Patent trolls are evil. However, we're used to patent trolls attacking big companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple, who themselves keep the broken patent system intact - so it's kind of what goes around comes around; schadenfreude if you will. However, what if a patent troll carefully threatens to sue a number of smal-time iOS developers, knowing full well that these small developers cannot fight back due to the iOS developer agreement? What kind of low-point have we hit then?
Post a Comment
Member since:2006-05-12
Member since:2011-05-12
Apple appears to use legal action when someone, company or person, poses a threat to their brand, image or products.
A number of Android phones are iPhone rip-offs, yet they only sued Samsung which put a lot of effort in to duplicating the iPhone, including the packaging.
What I consider patent trolls are companies (most you never heard off) that somehow got hold of a patent, with no intent ever do anything with it and then sue companies like Apple or Microsoft hoping to settle for a nice amount of money.
Sure when companies like Apple sue they use patents must of us consider silly, hence some are inclined to call Apple a patent troll, however these silly patents are just small ammunition in a bigger picture.
Don't forget Apple is a publicly owned company. They have to explain to the shareholders why other companies ripped them off and they did nothing. Even if they lose the case they can still show they tried to do something, only the judge couldn't be convinced.
Member since:2011-01-28
MOS6510,
"A number of Android phones are iPhone rip-offs, yet they only sued Samsung which put a lot of effort in to duplicating the iPhone, including the packaging."
Well then they should be stopped through copyright and trademark infringement or "design patents".
Too many of these patents are notoriously unworthy of patent protection. The USPTO granted monopolies are being used to stifle competition. For software at least, they don't encourage innovation.
It is useless to blame the CEOs, whose job is to maximize shareholder ROI using whatever means possible - even if it hurts society. The blame lies with the inadequate laws and lawmakers who fail to represent the public's interests.
Edited 2011-05-14 21:16 UTC
Member since:2011-05-12
Well, I guess the patent stuff is just added bonus to the main case.
I agree most patents are so silly that a whole bunch of them might provoke a giggle.
When Samsung copies the iOS icons, the UI look 'n' feel and the style of the boxes I can understand Apple being upset, because Apple put time and effort in this and someone else takes a short cut.
In this case it's apparently a company whose soul business is getting hold of patents and suing companies, hoping to settle. This is ridiculous. They have no intent to ever to anything with those "patents" but sue. How are they hurt?
This is about upgrading from within an application. It's not even a detailed process, it's not how it looks or even smells. It's just starting an upgrade from within an app. How stupid is that?
It's something trivial and I can't think of anyway around it, except not upgrading from within the app. I don't think you should be able to patent that.
So this company wants to have millions? And what are they going to do with that money? Perfect their "in app upgrade" skill? Make apps that upgrade? Of course not, the money goes to their bank accounts.
Member since:2006-01-10
Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, disagrees with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
Edited 2011-05-16 02:17 UTC
Member since:2011-05-12
Well, he's talking about ideas. A smart phone, touch screen, icons, boxing, those are ideas. It's fine to build your own phone create a touch screen, make a UI with icons and put it in a nice box. What Samsung did was copy it so such an effect that it became easy to mix an iPhone and a Samsung up.
And of course it's fine to steal, but not be stolen from. ;-)
Member since:
2006-05-12
Member since:
2006-07-17
Member since:2007-08-17
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would be quite unusual for a lawyer to write a patent. More likely it would be written by a patent attourney, who might be an inventor or a lawyer, but generally isn't.
As I understand it, patent attourneys tend to come from a technical background and often do a small amount of training, to be able to read and write legalese competently.
Member since:2011-01-28
steogede2,
"Correct me if I am wrong, but it would be quite unusual for a lawyer to write a patent. More likely it would be written by a patent attourney, who might be an inventor or a lawyer, but generally isn't."
What is the difference between a lawyer and an attorney?
Honestly I don't know. I've looked them up and they come up as synonyms.
Anyways, have you ever seriously tried to read a patent filing to extract relevant information? It's like reading raw assembly dumps without recognizable labels or comments. No engineer faithful to their profession would ever share information that way.
Member since:
2009-05-19
Sorry. But iOS developer agreement does not prevent any developer from settling with Lodsys. It only states that you can't blame Apple in such a settlement. And it all comes from misunderstanding who a patent holder may sue in case of patent infringement.
Compare that to the Nokia's suit against Apple. The GSM/UMTS components are designed and manufactured by a third party and Apple packages and sells the end product. Now change the GSM/UMTS components to iOS SDK API/iOS library, "third party" to Apple and Apple to iOS developer.
So Lodsys are in within their legal limits when they sent their demands to the developers of apps.
Other examples include:
- Microsoft going after Motorola over Android, though Google is the source of Android
- Apple going after HTC over Android
- Oracle going after Goole as the source of Android
Member since:
2008-03-27
Are you kiddin' me?
Firstly, this guy files for an insane patent - he could not possibly have thought he was the 1st one to come up with that stuff... "Upgrade", what a new idea, gimme a break.
Secondly, he sells it to - a troll. For money. Thinking, they'd never use that in any way, because... it was useless in the 1st place? Uh-huh, how dumb can anybody be?
It's almost like thinking, let's give the government special rights that undermine any well earned civil rights to fend off terrorist threats, knowing they're only useful in exceptional cases, thinking the government would never use it... oh, wait...
To me it seems like, the human race is stupid by default, any kind of civilization happened purely by accident and we're all working to "correct" that mistake...
Member since:2005-08-09
http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/12/ebay-takes-a-30-million-hit-over-b...
Member since:
2006-10-18
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2010-06-08
> the original inventor behind Lodsys' patents, Dan
> Abelow, was unaware of his patents being used by
> Lodsys in this way. He had sold them to the patent
> troll years ago, and he was surprised about the news.
Very good point, why the original developers should NOT agree to any patents on their work.
Member since:
2011-05-17
Since keyboard technology is in dire need of new advances, it's smart for Apple to patent such developments. However, ultimately it seems to me that it would make much more sense to ultimately incorporate keyboards into monitors; this would be a convenient space-saver.
http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2010/05/10/how-to-file-a-patent/
Member since:
2011-05-17
From the language used in this patent enforcement action, it sounds like Lodsys just wants to settle and nab some licensing deals. Honestly, it probably would have been smarter for them to go after Apple and/or other deep pockets, if money's all they want, instead of pursuing one-man development shops; after all, you can't bleed a stone.
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/patent_enforcement_21538.aspx?...