boot times, or improve performance by 3%, they see the value in doing things differently. I could easily see that happening.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
10. Re:Companies ask for it by jythie · 2015-02-25 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you are someone who represents patent holders as you claim, then you are also aware that most patent suits never make it to court because, while the cost of the suit is high, the cost of defense is significantly higher. Cases are only 'hard to win' when the defendant can actually defend themselves or when the patent (usually software) is shakey enough that it does not get pushed through quickly.
11. Re:Companies ask for it by jythie · 2015-02-25 04:44 · Score: 2
  
  I have found that when companies start 'discovering' things 10 years later, it is because the earlier 'paper only' work would not actually work at the time and probably should never have been granted in the first place. You have plenty of 'choice', but sitting and waiting for someone to actually do the work and make a success out of something then springing your patents on them and trying to cash in... yeah.. you are not likely to get much sympathy for your forced hand.
12. Re:Companies ask for it by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-02-25 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  You have plenty of 'choice', but sitting and waiting for someone to actually do the work and make a success out of something then springing your patents on them and trying to cash in... yeah.. you are not likely to get much sympathy for your forced hand.
  In a world where ideas are a dime-a-dozen, execution ability is the real currency.
  So obviously those with no execution ability should use the government to force people to pay them for ideas they could not figure out how to make money on themselves.
  IP.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
13. Re:Companies ask for it by jedidiah · 2015-02-25 04:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Better yet, if people are re-inventing your work why do you even think you should be granted ownership of it? Chances are that you contributed nothing to the state of the art. You didn't publish anything that's actually useful. Patents are rubbish as documentation. So if that's all you've contributed to the world, then you didn't contribute anything really.
  The fact that ANYONE could "re-invent" your stuff means the patent should be tossed.
  Patents are evil that way. They allow patent holders to claim ownership of the work of others. It's legalized theft.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
14. Re:Companies ask for it by quantaman · 2015-02-25 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I am an independent inventor (and Uni. scientist by day). I have tried to sell a basket of CMOS-related patents for 10 years. All I ever hear is "not invented here."
  Now, the big Corps. are suddenly "discovering" what I already patented 10 years ago. I have no choice but to sue, sue, sue.
  They bring this on themselves.
  This is a legit question, did you actually contribute anything when you made your patents? The 10 year lag suggests they weren't ripping off your original patent or sale proposal, though maybe they're using your academic publications the patents are based on, more likely these were simply problems they weren't interested in yet.
  Not knowing anything about your patents in particular I suspect that most patents are fairly obvious once you start addressing the problem in question. But the idea that you can address a future problem with a bunch of patents, but not actually build anything to go along with it, I just don't see the value to society. It seems like a perversion of the system, like someone taking the cab to the finish line of a race without doing any actual running, the true value isn't in the finish, it's what's created along the way.
  Patents are supposed to promote innovation, by your own admission your patents were ignored and didn't seem to do anything to push the technology forward, why should you be rewarded with a pile of money?
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
15. Re:Companies ask for it by jythie · 2015-02-25 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, there are entities out there who's entire business is R&D who then license their work to companies that build actual products. It is important to keep these types of entities in mind since their specialization on IP is a net benefit and they depend on patent law to keep their customers honest.
16. Re:Companies ask for it by ganiman · 2015-02-25 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  It will never happen. No lawmaker wants to take on this task in the United States. It isn't even a topic of discussion around elections. It needs to happen, but never will. I have lost all hope for the lawmakers in the USA. We have overwhelming evidence for climate change (whether humans are one of the causes or not), but lawmakers with no background in science what so ever can trump the geniuses at NASA and say it's a lie. Patent reform is so low on the list of things to fix in this country that people will be patenting things like rounded corners or gestures for many years to come.
  Is there a patent on breathing? I should file that one... and then sue every last one of you.
  
