Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple To Appeal Five-Year-Long Patent Battle After $439.7 Million Loss (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the repeal-and-replace dept.

Appel has been ordered to pay $439.7 million to the patent-holding firm VirnetX for infringing on four patented technologies that were apparently used in FaceTime and other iOS apps. According to The Verge, Apple plans to appeal the ruling -- continuing this long-running patent battle, which began back in 2012. From the report: VirnetX first filed suit against Apple in 2010, winning $368 million just two years later. It then sued again in 2012, which is the suit that's being ruled on today. Apple initially lost the suit, then filed for a mistrial. It won a new trial, lost that trial, was ordered to pay around $300 million, then lost some more and is now having that amount upped even further. That's because a judge found Apple guilty of willful infringement, bumping its payment amount from $1.20 per infringing Apple device to $1.80 per device. Those include certain iPhones, iPads, and Macs. VirnetX says the ruling is "very reasonable." Apple didn't issue a statement other than to say that it plans to appeal. While $440 million isn't a lot of money for Apple, there's principle at stake here: VirnetX is a patent troll that makes its money from licensing patents and suing other parties. The company's SEC filing states, "Our portfolio of intellectual property is the foundation of our business model."

69 comments

  1. Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boooo. Throw out the ruling.

    1. Re:Patent troll by youngone · · Score: 2

      Indeed VirnetX would appear to be a patent troll, and will probably be first against a wall when the revolution comes, but it's a bit hard to have sympathy for Apple.
      Live by the sword is the phrase that comes to mind.

    2. Re: Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll or not, Apple has to pay for ripping patented technology.

    3. Re:Patent troll by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I'd go with "hate the game, not the player" as Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, and plenty of other major companies get hit with these types of suits far more often than they go after other companies or each other. When there are plenty of other companies (legit or not) that have already picked up swords and are poking you with them, there's little incentive not you arm yourself in kind.

      The only thing that will fix it is patent reform, but that isn't something to stir up the base with so neither party really gives two fucks.

    4. Re:Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they? Wasn't VimetX founded by the guys that invented a lot of the secure LTE stuff, they seemed to have expanded their patent portfolio but still seems a little borderline as to whether they are a troll or not.

    5. Re:Patent troll by gravewax · · Score: 1

      They seem to sell competing products in the space that they have these patents and utilise the patents in tech, I think by definition that makes them NOT a patent troll. perhaps the patents are dodgy but that is a separate issue.

    6. Re:Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Double the fine since apple is more then happy to draw this out and waste the courts time.

    7. Re:Patent troll by msauve · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Indeed VirnetX would appear to be a patent troll"

      No, absolutely not. Patent trolls don't go after multi-national corporations. They have weak or indefensible patents, and go after low-hanging fruit, trying to avoid court at all costs - they live on out-of-court settlements where the target figures paying is cheaper than fighting.

      Now, they may be a NPE (non-practicing entity), which doesn't make products which use their patents, but that's another thing entirely. Lots of universities fall in that category - they don't make products, but license patents they developed with research. Nothing unethical about it, they developed or bought reasonable, enforceable patents. Say some Joe Blow patented something unique - he doesn't have the resources to fight an infringer like Apple, so he sells the patent to someone who does. The system works like it should, assuming you think patents should exist at all.

      That the patent(s) in question here have held up across several cases shows they're not a patent troll.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:Patent troll by youngone · · Score: 2
      I checked with Wikipedia and got this:

      Some call VirnetX a patent troll[1][2] because they expanded their Patent Portfolio beyond the original four Internet Security Patents to include more than 100 related patents, thus securing their position as a leader in mobile security technology, and based on the fact that the majority of their employees are lawyers and they have yet to commercialize any of their patents in commercial products.

      So I guess it depends on your definition of Troll really.
      I'm happy to call any company that produces nothing a patent troll, but in this case there might be a defense:

      Emails from Apple's engineering staff indicated that they knew they were violating various patents...

      Which fits your point well, and is also why I have no sympathy for Apple.

    9. Re:Patent troll by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      As an engineer, I am not aware of very many patents, and I intentionally keep my blinders on. However every once in a while a patent comes by that looks like "I patented downloading a file, anyone who downloads files owes me royalties". Often they get to us deliberately to ensure that we are crossing in to willful violation. And yup, I do willfully violate that kind of bullshit patent. Any reasonable person would.

      The lawyers have to earn their keep and deal with that. We can't have the state of all technology and progress get tied up in courts because of trolls. I'm with your original post, line em up against the wall, use incendiary rounds.

