Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple faces $600m damages claim

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#41

Post by unexpected »

kenjackson wrote: post #35
unexpected wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could build a cold fusion reactor (and let's say you get only one patent from it), wouldn't people be begging for you to build it? If you could turn your patent into VC funding, had proven it in the lab, and were actively seeking investors for it, then yes you deserve the patent. If you can't do any of those things, is the patent worth anything? Maybe it's cost prohibitive - maybe, in that instance it would be…

The problem is that no one would believe you. And since you don't have any IP protection, the second you showed off anything of real interest (to prove you could do it), they could simply steal the idea at that point.

In this model that I've constructed in my head, you do have IP protection. As I've said in my posts, if you're actively trying to commercialize, you should be able to receive the patent.

The problem with this model is now, "how do you define "actively trying to commercialize?" Patent trolls would then just move to doing the bare minimum to qualify for this category. If we make it prohibitively expensive, however, we may eliminate some of the patent trolls.

Some ideas in this direction:

1) IP companies must notify any infringing company within 3 months of the infringing product's release. IP companies can't wait until something like the iPhone blows up to sue.

2) If a company wants to maintain a patent, it must either be a commercial product or be willing to license it for a reasonable fee. Some IP companies refuse to license at first, in order to drive up the price.

3) Every 3 years that you have the patent, you must show progress towards commerciality (commerciality remains to be defined in this thought experiment).

4) The patents for ideas, strategies, etc. should either be banned outright, or the lengths made much, much shorter. There's no reason that Amazon should still have a patent over "one-click" in 2010.

My problem with "no one would believe you" is that it remains purely hypothetical. Capitalism and the marketplace has proven time and time again to be the great equalizer. If you had a working cold fusion experiment that you could patent, why wouldn't they believe you if you could prove it in a laboratory setting?

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#42

Post by davidcann »

Aren't the real issues obviousness and prior art? The interfaces for Cover Flow and Time Machine are fun, but they hardly seem patent-worthy.

How could a jury of 12 non-technical people possibly be qualified to judge if a patent is valid? I would not feel qualified to judge if an automotive patent is valid, so how can a non-developer judge a software patent? The system is broken.

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#43

Post by jessriedel »

parenthesis wrote: post #4
DougBTX wrote: post #2

I'll never understand how these damages are calculated. Does anyone actually believe that the patent owners would have made > $600m had Apple never written the supposedly infringing software?

IANAL, but there is a distinction between compensatory damages (which is what you are talking about) and punitive damages. I don't think the article mentions which, or what combination, of these is being awarded here.

Incidentally, what is the theory behind awarding the punitive damages to the plaintiff? I could understand giving the plaintiff a fraction of the punitive damages in order to provide an incentive to the plaintiff (and their counsel) to pursue, but isn't it crazy to give them all of it? Should the state keep it (like a ticket) or, better, use it where possible to compensate the unknown victims that punitive damages are supposed to help protect?

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#44

Post by IgorPartola »

unexpected wrote: post #41
kenjackson wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that no one would believe you. And since you don't have any IP protection, the second you showed off anything of real interest (to prove you could do it), they could simply steal the idea at that point.

In this model that I've constructed in my head, you do have IP protection. As I've said in my posts, if you're actively trying to commercialize, you should be able to receive the patent. The problem with this model is now, "how do you define "actively trying to commercialize?" Patent trolls would then just move to doing the bare minimum to qualify for this category. If we make it prohibitively expensive, however, we…

> 1) IP companies must notify any infringing company within 3 months of the infringing product's release. IP companies can't wait until something like the iPhone blows up to sue.

So no stealth startups then?

> 2) If a company wants to maintain a patent, it must either be a commercial product or be willing to license it for a reasonable fee. Some IP companies refuse to license at first, in order to drive up the price.

Who defines reasonable? I understand that the market can determine this, but the market can't then go to the patent office and say "Yeah, this patent should not be allowed."

> 3) Every 3 years that you have the patent, you must show progress towards commerciality (commerciality remains to be defined in this thought experiment).

Show progress to whom? The patent office? How do you define progress? Then we are back at square one: the patent office holds all the keys.

> 4) The patents for ideas, strategies, etc. should either be banned outright, or the lengths made much, much shorter. There's no reason that Amazon should still have a patent over "one-click" in 2010.

Agreed. Patents on software == patents on mathematical concepts. By the same token patents on strategies.

Here is a solution that can be implemented as an algorithm:

1. The inventor registers a patent and is required to set a licencing fee.

2. If within a year nobody licenses, the idea, the licensing fee is dropped to at least half the original or lower if the inventor chooses to do so.