  --
  geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
17. Re:Companies ask for it by gnupun · 2015-02-25 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Start reforming what can be patented. No software patents
  That is moronic... most industry innovation is coming from software (which BTW, is just like hardware, but cheaper and easier to create) rather than hardware. How many hardware patents were filed last year compared to software patents? Not many, I bet.
  Remove software patents and there will be no motivation to invest millions/billions in innovative software that can be cloned by competitors in a year or two.
  
  throw out the crap that is obviously not invention but intellectual property land-grabbing.
  Agreed, reject overly broad patents that are a simple combination of existing technologies (eg: internet + DRM + mobile phone).
18. Re:Companies ask for it by edtice1559 · 2015-02-25 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Who says that anybody is re-inventing. For all we know, they read the patents. With a patent, you get a period of exclusivity. In exchange you disclose your invention such that anybody skilled in the art could reproduce it. And clearly the OP did contribute because he was 10 years ahead of these companies. If companies did re-invent, they are fairly inefficient when they could have just bought it. Innovation is not reinventing the wheel.
19. Re:Companies ask for it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  OK then, remove copyrights from software.
20. Re:Companies ask for it by PRMan · 2015-02-25 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know a single developer personally who is in favor of software patents. Copyright, yes, but patents, no. In fact, at a previous company the lawyers came to us and offered us $2500 bonuses for any software we submitted which ended up with a patent. Not a single developer submitted one, because they go against our core beliefs so strongly.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
21. Re:Companies ask for it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  If someone can independently write code that unknowingly violates a patent, then by definition that patent is obvious and should be invalidated. Its that simple.
22. Re:Companies ask for it by gnasher719 · 2015-02-25 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Start reforming what can be patented. No software patents, and throw out the crap that is obviously not invention but intellectual property land-grabbing.
  Software patents are not the problem. They are just a symptom, and to many people reading Slashdot obvious software patents look obvious, while obvious patents about building refrigerators don't look obvious to us.
  
  The problem is that the purpose of the patent system has been lost. The reason for granting patents is that instead of an inventor keeping an invention secret to exploit it to avoid others copying it, the inventor is given a time-limited monopoly on the patent, but has to publish it. That way, others can read the patent, improve on it, and society benefits.
  
  Now if an invention is so clever that only one person could have invented it, that makes sense. But if I invent something and 100 other people are clever enough to invent the same thing if they feel the need to solve the same problem, then nobody benefits from me publishing the patent. If anyone needed to solve the problem, they would just do it. Instead they lose time and money by having to fight the patent system.
  
  The problem isn't software patents. If I had a software problem that I couldn't solve and my colleagues couldn't solve and I found that someone had a patented solution, then I wouldn't see any reason why my company shouldn't pay for a license. The problem is that patents are granted for things that hundreds of programmers could easily figure out in a short time. There are patents for things that I would ask as interview questions and expect you to answer.
23. Re:Companies ask for it by gnasher719 · 2015-02-25 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  Remove software patents and there will be no motivation to invest millions/billions in innovative software that can be cloned by competitors in a year or two.
  Most software isn't one bit innovative. Not in the sense that is patent worthy. Do you think anything in the operation of Facebook is worth a patent? I don't think so. Now start cloning and see where you get.
  
  Apple makes more profit selling desktop and laptop computers than all their competitors together. Is any of that due to patents? No. There is copyright protection for their operating system and their other software, but there isn't anything special in their hardware that could be patented. So start cloning.
  
  Your argument just doesn't work.
24. Re:Companies ask for it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  Now, the big Corps. are suddenly "discovering" what I already patented 10 years ago. I have no choice but to sue, sue, sue.
  Unless you have a big warchest, just watch yourself. The modus operandi of most big corporations is to bleed the plaintiff dry with vague discovery and endless continuances until the plaintiff runs out of money. Then they pick up your patents for pennies on the dollar at the bankruptcy hearing. Happened to a friend of mine years ago.
25. Re:Companies ask for it by david_thornley · 2015-02-26 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what all is involved in Facebook, and it seems likely to me that people made genuine innovations that weren't obvious somewhere in the internals. It is a large-scale operation, and people tend to find ingenious new ways when they face new problems.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And yet, it paid MORE US taxes than Apple Inc by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:46 · Score: 0

Go figure!
Puppets by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 03:46 · Score: 0

The courts are puppets of the fascist world. They now echo with the voice of Roland Freisler.
Humiliate the judge and expose him. Poke judges in their pride and you would be surprised at the results.
1. Re:Puppets by l0ungeb0y · 2015-02-25 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  So Judges should be held accountable for the decisions of juries? Maybe in your world, judges send in their sheriffs to "aggressively persuade" juries to make the decision the judge wants. That's not how it works in what little of a democratic republic we have left. But, hey -- your perfect world is coming. Fascism is rising fast in the Western World.
2. Re:Puppets by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  So Judges should be held accountable for the decisions of juries?
  Judges have enormous power over what the jury does and doesn't hear or consider. That virnet company mentioned in the summary? They just lost an appeal because the judge had let virnet tell the jury how to calculate damages without considering what the law says about how to calculate damages.
The patents by Art3x · 2015-02-25 03:48 · Score: 4, Informative

