You need help if you think that!

While the US Patent system remains the way it is such cases will continue.

The system is very broken, when you can patent a really unique way of vacuuming using a cyclone instead of a bag then fine, but when it's pressing and holding a key on a touch screen keyboard and it displays a different character or something so bleeding obvious and not inventive at all then it gets to the point of being ridiculous and being against the interests of the consumer and the industry.

Some of the things that have been allowed to be patented are so silly it is unfunny and the US patent office tends to just approve everything and then let the courts fight it out if there's a dispute. It is time that the laws are changed to make patents about really special innovation that is deserving of protection under very specific criteria.

Examples of the things which deserve patents, Dyson Cyclone, Tetrapak and the wax coated cardboard and clever folding to hold liquid in a unique container.

Examples of things which don't, software functions like press and hold something or pretty much any UI unless it is so very innovative and different. I think there should be very few cases for software patents, they should be a real exception, reserved for very special cases.

Oh the irony. You reap what you sow and if you you sue over a rectangular shape you deserve to be punished.

Yes if you can explain why these patents are worthless !!

Well, it's the rules, they cannot use them if they suit them and ignore them when they don't. If does not legally matter if the patents are owned by somebody who actively uses them or not. It would be like somebody just taking an abandoned car they saw parked on the street.

Before anyone gets too judgemental, it might be worth waiting for any appeals to be complete. These things have a habit of changing.

No one I can see is questioning the validity of anything related to the judgement, simply the assertion that patents are worthless when apple decide.

No.

Patents are worthless when they are held by patent trolls.

A fact which has nothing to do with Apple.

Because the patent holder has no intention of ever doing anything with them.

Which is why they are called patent trolls.

Clue is in the name.

I think most here agree on the fact that the US patent system is broken.

What the point of debate is regarding is that some people see it different when Apple (or Samsung or HTC or Google) buy patents for things they didnt invent and then sue other users of it rather than a shell company doing the same thing.

What has employees or products got to do with things ?

If the shell company had one employee and made napkins would it suddenly become valid ? Does two employees make it acceptable ? or do you have to be a multinational for it to be allowed ?? To me, any company that buys another company just to strip them of their patents is abusing the system.

Yes its different, for reasons already given.

If a troll owns a patent for A Really Good Idea, but has no intention of ever producing anything based on that patent, then consumers will never have access to any products making use of that patent / idea.

Which is what I mean when I say they are effectively worthless.

If Apple, Samsung, Google, whoever buys a company for a patent they then own that patent, and will (more than likely) actually manufacture products making use of that patent / idea.

I think there is a world of difference between a legitimate patent owner who is actually doing something constructive with the patent, and a patent troll.

Of course having one employee making napkins wouldn't make a difference. It should however be pretty obvious that a company with no employees has no intention of actually producing anything. So it should be pretty obvious they are simply trolling.

but playing devils advocate you cant say that a company doesnt intend to start making handsets ? In the same way as companies seem to patent ideas that they might one day think about making.

The whole system is screwed up. But you cant have the law differentiate between the same action from one company or another.

They paid for them, it's their property. Others have to pay them if they want to use them.

I think the system could be fixed a bit by utilisation. If a company buys a bunch of patents but then doesn't put them into use within 1-2 years (or some other reasonable period), then they could well be considered a troll, and the patent could be rescinded.

I don't know what would be a reasonable period for use, as I'm not familiar with how long it generally takes from patent grant to actual manufacture.

whats your take on Rockstar consortium .?The apple ,blackberry, mircosoft etc company that was set up to buy the nortel patents and then seek either license for them or litigation.
Given that Rockstar was an NPE so effectively a patent troll.

Problem here is that some patents will appear as products quicker than others. A "style of packaging" (an Apple patent) would be quick to turn around, as would a "style of glass staircase" (another Apple one) whereas a novel way of cold fusion might take rather longer to see from planning to release.

Maybe in the 21st century the Tesla way of working is what society should strive for (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-...are-belong-you).

They would have to be compensated, you cannot just take them from them. It would be a theft. BTW should Apple be unhappy about the practice they have enough resources to initiate the process of changing anything.

Must have something to do with apple as the thread is about them, also I know it is about apple as you are commenting

So why are they worthless because they don't do anything with them, what would they have to do to be worth something exactly

So the same rules apply for any such property passed on through an estate or an invention sold for millions of pounds etc. The right people don't own it so it is now worthless and can be copied, how very very bizarre your reasoning is

IMO Patents are worthless when they are held by patent trolls.

What that has to do with Apple?


IMO They are worthless (in any meaningful, practical sense) because the patent holder has no intention of ever doing anything with them.

What do you find confusing about that?


That's not my reasoning. Its your reasoning, which I agree is bizarre.

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?

Your whole post above is bizarre, you now are saying that companies you deem as trolls cannot have the protection of the law.

By the way they are doing something with them they licence them for income. Not of course to the likes of you and apple who have decided the law here does not apply and they are free to take property as they see fit

Just when I think you have outdone yourself to seem able to surprise even me, truly stupefying.

Not companies "i deem as trolls". Companies who are blatantly sitting on patents with no intention of ever producing anything based on them. That simple enough fact couldn't be clearer.

And yes - they licence them for income. Just as internet trolls post for kicks. In both cases, despite the income and the kicks, still trolling, and still essentially worthless to pretty much everyone.

I'm at a loss as to why you would consider condemning patent trolls as somehow outdoing myself.

I simply never fail to be amazed what practices illegal or scandalous you think acceptable by a certain large corporation.

Quite frankly you are making a massive generalisation.

Yes, there are companies that have scooped up patents with their only intention being to try and profit from them through claiming value from other companies.

However, there are many SME R&D companies which will often invent and patent something with no intention of producing anything themselves. They look for others to exploit their patents, and profit from it.

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.