    10. Re:Patent troll by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      The relevant aspect of the troll metaphor is trying to charge people for something you don't own. A valid patent doesn't fall into that category. It doesn't matter if you are a "practicing entity" or not. It's pursuit of the bogus patents that make you a troll.

      It's abusing the "I can't believe they got that past the PTO" kind of shit that makes you a a troll.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Patent troll by msauve · · Score: 1

      "I'm happy to call any company that produces nothing a patent troll"

      Then you'd be wrong. The term is a pejorative broadly used by those who don't have any real understanding of the patent system, so they don't understand the difference between trolls and NPEs. Would you call UCal and MIT patent trolls?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the University of Wisconsin which apple happily infringed on their patents too. That cost the patent thiefs $506 Million.

    13. Re:Patent troll by youngone · · Score: 2

      The relevant aspect of the troll metaphor is trying to charge people for something you don't own...

      No, I think you've misunderstood what a patent troll is.
      Here's a definition.
      Ownership or not is not the point:

      Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

      Did they offer to license the tech to Apple? TFA does not say.

    14. Re:Patent troll by bongey · · Score: 1

      The patents are BS , most are basically "DNS server over a VPN' list http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017... .

    15. Re:Patent troll by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I'd go with "hate the game, not the player"

      I won't. Shitty behaviour is not OK just because "everyone" else is doing it. They are adults in full control of their faculties, so they are as much at fault as the game.

      And Apple's been pretty sue-happy about some pretty silly patents, so it' hard to feel much sympathy either.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re: Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, boo apple!

      Oh, wait...

    17. Re:Patent troll by msauve · · Score: 1
      Wikipedia? Really? Try this:

      What is a patent troll?

      A patent troll uses patents as legal weapons, instead of actually creating any new products or coming up with new ideas. Instead, trolls are in the business of litigation (or even just threatening litigation). They often buy up patents cheaply from companies down on their luck who are looking to monetize what resources they have left, such as patents. Unfortunately, the Patent Office has a habit of issuing patents for ideas that are neither new nor revolutionary, and these patents can be very broad, covering everyday or commonsense types of computing - things that should never have been patented in the first place. Armed with these overbroad and vague patents, the troll will then send out threatening letters to those they argue infringe their patent(s). These letters threaten legal action unless the alleged infringer agrees to pay a licensing fee, which can often range to the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      Many who receive infringement letters will choose to pay the licensing fee, even if they believe the patent is bogus or their product did not infringe. That's because patent litigation is extremely expensive - often millions of dollars per suit - and can take years of court battles. It's faster and easier for companies to settle.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    18. Re:Patent troll by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So become CEO of a tech company and don't do it. Then get sued by your shareholders.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Patent troll by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Despite the wet dreams of the capitalistas this has basically never happened. Shareholders have occasionally won for gross negligence and borderline fraud, but never ever ever for merely not doing something unethical.

      Troll harder next time.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:Patent troll by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, reading this, I know for a fact the functionality described by 135 existed prior to 98. For starters, tokenRing could probably knock out everything after claim 9 out as prior art. Just adding "secure" to it doesn't make it novel or new. The claims describe nothing that did not exist prior to Oct 98 (which is the earliest date on any of the patents in question) As for the other 3, it just boggles my mind that someone approved those. Aren't patent examiners supposed to be "experts" in the field in question? It's almost like they outsourced these to a group of 6th graders.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    21. Re:Patent troll by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      However, suppose we split patents into the real and the nebulous kinds. Patent trolls generally get nebulous patents and send out letters demanding payment, typically backing down if the target shows signs of fighting. Trolls are afraid of court decisions which will expose them to sunlight and turn them to stone.

      This looks like a hard-fought legal battle, which means the courts have agreed that the patents are real and valid and do apply. This is at least not a typical patent troll.

      It's fine to be against software patents, or patents in general, but this is how the game is currently played, and I can't blame someone for playing in the spirit of the game.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:Patent troll by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If these are definitely BS patents, couldn't Apple have gotten the courts to look at them?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re: Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.. The problem is with the patent office.. They will gladly allow patents on stuff that is either too obvious to patent.. Like download

      and / or

      Stuff that has clear examples of prior art such as Microsofts virtuel desktop patent and many others ...

      Apple is especially guilty of abusing the US patent office and it's apparant SEVERE lack of common knowledge and IT knowledge

    24. Re: Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find out amusing that Apple is being abused by bonus patents when they themselves have almost nothing BUT bonus patents... That they happily used to abuse other companies... Mostly small ones

      Apple is still the nr 1 patent abuser

      Also... Religious fanatic followers actually believe that Apple invented anything...