The patents:
- 7,334,720
- 7,942,317
- 8,033,458
- 8,061,598
- 8,118,221
- 8,336,772.
1. Re:The patents by gnupun · 2015-02-25 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Looks like 7334720 is just applying DRM "over the internet," using a portable computer. How can anyone be granted such wide patents?
2. Re:The patents by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  "Looks like 7334720 is just applying DRM "over the internet," using a portable computer. How can anyone be granted such wide patents?"
  Because the US designed patents to work that way for themselves.
3. Re:The patents by tricorn · 2015-02-25 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I read a few of them. They appear to be continuations of continuations of continuations based on a foreign application of a continuation of .... Trying to figure out what was ACTUALLY claimed to be innovative a the priority date of 1999, and what was added since the iPod and other systems supposedly infringing came out, is pretty difficult. Indeed, trying to understand the claims themselves doesn't really tell you much, and I fail to see how ANY jury, with anyone with a hint of software knowledge excluded, could form a reasonable decision as to validity. As near as I can tell from the ones I read, it's basically "You know that music and stuff you can download off the Internet onto a portable device? What if you had to pay for it first?" There really is nothing more non-obvious than "sell something - OVER THE INTERNET".
4. Re:The patents by gnasher719 · 2015-02-25 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like 7334720 is just applying DRM "over the internet," using a portable computer. How can anyone be granted such wide patents?
  There is the remote possibility that such a patent wasn't obvious many years back when it was granted. There are now new rules, where combining existing prior art is obvious and cannot be patented, unless the effect of the combination is something unexpected.
  
  If you think that a patent should be valid for a shorter time than normal if the general progress in knowledge has made it obvious, then I would agree.
5. Re:The patents by tricorn · 2015-02-25 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Many years back is 9 (when that particular patent was filed) or 16 (based on the priority date, though I'm unclear what that priority date is based on). Buying things over the Internet wasn't some stroke of genius, and couching things in standard patent-speak doesn't make it any more innovative. Makes me want to file a patent on "A Method and System of Using A Computing Device", put in all sorts of vague claims with "data means" and "storage means" and "communication means" and "user interface means", include something really specific like "a processor using graphene), then wait until someone creates something nifty after graphene has become common in chip fabrication, then sue everyone for violating my innovative patent, since I was the only person in 2015 who could have foreseen graphene being used in computers. Of course, as every new potential technology is reported on, I file a continuation on my patent and add in the new technology. Perhaps a cool new public key system is devised, I can toss using that as part of the data communications means of using my Computing Device. This will cost me some money, of course, so I'll deserve a big payout at the end for having taken so much risk in developing my innovative technology.
6. Re:The patents by mjwx · 2015-02-25 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like 7334720 is just applying DRM "over the internet," using a portable computer. How can anyone be granted such wide patents?
  The same way someone is granted a patent on using rounded corners or scrolling on a mobile device.
  
  The patent system is horribly broken and now only works for money (you pay, you get patent).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
7. Re:The patents by david_thornley · 2015-02-26 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  The claims are what are important. Were all of them allowed? Claim 1:
  
  A method of controlling access to content data on a data carrier, the data carrier comprising non-volatile data memory storing content memory and non-volatile parameter memory storing use status data and use rules, the method comprising: receiving a data access request from a user for at least one content item of the content data stored in the non-volatile data memory; reading the use status data and use rules from the parameter memory that pertain to use of the at least one requested content item; evaluating the use status data using the use rules to determine whether access to the at least one requested content item stored in the content memory is permitted; and displaying to the user whether access is permitted for each of the at least one requested content item stored in the non-volatile data memory.
  
  This looks awfully general to me. Basically, it's a server with content and rules and status information that a user submits a request for, and the request is evaluated using the rules and status information, and either returning the requested content or an "access not permitted" message. I was using a website that required a login back in the 90s, and that would be covered by this claim. Given that the filing date is October 25, 2000, and the priority date is eleven months before that, I'd think there was prior art.
  I could read through the remaining claims and see if they look less prior arted, but patentese has a tendency to make my head hurt, so I don't read it without a solid reason.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
8. Re:The patents by david_thornley · 2015-02-26 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody got a patent on rounded corners. Apple got a design patent, which is more of a trademark, on a certain design that had rounded corners as a design element. I'm not sure about any "scrolling on a mobile device" patents, but your "rounded corners" reference makes me think you're taking patents to be far more sweeping than they are.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
He who lives by the sword... by mshor · 2015-02-25 03:56 · Score: 1

