Do members of the consortium make use of any of the patents in any of their products?
For me that's the crux of it.
If a company is sitting on something with the sole intention of it never being used by anyone, ever, including themselves, that's out and out trolling.
If a company is making use of the patent to manufacture a product, or incorporate the idea in software etc, then that's less so.
By the sounds of it the Nortel case is somewhere in the middle, in that all parties were probably incorporating technologies from the patent, but they all bid for the company with the intention of going after their opposition.
So Google lost the auction, and Rockstar went after them. Presumably if Google had won, they would have gone after the other parties.
But at lease whoever owned the patents would likely have been incorporating it in their software, rather than sitting on it and it never being used.
One question on that case - were all the parties competing for Nortel's patents already using technology that was covered by those patents? Which would beg the question, why didn't Nortel go after everyone else?
i can see where your coming from and dont 100% disagree. In the nortel case they couldnt go after anyone as they went bankrupt so couldnt afford to spend years trying to go after people. So they were sold as part of the bankrupcy
Would google have gone after the others ? we will never know, though the rockstar group seems to have stopped most of the litigation and have infact have sold 4000 of the patents on to RPX whos job it is ironically to defend companies from NPEs
I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless.
Did the company have a case as the law stands? Absolutely.
Is the law, in this respect, an ass? Absolutely.
You can disagree, but the law doesnt. You can spin it all you want to convince yourself though.
The patent troll thats protecting its patents isnt worthless, in this case its worth around $826million. Hardly worthless.
Well OK then.
How about companies who are blatantly and cynically sitting on patents with no intention of ever producing anything based on them, with the sole purpose of exploiting the system for financial gain.
But not including companies who develop idea and patent them with a legitimate view to seeing them developed by someone else with the means to develop them.
I think it time to stop posting now, you really are'nt doing yourself any favours here ;-)
I think it makes no sense to drag a moral dimension into the discussion. They can make money from it and they do. You cannot steal somebody's property in the name of the benefit of the majority. Well, you probably can if you are in North Korea, but in general a communism turned out to be a failure
You redefine meaning of the words so you understand them differently than everybody else. Do they become meaningless or worthless?
I'm not redefining anything.
If a patent troll patents something they have no intention of ever using, or allowing others to use (without huge financial penalty), with the result that something potentially useful never sees the light of day, then in that respect, to all meaningful and practical (if not financial) intent, the patent is worthless.
If I said that I thought posts made on forums by trolls were worthless (on the grounds that they added bugger all to a discussion), would you agree? Or would you argue something to the effect of "ah, they're not worthless at all, because the troll is obviously getting something out of it"?
I really didn't realise that the view that patent trolls were, well, worthless trolls, was such a controversial view.
I'd say the contents of the patent is useful if somebody else needs it. The fact that it is patented to make money might be deemed worthless as in despicable, but it still has its value, $825 million in this case.
How about companies who are blatantly and cynically sitting on patents with no intention of ever producing anything based on them, with the sole purpose of exploiting the system for financial gain.
But not including companies who develop idea and patent them with a legitimate view to seeing them developed by someone else with the means to develop them.
Well what about company "a" buying company "b" but closing down their mobile division - would they still be able to sue against patents owned (and developed) by company "b" ? what if company "c" came along and bought company "a" ..... problem with your logic (although im genuinely sure it's based on good intentions) is that there are too many "what if"s. The end result is that its either legal and acceptable in all circumstances, or its not. I could claim i'm planning on developing mobiles in two years but never actually do it. Would that mean i'd have to pay back the proceeds from any patent suing ?
On the plus side we are both agreeing that the current system is not ideal. The problem is just coming up with a better solution.
What if a company wants to further develop the patents it owns, but they do not have a competence or a know how to do so. Should it be relieved of those patents, too? I think it's really about an ownership. Patents are used to prevent a theft of ideas regardless whether the owner is using them or not. There are also special patents, the name escapes me now, when the owner is obliged to license them for a reasonable fee, so you cannot just sit on them and hold everybody hostage. But you have to pay for them too.
To be fair, I'm not the one introducing the what ifs... I would have thought common sense would largely tell us the difference between a patent troll, and a legitimately held patent. (By legitimately, a patent held with a realistic intention of seeing the idea developed.)
In your scenario above, if company A buys company B, it would presumably own any patents that company B held. If it was making use of those patents I don't think it could be accused of trolling. If company A bought company B, then its not clear why company A would be suing company B?
If company C came along and bought company A, then company C would own the rights to the patents.
Its not really about who happens to own the patents, its more about the intentions in which the patents are originally taken out.
May be better if companies such as Apple decided which patents they thought applicable to them and ignored anything they considered 'worthless'.
In that way these worthless patents around digital rights management, data storage and access through payment systems could be ignored. Then important patents involving real technological innovation such as oblongs with rounded corners could be fully developed, utalised and licenced for huge fees by the holders.
