Apple ordered to pay $825 million to Patent Troll

1 of 4

Everything Goes

25-02-2015

Apple have been ordered to pay $825 millions for patent infringement by non-practicing entity (Patent Troll) Smartflash LLC.

Quote:
“The patents, held by Smartflash LLC, relate to digital rights management, data storage and access through payment systems. They were seemingly infringed upon by Apple’s iTunes and some of the apps found in the App Store, though the plaintiff also mentioned the Mac App Store, and iAd as avenues for infringement.

Smartflash, a company that doesn’t produce anything and lives by litigation and licensing of its seven patents, argued that it deserved to be awarded $825 million in damages, as a percent of iPhone sales. Apple on the other hand argued that the patents were invalid, and even if they weren’t, they’d be worth around $4.5 million at best.

The jury found in favor of Smartflash and awarded the company damages of just above half a billion dollars. One the company’s strongest arguments was that a current Apple exec had seen the technology that his company copied, nearly a decade ago.”

http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-ord...t-infringement

Aye Up

25-02-2015

See that is what ****s me off, this could be any other company not just Apple. The way these trolls make their money is through litigation and not through licensing. Patents should be redundant if they dont follow the original holder when bought or sold. For instance if Apple bought Samsung, and merge the divisions and patents they hold, then it would be reasonable to say they are legitimate owners of said patents.

When dicks like the aforementioned patent troll litigates against other firms (who do innovate and create new properties) its just a slap in the face against the original intended purpose of protecting IP and Copyright.

Stuart_h

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by Aye Up:
“See that is what ****s me off, this could be any other company not just Apple. The way these trolls make their money is through litigation and not through licensing. Patents should be redundant if they dont follow the original holder when bought or sold. For instance if Apple bought Samsung, and merge the divisions and patents they hold, then it would be reasonable to say they are legitimate owners of said patents.

When dicks like the aforementioned patent troll litigates against other firms (who do innovate and create new properties) its just a slap in the face against the original intended purpose of protecting IP and Copyright.”

I believe they have also sued Samsung etc.

But .... is it any different really from what Apple, Samsung, Google and others do when they buy up companies just for their patents ? You cant really argue that one company shouldnt be allowed to do this but others can.

I suspect its more that the whole concept of patents is out-dated and that its time to move on from this concept. When people are patenting shapes and actions and gestures it all starts to look like a pretty broken system.

The legal business do great out of it though

swordman

25-02-2015

Not sure why Apple losing a case and being fined should be enough to upset anyone.

I think it fair enough that companies such as Apple should not be able to decide which patents are vaild or not, regardless who holds them. Many a purchase are made simply to obtain patents and nothing else.

alanwarwic

25-02-2015

If you are taking your own electronic payments in the US, you had best investigate that big fine coming your way.

The US, on the face of it, time and time again appears to be carving up the software industry into pockets of 'ownership'.

calico_pie

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by Stuart_h:
“I believe they have also sued Samsung etc.

But .... is it any different really from what Apple, Samsung, Google and others do when they buy up companies just for their patents ? You cant really argue that one company shouldnt be allowed to do this but others can.

I suspect its more that the whole concept of patents is out-dated and that its time to move on from this concept. When people are patenting shapes and actions and gestures it all starts to look like a pretty broken system.

The legal business do great out of it though ”

I think it is different, yes.

You or I could theoretically patent things that we have no intention of ever developing, yet alone manufacture or make use of.

The point of the exercise is to patent something that you think someone else would actually want to develop, manufacture and make use of, and sue them if and when they do.

As the name suggests, trolling.

Which is quite different to when a company buys another company for its patents (assuming the likes of Apple, Samsung and Google are buying them because the patents involved are things they may actually want to develop, manufacture and make use of.)

ACU

25-02-2015

What goes around, comes around.

Aye Up

25-02-2015

It is different, when Google bought Motorola they gained legitimate access to their patent portfolio. As we know Google then disposed of Motorola to Lenovo sans patents last January. The fact that they bought the company who created and registered said patents makes them reasonable owners of them.

I just don't understand how a company can buy patents and sue everyone in the industry, when they didn't even create/design/register them. Innovation is to be commended and naturally its reasonable to suggest they patents are registered to protect both their commerical and economic interest relevant to them. EU/US IP law is undergoing a massive investigation to work out a solution that makes them compatible with todays society and technology.

The patents should always follow the company that made them IMHO. Separating them is stupid and frankly morally wrong. That happening creates situations like the one in the article and eventually hampers innovation. No one will deny an individual or company the right to protect their interests. However I don't understand how a patent troll can have legitimate commcercial and economic interest when they didn't create the designs which are patented? They didn't buy the company who registered them, so how can they be legitimate owners if they don't produce any products or materials related to them?

Their whole business model relies on litigation, not licensing. The way I see it, if you buy the company that created the designs behind the patents that makes you a legitimate owner. If don't then you can't really be defending something which you don't even use in practice, doesn't matter what anyone says its abuse of copyright/patent law.

calico_pie

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by ACU:
“What goes around, comes around.”