DIes by the sword
1. Re:He who lives by the sword... by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-02-25 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  This is going to be our strategy against ISIS. We will file a method patent on the use of swords to behead hostages dressed in orange, then win a huge judgement by defending it in East Texas.
time to let texas secede by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Every patent troll suit happens in texas, a place where the school boards oppose evolution in textbooks.
1. Re:time to let texas secede by slashmydots · 2015-02-26 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's because thinking a female mosquito developed a dozen different traits that all work together for a new method of reproduction in the same generation that a male randomly developed a matching trait that worked with it is complete fantasy. As a current total solution, evolution is massively flawed and unproven. There's actually more evidence that the universe is a simulation.
  
  If you step back and look at the opposing viewpoint logically, if Jesus turned water into wine and handed the wine to scientists, they would say that there is one way that wine came into being. Someone grew grapes, picked them, crushed them, and fermented them. They are wrong but they are only looking at evidence that they personally can see under the assumption that humans are the most intelligent beings in the universe and if we can't wrap our heads around something based on our physical observations then we're wrong...then they figured out the world wasn't flat and lightning wasn't in fact magic. Science doesn't exactly have a long track record of being accurate while the Bible actually doesn't contradict itself once and nothing in it has ever been proven wrong. So to simply call religious people wrong because you disagree instead of actual logic and reason is very ironic considering it's the scientific method you're falling back on.
2. Re:time to let texas secede by david_thornley · 2015-02-26 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  There's no evidence that the Universe is a simulation, just interesting speculation. There's plenty of evidence in favor of evolution.
  The fact that you think it requires multiple interlocking mutations happening simultaneously means that you don't know how evolution is thought to work, and you're attacking a straw man.
  Miracles are, by definition miraculous. They are divine violations of the laws of the Universe. If they could be explained by scientific means, they wouldn't be miracles.
  The bible has a lot of internal contradictions, and although I haven't studied the history involved it wouldn't surprise me if some of the historical stuff had been disproven. It's not possible to disprove the religious, mystical, and moral stuff, but that can't contradict science, since none of those are based on objective observation and theorizing.
  I don't call religious people wrong because they're religious. I call them wrong when they make false or stupid statements, like you just did repeatedly.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
3. Re:time to let texas secede by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  Every patent troll suit happens in texas, a place where the school boards oppose evolution in textbooks.
  You're missing the bigger issue: A place where the school boards are officially on-the-books against critical thinking, because kids might start having independent thoughts. And the on-the-books statement is phrased pretty much just like that.
Apple is a patent troll as well. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:03 · Score: 0

"Apple makes some products, has some employees, creates some jobs, has some U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology others invented. People should refuse to pay off this company for the ideas other engineers spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take this fight up to the streets."
or not by goombah99 · 2015-02-25 04:11 · Score: 1

Since no on knows who owns VitnetX, it would be surprising if you did. The Technology appears to have been developed by SAIC under govt contract and has been licesenced to Microsoft and others. Now that jury award has been nullified on appeal. So either by liscening or not, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping people from using the technology. So if that's the NSA objective here it seems to have not succeeded or perhaps there nver was an NSA agenda and it was simply about making money off invented technology?

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:or not by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  On the whole the patents were upheld but the way VitnetX calculated the damages was found to be flawed. That was why the award was set aside.
Not hard to see.. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:15 · Score: 0

It's not hard to see where all this is going. DRM technology now exists to make it extremely hard to reverse engineer technology...after most of the technology has all been given away to the far East via reverse engineering and purchasable patents.
Next, companies in the East can consolidate and buy up the remaining patents with their vast resources, and then sue the very companies that invented them.
It won't be long before Samsung are suing Apple for rounded corners!
Prior Use Defence by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:50 · Score: 0

If Apple actually invented this technology they would have a prior use defence and would not have been found to infringe.
1. Re:Prior Use Defence by macs4all · 2015-02-25 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  If Apple actually invented this technology they would have a prior use defence and would not have been found to infringe.
  Anywhere but in East Texas, that is...
If we're luckly by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 04:54 · Score: 0