      I really Hope that none of the Apple cultist works at the US patent office

    25. Re: Patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus should have been BS... God damn auto correct...

      I "thank" Apple for kiling the physical keyboard

    26. Re:Patent troll by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to get the courts to look at them, it's another to convince a bunch of people that know nothing about astrophysics that the earth is 4B years old....

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    27. Re: Patent troll by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Also... Religious fanatic followers actually believe that Apple invented anything...

      I "thank" Apple for kiling the physical keyboard

      Compute...errorrrrr....

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    28. Re:Patent troll by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I believe expert witnesses come in less than a hundred million each, which means Apple could have gotten plenty of them.

      Judges are not typically stupid, and the judicial system has developed ways to deal with issues that judges don't know about.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re:Patent troll by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And yet we have these (and other) stupid patents that continue to pollute the pool.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. Is that you Samsung? by sgrover · · Score: 0

    I haven't gone to look it up, but that number sounds kinda familiar... wasn't that the amount (or close to it) Apple won from Samsung for infringing the rounded corners patent?

    1. Re:Is that you Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "rounded corners patent" if you want to know, dumbass.

    2. Re:Is that you Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was less but still pathetic considering apple wanted $2 Billion at first for their attempted patent trolling.

    3. Re:Is that you Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VirnetX is American company unlike Samsung.
      So, they had chance in San Jose court where there are lots of patriots.

  3. The problem with the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is that there's no room for reason. Even when something is clearly completely wrong, they just carry on. It's like the guy who sold a printer for $40 on Craiglist and was sued for $30,000, which cost him $12,000 in legal fees.

    Can't the law be changed to add an assessment of whether the lawsuit is reasonable and in the public's interest? It would stop a lot of stupid stuff happening.

    1. Re: The problem with the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's understandable that you might think that way but never forget, the law is to be used against the poor peasants, never allowing them to accumulate enough coin to effectively use the system that is designed to enslave them, all the while telling them how fair and just said system is.

    2. Re:The problem with the legal system... by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      We already have that as judges can dismiss cases for a variety of legal reasons. However you don't want them to have too much leeway. It sounds good in theory until you have a judge letting people off because he doesn't think its in the public's interest to prosecute them.

      In the particular case you mentioned (link for anyone interested) the proper response would be to sue for legal fees, which given the story shouldn't be too difficult to win. I can understand the man not wanting to spend any more of his life on it though. I'm surprised some court hasn't gone after the person who filed that suit in some fashion for wasting the court's time.

      He should have just taken the case to one of those court shows and then both people would get paid for appearances.

    3. Re:The problem with the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who sold the printer admitted to being liable to the plaintiff for $900,000. He got off lucky with a $30,000 judgment.

    4. Re:The problem with the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is insane!

    5. Re:The problem with the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds good in theory until you have a judge letting people off because he doesn't think its in the public's interest to prosecute them

      Wait, if it isn't in the public's interest to prosecute people then why should they be prosecuted? (And what does prosecution have to do with civil suits?)

    6. Re:The problem with the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would hope that a Judge would believe something isn't in the public intersest exactly as often as it actually is not in the public interest. One would hope.

    7. Re:The problem with the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who sold the printer admitted to being liable to the plaintiff for $900,000. He got off lucky with a $30,000 judgment.

      Not really, he actually simply failed to respond to demands that he admits to being liable. Unfortunately for him he did not realise that not responding to garbage claims in the allotted time is actually taken as a confirmation that the claims are true by the courts (I guess to avoid people simply ignoring legal questions in the hope they go away). But really this is a pretty weird case with two sides, both of which refusing to compromise at all and hence the many run arounds with the court system finally leading to that 30,000 dollar judgement.

    8. Re: The problem with the legal system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't really.

      It was a trap. The plaintiff was a pro se litigant abusing the system to get what he wanted. He rapid fired these at the victim, hoping the victim would miss one.

      The $30,000 was reversed upon appeal. The pro se plaintiff was eventually labelled a vexatious litigant and his ability to litigate was removed.

  4. How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Related Links:

    Apple Loses Patent Case For FaceTime Tech, Owes $368 Million

    Patent Troll VirnetX Awarded $626M In Damages From Apple

    Apple Loses Patent Retrial To VirnetX, Owes $302.4 Million ...?