Well, you might say that if Apple had been guilty of patent trolling.

But as far as I know they haven't. Unless you know different?

c4rv

25-02-2015

Eh, patents do follow the holder. If Apple purchased Samsung then they hold Samsungs patents. One of the main reasons why Google bough Motorola.

Originally Posted by Aye Up:
“When dicks like the aforementioned patent troll litigates against other firms (who do innovate and create new properties) its just a slap in the face against the original intended purpose of protecting IP and Copyright.”

The point of this case is the court has decided that Apple didn't innovate and create these features, they copied without paying the inventor.

ACU

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Well, you might say that if Apple had been guilty of patent trolling.

But as far as I know they haven't. Unless you know different?”

Apple have been suing other companies for using their patents. Another company sues apple for using their patents. Simple really.

The fact that the company doing the suing is a patent troll is neither here nor there. They have patents, that apple infringed.

kidspud

25-02-2015

The settlement is $532M, and if Apple used patents that did not belong to them, they should pay up.

calico_pie

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by ACU:
“Apple have been suing other companies for using their patents. Another company sues apple for using their patents. Simple really.

The fact that the company doing the suing is a patent troll is neither here nor there. They have patents, that apple infringed.”

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.

Did the company have a case as the law stands? Absolutely.

Is the law, in this respect, an ass? Absolutely.

JohnAlmighty

25-02-2015

Where do I sign the check?

swordman

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“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.
.”

I guess that makes sense to you

Everything Goes

25-02-2015

Looks like Apple may appeal the decision. Sadly the US Patent system is broken but Apple have been quite happy to take advantage of the system when it works in their favour. NPE or Patent Trolls like Smartflash LLC should be closed down and the US Patent system overhauled.

“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,” said Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman. “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.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...g-patent-trial

Everything Goes

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by swordman:
“I guess that makes sense to you ”

Yes I bet they are gutted they got handed $532 Million for "protecting patents which are effectively worthless"

This is obviously a definition of the word "worthless" that I wasn't previously aware of

More Calico speak lessons coming soon.....

calico_pie

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by swordman:
“I guess that makes sense to you ”

I think it makes sense to anyone who understands what a patent troll is.

Care to say which part doesn't make sense to you, or is making a smart arse comment as far as it goes?

calico_pie

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“Looks like Apple may appeal the decision. Sadly the US Patent system is broken but Apple have been quite happy to take advantage of the system when it works in their favour. NPE or Patent Trolls like Smartflash LLC should be closed down and the US Patent system overhauled.

“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,” said Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman. “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.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...g-patent-trial”

What have Apple done that you would say was comparable to patent trolling?

calico_pie

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“Yes I bet they are gutted they got handed $532 Million for "protecting patents which are effectively worthless"

This is obviously a definition of the word "worthless" that I wasn't previously aware of

More Calico speak lessons coming soon.....”

Then I'm -confused.

You just said that patent trolls like Smartflash who make no products and have no employees, whose sole reason for existing is to exploit the patent system should be shut down.

But you take issue with me saying their patents are effectively worthless.

So what meaningful and practical value do these patents have?

And if they do have value, why do you feel the companies with them should be shut down?

Thine Wonk

25-02-2015

There needs to be a law against 'shell' companies that don't manufacture, design or create anything and seek to sponge like leeches off the innovation of others and effectively add to the costs of technology for everyone else because we all have to fund these lawsuits and the money paid out, or just for the insurance policies to cover it as the price gets added to products.

Everything Goes

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“What have Apple done that you would say was comparable to patent trolling?”

I said Apple were adept at using the broken US Patent system to their advantage. I did not compare them to a Patent Troll

Everything Goes

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Then I'm -confused.

You just said that patent trolls like Smartflash who make no products and have no employees, whose sole reason for existing is to exploit the patent system should be shut down.

But you take issue with me saying their patents are effectively worthless.

So what meaningful and practical value do these patents have?

And if they do have value, why do you feel the companies with them should be shut down?”

The patents are clearly not worthless if they can take companies to court and win. Its not that difficult!

I think you will find even in the USA there are growing calls to shut down NPE's.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bigge...2-11?op=1&IR=T

calico_pie

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“The patents are clearly not worthless if they can take companies to court and win. Its not that difficult!

I think you will find even in the USA there are growing calls to shut down NPE's.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bigge...2-11?op=1&IR=T”

Well yes, if you want to be literal about it and deliberately miss the point.

I meant worthless in any practical sense because the company with no employees has no intention of ever producing anything based on those patents. In that sense they are worthless.

Most people would agree that the contributions of internet trolls are worthless. But I suppose someone might argue that they're not on the grounds that the troll gets a kick out of it.

calico_pie

25-02-2015

Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“I said Apple were adept at using the broken US Patent system to their advantage. I did not compare them to a Patent Troll ”

Well, kinda you did by mentioning them in the same breath.

I wouldn't dispute that the patent wars of recent years got out of hand, but I'm not sure that companies trying to protect their IP is taking advantage of the system.

Its making use of the system as it is designed to be used.

1 of 4