Maybe if we're lucky enough of these big hits on big companies will finally convince them that "strategic patents" are a lot more trouble than they're worth and they'll press the government for meaningful patent changes. For a long time I think they believed they could game the system to keep competitors out of the market, now trolls are bleeding them for money and their competitors have the same patent war chests. A reasonable patent system can be a force for innovation, but the constitution is quite clear that patents are for the artist/inventor for a limited time. These days patents are bought and sold by companies who had nothing to do with the original idea and are purposefully used to stifle innovation for far longer then anyone with a middle school leveling reading comprehension and above could justify (eternity minus a year according to SCOTUS).
It's in Eastexastan by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-02-25 05:21 · Score: 1

And the subject was IP law, so we automatically know it was a junk decision.
Re:but, but, but... by jo_ham · 2015-02-25 05:23 · Score: 0

You're confusing a design patent with a hardware patent. An easy mistake to make.
Apple's "rounded corners" design patent is like Ford suing someone for making a car that looks like a Mustang - something that is also protected by a design patent.
What patent trolls do is sue because someone is making a car because they hold a broad patent on "a transportation system used by individuals or groups".
Design patents are very common and protect things like trade dress and distinguishing sets of features (for example, a Ford Mustang is a car, and cars are not a new invention, but the design patent that protects the Mustang is valid). The more traditional invention patent, however, protects that specific invention. For example, the patent that protects a specific unique widget prevents another company for making and selling that widget, but the design patent on the Ford Mustang doesn't prevent other companies from making different cars, just not ones that look like the Mustang).
Also, of note, that the summary doesn't mention that this company is also suing Samsung and Google over the same patents. It seems the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" method has claimed victory in round 1.
Re:says who? by Imazalil · 2015-02-25 06:02 · Score: 1

Ah, this again. Please let me know which technology company I should support because they are paying their full share of taxes.
You are real bright by TrollstonButterbeans · 2015-02-25 06:23 · Score: 1

Apple has $130 Billion in the bank.

They don't care. And this isn't causing them pain. And they are probably happy, because it validates their patent portfolios ability to snuff out competitors.

Patent judgements don't hurt large companies. Patent judgments are accomplices to supporting large companies.

Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook don't care about $500m dollars.

If you think this is live by sword, die by sword ... then you must define "die by the sword" as a paper-cut.

--
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
1. Re:You are real bright by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  Fight injustice with injustice, eh?
Actually a troll? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 06:27 · Score: 0

The only real question to ask is: Is he really a troll? If he has never tried to sell his patent then he probably is a troll. If he did try to sell his idea and nobody bought it then made money off his idea then, NO, he is not a troll. Period.
Re:says who? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 06:41 · Score: 0

Intel. Intel does not do any of the tax avoidance schemes. Its effective tax rate is on profits always about 29%.
Re:All fair and good, except... by macs4all · 2015-02-25 06:43 · Score: 1

Remember Apple and Carl Sagan? When Carl Sagan had a problem with abuse of his name in a product Apple, in protest at the silliness of the "IP laws" used the internal name insulting him and made a sound like "Sosume".
1. Carl Sagan was an INTERNAL Project CODE NAME for the PowerMac 7100. The whole lawsuit thing was beneath the personage of Dr. Sagan, but he DID sue (twice!) and lost (twice!).

2. Sosumi's name had NOTHING to do with Carl Sagan, or ANY filed lawsuit. THIS is the REAL STORY. 3. The Sound "Sosumi" did NOT sound like "So sue me". It sounded like THIS.

4. It is "Sosumi" NOT "Sosume".
Apple - kind of patent trolls by ganiman · 2015-02-25 06:48 · Score: 1

Apple in itself is a patent troll, but perhaps in a somewhat different way. They file patents for bullshit like rounded corners and call that innovation, as if I wasn't drawing things with rounded corners when I was a kid, or as if the web wasn't already trying to round every corner of every div or table before Apple ever filed for the patent. No one should feel bad for Apple over this, they love to shove patents every which way they possibly can as long as it is in their favor. They abuse the current patent system just as bad or worse than any other company. I have no doubts that this will not change anything about our broken patent system either.

--
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
Re:Lmao by macs4all · 2015-02-25 06:55 · Score: 2

Apple "invented".
Give me a break. Apple was worse than MS when it came to the internet, CyberDog? Comical.
Interesting language, since the name for CyberDog came from a Comic in The New Yorker.