What has the grasping concept of a patent troll got to do with your ludicrous assertion that Apple can ignore patents which are effectively worthless. Simply more and more bizarre.
What has the grasping concept of a patent troll got to do with your ludicrous assertion that Apple can ignore patents which are effectively worthless. Simply more and more bizarre.
Care to show me where I said any such thing?
What you think people say often seems to be completely different to what people actually say.
I disagree.
I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless.
.
My apologies then, as this thread was about Apple being sued for infringing this patent. I assumed when you said the above pointing out the difference between legitimate and worthless patents I assumed you meant there is difference between the two. That being some should be protectable and these worthless patents should not be protected.
Clearly you meant something completely different, which was?
What would be interesting to know is do people on here condone the actions of patent trolls or not.
It seems a tricky question for some to answer, as though they are afraid of giving an opinion.
Happy to answer.
Whilst at first glance it seems "morally wrong" to me but as you dig into the logistics and legals its quickly clear that its not easy at all to say at what point a company is actually in the right defending its patents and at what point they are morally wrong - you cant just draw a line and say one side is allowed and the other isnt.
Its very similar to the tax avoidance issue (note im not talking about tax evasion). When you see the extreme levels of avoidance used by some it seems morally wrong (although currently legal). But many of us use tax avoidance techniques, whether it is through pensions topups, ISA's etc. These forms of avoidance are actively encouraged. Who draws the formal line over what is right and what is wrong ?
At the moment its the legal system which clearly (currently) allows both tax avoidance and patent "trolling".
Im not a fan of extreme cases of either but rules are rules.
Whilst at first glance it seems "morally wrong" to me but as you dig into the logistics and legals its quickly clear that its not easy at all to say at what point a company is actually in the right defending its patents and at what point they are morally wrong - you cant just draw a line and say one side is allowed and the other isnt.
Its very similar to the tax avoidance issue (note im not talking about tax evasion). When you see the extreme levels of avoidance used by some it seems morally wrong (although currently legal). But many of us use tax avoidance techniques, whether it is through pensions topups, ISA's etc. These forms of avoidance are actively encouraged. Who draws the formal line over what is right and what is wrong ?
At the moment its the legal system which clearly (currently) allows both tax avoidance and patent "trolling".
Im not a fan of extreme cases of either but rules are rules.
It seems we would agree. I think it is very difficult to distinguish what a patent troll is, and while the respective nations do nothing about it, they should be free to go about their business.
A solution needs to be found which does not restrict innovation but rewards all parties where appropriate.
I have no issue with it being legal and do not have a clue what anyone being abused or kids working has to do with it.
I assume you support the practice?
I am not against it, if they change the rules and it won't be possible to do it anymore I won't cry that it is gone. It's been documented that you get abuse of workers and children let's say in China factories where many Western companies manufacture their products. They pretend to not know. _That_ I find worse than companies having to pay for patents.
It would also be interesting to know what particular issues people have with so called patent trolls. Why does it automatically mean patents held by such entities automatically mean the removal of innovation. In fact I would imagine such entities are more likely to want to share such patents (for revenue) than some others. In fact patents held by some so called innovative companies have done more damage of late to innovation than any patent troll.
In fact I can imagine a system where all such patents being held by such entities would be better. The only motivation these companies would have is profit, so no withholding of patents, no having to beg rivals to use essential patents etc.
My apologies then, as this thread was about Apple being sued for infringing this patent. I assumed when you said the above pointing out the difference between legitimate and worthless patents I assumed you meant there is difference between the two. That being some should be protectable and these worthless patents should not be protected.
Clearly you meant something completely different, which was?
When I said:
"I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless."
I meant precisely what it says.
Are you able to say where I said anything about "Apple can ignore patents which are effectively worthless." or not?
It would also be interesting to know what particular issues people have with so called patent trolls. Why does it automatically mean patents held by such entities automatically mean the removal of innovation. In fact I would imagine such entities are more likely to want to share such patents (for revenue) than some others. In fact patents held by some so called innovative companies have done more damage of late to innovation than any patent troll.
In fact I can imagine a system where all such patents being held by such entities would be better. The only motivation these companies would have is profit, so no withholding of patents, no having to beg rivals to use essential patents etc.
My issue with patent trolls is that they set out to exploit a loophole in a system, and one of two options are possible:
1. Innovation is hampered, and good ideas never see the light of day.
2. The person exploiting the system is financially rewarded for doing so, for doing bugger all.
It would also be interesting to know what particular issues people have with so called internet trolls. Why does it automatically mean discussions with contributions by such entities automatically mean the removal of a discussion. In fact I would imagine such entities are more likely to want to see the discussion continue than some others.
Comments
i can see where your coming from and dont 100% disagree. In the nortel case they couldnt go after anyone as they went bankrupt so couldnt afford to spend years trying to go after people. So they were sold as part of the bankrupcy
Would google have gone after the others ? we will never know, though the rockstar group seems to have stopped most of the litigation and have infact have sold 4000 of the patents on to RPX whos job it is ironically to defend companies from NPEs
You can disagree, but the law doesnt. You can spin it all you want to convince yourself though.