  5. www.al-awa2el.com by AhmedKamel · · Score: 1

  6. SEC Filing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Our portfolio of intellectual property is the foundation of our business model."

    I hate patent trolls as much as anyone, but can't the same be said even of a company that produces actual physical goods?

  7. Put away the "patent troll" moniker already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First of all, a Patent is a thing with value, and if you own it, you own its value. It doesn't matter how you came into owning it.

    Second, if someone infringes on your patent, they have infringed on your patent. They have stolen your thing of value, and they owe you damages. Again, it matters not how you came into ownership of the patent.

    So let's just drop this "patent troll" bullshit and call a spade a spade. Apple is an intellectual property thief. Several trials and multiple courts have found them so.

    1. Re: Put away the "patent troll" moniker already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you actually have that many objectors to such logic. The issue is, though, that issue gets exacerbated by what are perceived to be "bad" patents, whether through prior art or just plain vagueness or obviousness to laypeople.

      We don't worry about someone like Apple's bad patents both because they rarely seek to enforce them and everyone perceives them to be cutting-edge.

    2. Re:Put away the "patent troll" moniker already by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to make a judgement on merit in this particular case, but not all patents are equal. I will agree that a company, regardless of details, that owns a strong patent should be able to monetize it. That being said, a lot of these patents are the lowest of hanging fruit and shouldn't even exist. Patent trolls do exist.

    3. Re:Put away the "patent troll" moniker already by GoRK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know I worked for a small regional computer manufacturer in the late 90's and we actually had to spar with the company who was infamously going around filing lawsuits alleging infringement because we sold computers that had blinking cursors. They had a legitimate patent for that.

      The problem is that everyone wants to argue the extremes and turn this into a binary problem when it is not. There are good and legitimate patents; there are some real suck-ass crap patents, and there is everything in between. Companies like Apple generally do not infringe on patents purposefully; they both pay for and receive tons of license fees under contracts that are overwhelmingly not the result of court cases. They aren't seeking to undermine the patent system or play a bunch of high stakes poker with patents. Software patents are too easy to work around.

    4. Re:Put away the "patent troll" moniker already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not against actual property rights, but patents and copy"right" are just another means to benefit an elite at the expense of others. It's the legal abuse of those who haven't stolen anything because to steal is to deprive and the person making a copy is by definition not stealing. The thing copied remains with the person it is copied from. "Intellectual property" also undermines democracy by removing ones right to communicate freely and without fear of retaliation for ones opinions. The entertainment industry routinely goes after people who are in no way even involved in infringement. The governments do similarly. One guy in Europe was held liable for running a Tor exit node not because it was illegal (not that it should have been), but because he made a statement to the effect of not giving a flying fuck about the content being passed through his exit node. The mandatory censorship doesn't stop at copy"right" either and it didn't even start with copy"right", but it needs to put to rest and ended. Copy"right" was sold to us as a *limited* time monopoly (ie 7 years) for the public benefit. Afterwards it was suppose to go into the public domain. Today we have an indefinite period on copy"right", patents are weak and abused, and other sorts of "intellectual property" are routinely abused.

      In my opinion we need to end "intellectual property" altogether and let trademarks become exclusively a criminal matter which would be limited to those defrauding people in the real world. However even this is probably too much and rather we should work toward decentralized tagging and rating systems rather than rely on government to go after people and entities for fraud. So long as the end-user is not being deceived it makes little difference if the goods being sold are a clone or not. Advertising a Prada Imitation Handbag should be A-OK. Advertising a Prada Handbag and shipping a knock off should not. However the liability should rest with the purchaser once we have a reasonable means of evaluating honest and dishonest merchants/products. The real crusp of the matter is enabling consumers to protect themselves to whatever degree they wish be protected at the minimum cost to society as is possible. Government need not exist in an ideal world and we could have that world in the future if left wing nut jobs didn't keep stealing everyone's money for pet projects.

      Yes- I'm a principled libertarian. Not a copy"right" nut job. And to top it all off I do produce entertainment content for a living as well as have a company that sells goods and funds the development of free software. With the one even having competitors who 'rip' off and take advantage of this. Somehow we still lead within our industry both financially and in terms of sales. Being first to market matters and name recognition is more important than any copy"right" ever will be. Copy"right" and patents are what the scum of the earth rely on.

    5. Re: Put away the "patent troll" moniker already by ewibble · · Score: 1

      I would argue that logic, a patent has should have no value, it is only its use that has value.

      If you bought a patient and not used it the maximum financial loss you have incurred is the cost buy the patient.