And you have to remember when CyberDog was released, it was a pretty cool and ambitious project. In fact, if it hadn't been for Microsoft throwing their weight around in the OpenDoc Consortium (and the fact that CyberDog was burning cash at a time when Apple couldn't afford it), CyberDog (and OpenDoc) probably would have evolved into a Web Standard.
how about by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 07:17 · Score: 0

void all patents, any one suggesting patents gets 2 years in jail
Re:All fair and good, except... by Megane · 2015-02-25 07:49 · Score: 1

Yes, I remember Apple and Carl Sagan. And it had nothing to do with patents or other IP laws, but instead about implied endorsement. They used "Carl Sagan" as an internal codename for a particular model of Power Mac. So they renamed it BHA, which stood for Butt-Head Astronomer.
Sosume was completely unrelated to Carl Sagan, being instead about Apple Records, which was due to a settlement about a trademark issue. Part of the agreement was that they wouldn't produce "music".

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
They should pay $500k by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 07:50 · Score: 0

to place a hit on these guys
I don't have a problem with patent trolls... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-25 08:17 · Score: 0

I don't understand what the problem with Patent trolls are? Somebody made and invented it and submitted a patent. They bought that patent. It's part of ownership of an idea which there is value of. Apple could have bought that patent. They chose not too and were at risk. Only way to fix is to fix the patent system. Which I am all for!
Given Apple's own abusive patent behaviour by msobkow · 2015-02-25 12:10 · Score: 1

Given Apple's own abusive patent behaviour over the years, I can't help but smugly thinking "That's Karma, bitch!"

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:Given Apple's own abusive patent behaviour by david_thornley · 2015-02-26 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention Apple's violation of patents. Apple has a double standard on patent infringement (but, then, I'd suspect everybody has).
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No punishments means the laws don't matter. by jbn-o · 2015-02-25 12:35 · Score: 1

I'm not so sure that's true because the relevant laws are set such that the penalties are so light for the wealthy violators and virtually non-existant for the most powerful participants in the system. First, the organization with the most patents is not in a position to "feel pain" as you say; IBM's power is (as they've said long ago) in cross-licensing. They said they get an order of magnitude more benefit by leveraging the power the patent scheme was built to exert (which is also part of the problem of calling organizations "patent trolls" as if leveraging that power is somehow not to be expected, or an abuse of an otherwise upright system, when in fact that power is just part of the system operating as designed). As a result, losing patent infringement lawsuits is not common for IBM. Richard Stallman laid out how this works in his patent talks many years ago:

IBM got two kinds of benefit from its 9000 US patents. I believe the number is larger today. These were first, collecting royalties and second, getting access to the patents of others. They said that the latter benefit is an order of magnitude greater. So the benefit that IBM got from being allowed to use the ideas that were patented by others was 10 times the direct benefit IBM could get from licensing patents. What does this really mean?
What is the benefit that IBM gets from this access to the patents of others? It is basically the benefit of being excused from the trouble that the patent system can cause you. The patent system is like a lottery. What happens with any given patent could be nothing, could be a windfall for some patent holder or a disaster for everyone else. But IBM being so big, for them, it averages out. They get to measure the average harm and good of the patent system. For them, the trouble of the patent system would have been 10 times the good. I say would have been because IBM through cross-licensing avoids experiencing that trouble. That trouble is only potential. It doesn't really happen to them. But when they measure the benefits of avoiding that trouble, they estimate it as 10 times the value of the money they collect from their patents.

With regard to Apple specifically, it's not that difficult to see that they get by in part by violating government-granted monopoly and they're wealthy enough to be able to afford to do it repeatedly. The people who run Apple now ran NeXT years ago. NeXT infringed the FSF's license (GPLv2) in NeXT's initially unauthorized GCC derivative in which NeXT added Objective-C support. NeXT and the FSF settled out of court when the FSF got them to comply with the terms of the GPL (lesson learned here: stand up for your strong copylefted free software licenses and the bullies will meet your terms). Apple would again violate the GPLv2 later by distributing an infringing copy of VideoLAN Client. VLC co-author Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote critically of Apple's choice to let the program through it's app store saying "Those terms are contradicted by the products usage rules of the AppStore through which Apple delivers applications to users of its mobile devices." Apple infringed upon 3 Chinese writer's copyrights and were ordered to pay 730,000 yuan ($118,000), hardly a sum that would stop Apple from doing this again. But the pattern seems clear: Apple violates laws it doesn't like and never really meets a punishment that will make the leaders of the organization question whether to do it again. Apple isn't unique in this but that is a detail; we need punishments for the wealthy and powerful that make them take the law more seriously. But most importantly for endeavors practiced by the general public, such as computer programming, we need to fight in an organized and political way to end software idea patents. Mere patent reform is a delaying tactic that benefits the powerful.

--
Digital Citizen