The patent troll thats protecting its patents isnt worthless, in this case its worth around $826million. Hardly worthless.
I think it time to stop posting now, you really are'nt doing yourself any favours here ;-)
The fact that the law doesn't make a distinction doesn't mean that there is no distinction. Clearly there is.
Then you have obviously missed where I have explained (several times) what I meant by "worthless".
You redefine meaning of the words so you understand them differently than everybody else. Do they become meaningless or worthless?
I'm not redefining anything.
If a patent troll patents something they have no intention of ever using, or allowing others to use (without huge financial penalty), with the result that something potentially useful never sees the light of day, then in that respect, to all meaningful and practical (if not financial) intent, the patent is worthless.
If I said that I thought posts made on forums by trolls were worthless (on the grounds that they added bugger all to a discussion), would you agree? Or would you argue something to the effect of "ah, they're not worthless at all, because the troll is obviously getting something out of it"?
I really didn't realise that the view that patent trolls were, well, worthless trolls, was such a controversial view.
Well what about company "a" buying company "b" but closing down their mobile division - would they still be able to sue against patents owned (and developed) by company "b" ? what if company "c" came along and bought company "a" ..... problem with your logic (although im genuinely sure it's based on good intentions) is that there are too many "what if"s. The end result is that its either legal and acceptable in all circumstances, or its not. I could claim i'm planning on developing mobiles in two years but never actually do it. Would that mean i'd have to pay back the proceeds from any patent suing ?
On the plus side we are both agreeing that the current system is not ideal. The problem is just coming up with a better solution.
In your scenario above, if company A buys company B, it would presumably own any patents that company B held. If it was making use of those patents I don't think it could be accused of trolling. If company A bought company B, then its not clear why company A would be suing company B?
If company C came along and bought company A, then company C would own the rights to the patents.
Its not really about who happens to own the patents, its more about the intentions in which the patents are originally taken out.
In that way these worthless patents around digital rights management, data storage and access through payment systems could be ignored. Then important patents involving real technological innovation such as oblongs with rounded corners could be fully developed, utalised and licenced for huge fees by the holders.
I'm really not sure why you have trouble grasping the concept of a patent troll.
Care to show me where I said any such thing?
What you think people say often seems to be completely different to what people actually say.
My apologies then, as this thread was about Apple being sued for infringing this patent. I assumed when you said the above pointing out the difference between legitimate and worthless patents I assumed you meant there is difference between the two. That being some should be protectable and these worthless patents should not be protected.
Clearly you meant something completely different, which was?
It seems a tricky question for some to answer, as though they are afraid of giving an opinion.
I have no issue with it being legal and do not have a clue what anyone being abused or kids working has to do with it.
I assume you support the practice?
Happy to answer.
Whilst at first glance it seems "morally wrong" to me but as you dig into the logistics and legals its quickly clear that its not easy at all to say at what point a company is actually in the right defending its patents and at what point they are morally wrong - you cant just draw a line and say one side is allowed and the other isnt.
Its very similar to the tax avoidance issue (note im not talking about tax evasion). When you see the extreme levels of avoidance used by some it seems morally wrong (although currently legal). But many of us use tax avoidance techniques, whether it is through pensions topups, ISA's etc. These forms of avoidance are actively encouraged. Who draws the formal line over what is right and what is wrong ?
At the moment its the legal system which clearly (currently) allows both tax avoidance and patent "trolling".
Im not a fan of extreme cases of either but rules are rules.
It seems we would agree. I think it is very difficult to distinguish what a patent troll is, and while the respective nations do nothing about it, they should be free to go about their business.
A solution needs to be found which does not restrict innovation but rewards all parties where appropriate.
I am not against it, if they change the rules and it won't be possible to do it anymore I won't cry that it is gone. It's been documented that you get abuse of workers and children let's say in China factories where many Western companies manufacture their products. They pretend to not know. _That_ I find worse than companies having to pay for patents.
In fact I can imagine a system where all such patents being held by such entities would be better. The only motivation these companies would have is profit, so no withholding of patents, no having to beg rivals to use essential patents etc.
When I said:
"I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless."
I meant precisely what it says.
Are you able to say where I said anything about "Apple can ignore patents which are effectively worthless." or not?
My issue with patent trolls is that they set out to exploit a loophole in a system, and one of two options are possible:
1. Innovation is hampered, and good ideas never see the light of day.
2. The person exploiting the system is financially rewarded for doing so, for doing bugger all.
It would also be interesting to know what particular issues people have with so called internet trolls. Why does it automatically mean discussions with contributions by such entities automatically mean the removal of a discussion. In fact I would imagine such entities are more likely to want to see the discussion continue than some others.