Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

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.

Comments

Patent reform will never happen

[halivar]

Unless the big fish start feeling the pain of the current patent regime. If patent trolls get too greedy, they may undo themselves.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait for the TPP and TTIP... you think it's bad *now*, you have no idea.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Penguinisto]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Penguinisto]

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?

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[TheReaperD]

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?

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Penguinisto]

Because I want to save a few warheads for parts of California (specifically Sacramento, parts of LA County...)

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[jythie]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[penguinoid]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[space_jake]

With all the discussions behind closed doors, we literally have no idea.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Bonzoli]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[microhax]

What if someone figures out a way to patent patent trolling?

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[macs4all]

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).

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[lgw]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[lgw]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[St.Creed]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Cederic]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[macs4all]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[macs4all]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[mlts]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Dishevel]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[macs4all]

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...?

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[TheReaperD]

Thanks for that... X-(

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Smurf]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Rakarra]

you brainless twatwaffle

It's unfair that this was nominated down. I love insults that are totally nonsensical, yet brilliant.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[RuffMasterD]

Dammit. Commenting to undo 'Troll' mod. Sorry.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[david_thornley]

The question is, saner in what way? Patent law has a considerably different effect on the pharma industry than the electronics industry.

Re:Patent reform will never happen

[lsatenstein]

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.

Live by the sword...

[AmiMoJo]

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

Re:Live by the sword...

[darkmeridian]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[spire3661]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Penguinisto]

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).

Re:Live by the sword...

[UncleGizmo]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[penguinoid]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I believe you meant, "How do you like them Apples?"

Re:Live by the sword...

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Em Adespoton]

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 :)

Re:Live by the sword...

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[macs4all]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Cederic]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Cederic]

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?

Re:Live by the sword...

[pkinetics]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Dishevel]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Dishevel]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[AmiMoJo]

No, Google uses patents defensively. Apple uses them offensively, to attack other companies and get their products either banned or crippled.

Re:Live by the sword...

[gnasher719]

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).

Re:Live by the sword...

[gnasher719]

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?

Re:Live by the sword...

[macs4all]

Appealing to wikipedia for authority on a community-defined term? -1

It just happened to have the most complete definition, so STFU, COWARD.

Re:Live by the sword...

[macs4all]

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?

Re:Live by the sword...

[macs4all]

OK then, then lets use another term: Apple is patent system abuser, a patent bully, ...

...and Samsung is...?

Re:Live by the sword...

[i.kazmi]

Yes it is....

Common sense is not so common after all

Re:Live by the sword...

[Rakarra]

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."

Re:Live by the sword...

[AmiMoJo]

Which lawsuit? Link?

Re:Live by the sword...

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Dishevel]

The purpose of their lawsuit was to hinder real competition through use of really crappy and broad patents. That is trollish.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Dishevel]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[Dishevel]

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.

Re:Live by the sword...

[david_thornley]

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.

let me check what time it is

[slashmydots]

Time to fire that judge.

Good to point out since VirnetX was mentioned

[sasparillascott]

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.

Re:Good to point out since VirnetX was mentioned

[tgeller]

{Citation needed}

Ooops...

[Theaetetus]

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.

Re:Ooops...

[Enry]

In related news, iPod Touch sales are apparently nonexistent.

Outside of kids, that's probably true.

Re:Ooops...

[Theaetetus]

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.

Re:Ooops...

[goombah99]

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.

Re:Ooops...

[David_Hart]

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.

Re:Ooops...

[Enry]

I walked right into that one. Well played.

Re:Ooops...

[unrtst]

Inside of kids, it's too moist to use one.

FTFY. Also, It'd void your warranty and trigger the liquid contact indicators.

Re:Ooops...

[JudgeFurious]

Along with local law enforcement.

Re:Ooops...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

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.

Re:Ooops...

[pkinetics]

it used to be kids swallowed marbles and coins and things of that sort. Then it became magnets. Now they are consuming ipod touches???

Re:Ooops...

[Xyrus]

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.

Karma

[bjdevil66]

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...

Companies ask for it

[Sir Holo]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[spire3661]

List your patents so that we may evaluate your claims.

Re:Companies ask for it

[Pinky's Brain]

Were your ideas relevant 10 years ago? Or did you perceive some problems which are only becoming relevant now?

Re:Companies ask for it

[JaredOfEuropa]

Start reforming what can be patented. No software patents, and throw out the crap that is obviously not invention but intellectual property land-grabbing.

Re:Companies ask for it

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[dj245]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[jythie]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[jythie]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[quantaman]

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?

Re:Companies ask for it

[jythie]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[ganiman]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[edtice1559]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[PRMan]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[gnasher719]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[gnasher719]

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.

Re:Companies ask for it

[david_thornley]

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.

The patents

[Art3x]

The patents:

- 7,334,720
- 7,942,317
- 8,033,458
- 8,061,598
- 8,118,221
- 8,336,772.

Re:The patents

[gnupun]

Looks like 7334720 is just applying DRM "over the internet," using a portable computer. How can anyone be granted such wide patents?

Re:The patents

[tricorn]

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".

Re:The patents

[gnasher719]

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.

Re:The patents

[tricorn]

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.

Re:The patents

[mjwx]

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).

Re:The patents

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:The patents

[david_thornley]

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.

He who lives by the sword...

[mshor]

DIes by the sword

Re:He who lives by the sword...

[Applehu Akbar]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Every patent troll suit happens in texas, a place where the school boards oppose evolution in textbooks.

Re:time to let texas secede

[slashmydots]

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.

Re:time to let texas secede

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Puppets

[l0ungeb0y]

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.

or not

[goombah99]

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?

It's in Eastexastan

[Applehu Akbar]

And the subject was IP law, so we automatically know it was a junk decision.

Re:says who?

[Imazalil]

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

[TrollstonButterbeans]

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.

Re:All fair and good, except...

[macs4all]

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

[ganiman]

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.

Re:Lmao

[macs4all]

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.

Re:Prior Use Defence

[macs4all]

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...

Re:All fair and good, except...

[Megane]

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".

Given Apple's own abusive patent behaviour

[msobkow]

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

Re:Given Apple's own abusive patent behaviour

[david_thornley]

Not to mention Apple's violation of patents. Apple has a double standard on patent infringement (but, then, I'd suspect everybody has).

No punishments means the laws don't matter.

[jbn-o]

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.