      Now I think patients should just be scrapped, they are just used to create artificial monopolies which just make production less efficient.

      However if people insist on keeping them then the penalties should be calculated like any other legal penalty by working out what you would have made if that offender had not used the patient at all minus what you made.

    6. Re: Put away the "patent troll" moniker already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money is a thing of value. When the bank incorrectly deposits 1 million in your account though, they have every right to revoke it. In this case the patents in question were incorrectly given (there is pending litigation and the patents will be revoked on appeal). So if you sue someone over a patent that the Patent Office is revoking, then that makes you a troll. They are basically gaming the system and hoping their patent isnt revoked before they win the lawsuit with Apple.

  8. Spelling issue only by itwasgreektome · · Score: 1

    First line "Appel has been ordered to pay"...think it was a spoonerism of "Apple" and "Appeal."

    1. Re:Spelling issue only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Portmanteau, not Spoonerism

  9. Fighting a symptom by Ecuador · · Score: 2

    I generally applaud everyone that fights patent trolls, but Apple, one of the biggest players who could actually push and affect change in the ridiculous patent system, is really happy to get their own useless patents granted in an effort to strong-arm either small players or get necessary technology for free, so in my book they are not better than patent trolls.
    Yeah, the system is broken, but we are happy with it as long as we come ahead in the long run. And we'll fight some small patent trolls, a symptom of the system, along the way just to show form...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Fighting a symptom by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      That's the real elephant in the room. This "poor victim" is a dominant corporation that chooses to use the current status quo to their advantage. They really shouldn't get any sympathy.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Fighting a symptom by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      What definition of patent troll are you using which applies to Apple?

    3. Re: Fighting a symptom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In English, when you say "X is not better than Y" you are not saying X is Y.

    4. Re:Fighting a symptom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What definition of patent troll are you using which applies to Apple?

      Considering they've sued over the rounding of phone frames....they're patent trolls ;)

    5. Re:Fighting a symptom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering they've sued over the rounding of phone frames....they're patent trolls ;)

      If you plan on making phones - don't chamfer the edge too much - you'll be sued for all you have by Apple

  10. Drain The Apple Ink Swamp At Cupertino by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we can encourage 10,000 others to sue Apple Ink successfully Timmy's $300 billion sitting in Chinese Communist Party Banks will be drained and Timmy will be toast. Not toast as in Cheers, but burnt toast!

    Hahahahahahahaha

  11. Oh no! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is someone trying to steal their rounded corners idea again?! ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  12. Patents were already invalidated!!! by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article:

    Currently all four VirnetX patents in the suit have been invalidated by the Patent and Trademark Office, or its Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or both. This, confusingly, doesn’t actually halt the pace of VirnetX’s patent case: the invalidation is not legally binding until all appeals have been exhausted (and separately that case appears to still be ongoing).

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  13. Your logic is broken. by thesupraman · · Score: 2

    That simply does not work.

    what would happen then is everyone would refuse to license patents, and you would get a bunch of big cooperates basically saying 'Go on little inventor, we know you cannot afford to actually bring your great new invention to market, even though it is profitable, so we will simple infringe it, make billions, and then claim you had no actual losses'

    Is that the world you are hoping for?

    1. Re:Your logic is broken. by ewibble · · Score: 1

      First how would you know it doesn't work, has anyone ever tried it.

      Second the system as we have it doesn't work for little inventors anyway, there is no way that a little inventor can realistically fight a corporation like google anyway. I a little inventor tries to fight a large corporation the most likely outcome is they will go bankrupt paying lawyers.

      So the the solution here is have a company who's only purpose is to exist buy up patients cheap underpaying inventor and producing nothing,

      And yes if you cannot bring that invention to the market the patient is worthless to you, just like if you have a great idea for a book an never write it that is also worthless. If a company makes billions and you where never going to make money anyway then yes incurred no actual losses. All you have is sour grapes that somebody made money and you didn't. This is especially the case if the person that made money didn't know you had a patient and came up with the idea independently.

      As I said earlier I think the whole patient system is broken, have an idea implement it make money, if someone else can implement it better then they deserve to win. Did google come up with the first search engine, no. Did apple come up with the first smart phone, no. Did they implement it better than previous version yes.

  14. Just STFU apple and pay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all its just pocket change. Isn't that still a saying; "Its just pocket change to apple" I'm sure I have heard it before.

  15. Appel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Appel

  16. The only troll around here by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    is BeauHD. No other paid person gets the very first fucking word wrong in their article. Editors? What are those?