3. This repeats until the fee is less than $1. Then the patent expires and everything is public domain.

4. If a patent is licensed from day one at the asker's price, it still has the usual time limit on expiration.

5. As long as a new licensee was signed on in the past year, the inventor may raise the licensing fee once for that year for any new licensees.

This is not a perfect system and obviously can still be gamed in various ways. But a system like this one could use markets to determine what an idea is really worth and for how long.

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#45

Post by kenjackson »

unexpected wrote: post #41
kenjackson wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that no one would believe you. And since you don't have any IP protection, the second you showed off anything of real interest (to prove you could do it), they could simply steal the idea at that point.

In this model that I've constructed in my head, you do have IP protection. As I've said in my posts, if you're actively trying to commercialize, you should be able to receive the patent. The problem with this model is now, "how do you define "actively trying to commercialize?" Patent trolls would then just move to doing the bare minimum to qualify for this category. If we make it prohibitively expensive, however, we…

"1) IP companies must notify any infringing company within 3 months of the infringing product's release. IP companies can't wait until something like the iPhone blows up to sue."

Unless something changes drastically, I'm not sure how you pull this off. Most products aren't released on stage with Steve Jobs saying it will change the world. At this point the only companies who are likely to ever recoup any damage are companies like MS and Google, who can effectively build mini-companies that will track and analyze every product released. This simply is infeasible for most companies, including virtually every startup.

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#46

Post by kenjackson »

IgorPartola wrote: post #44
unexpected wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this model that I've constructed in my head, you do have IP protection. As I've said in my posts, if you're actively trying to commercialize, you should be able to receive the patent. The problem with this model is now, "how do you define "actively trying to commercialize?" Patent trolls would then just move to doing the bare minimum to qualify for this category. If we make it prohibitively expensive, however, we…

> 1) IP companies must notify any infringing company within 3 months of the infringing product's release. IP companies can't wait until something like the iPhone blows up to sue. So no stealth startups then? > 2) If a company wants to maintain a patent, it must either be a commercial product or be willing to license it for a reasonable fee. Some IP companies refuse to license at first, in order to drive up the price.…

This is a pretty good idea, although I'd add a couple of things:

A) The licensing price is non-negtioble. That is, you can't get an offer from Apple to license it for less and take them up on it (although you can have bulk license pricing).

B) The license fee has to be reasonable with respect to the invention. This is tricky, because who determines what is reasonable. But it avoids the problem that Apple says, "Coverflow license is $1B/license". They have no desire to ever license it, but want it to take a while to hit the public domain.

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#47

Post by jimbokun »

IgorPartola wrote: post #25
unexpected wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even think you should receive a patent unless you intend to commercialize it. In this system, you have incentives to make your patent as broad as possible, as well as look for "me-too" patents that you can get by studying existing ones. If your sole source of revenue is licensing the patents that you've created, you're a patent troll. The initial patent wasn't intended for this. The patent wasn't originally i…

Are you telling me that if I come up with a way to build a cold fusion reactor, start to finish, that is commercially viable but will cost me $1,000,000,000,000 to build but can power the entire human civilization, my only option is to either build it or forget it? That if I obtain a patent it is somehow my obligation to actually make the damn thing? Also, how do you propose the patent office make sure that I am actu…

I thought that a patent required that you demonstrate a working implementation. Is that incorrect?

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#48

Post by russell »

Note that the suit was brought in east Texas which is a favorite haunt for patent trolls. As far as I know the trolls always win and the awards have become increasingly huge, way out of proportion to the actual value of the work.

Gelernter himself is not a troll. If all this is based On Linda (I havent dug deep enough), it would be based on work he did at least as far back as 1983. Google "Gelernter Linda", He published a book "Mirror Worlds". which I read decades ago. He tried to commercialize it, but had only modest, if any, success. OTOH he sold his patents to a patent troll.

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#49

Post by lkjuhygthyujk »

jimbokun wrote: post #47
IgorPartola wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you telling me that if I come up with a way to build a cold fusion reactor, start to finish, that is commercially viable but will cost me $1,000,000,000,000 to build but can power the entire human civilization, my only option is to either build it or forget it? That if I obtain a patent it is somehow my obligation to actually make the damn thing? Also, how do you propose the patent office make sure that I am actu…

I thought that a patent required that you demonstrate a working implementation. Is that incorrect?

No - it was a requirement a century ago. You do have to describe a workable implementation, you can't just patent 'a time machine' - but you don't have to show that it is practical today. So you can for example assume future developments in CPU power or battery capacity.

Re: Apple faces $600m damages claim

#50

Post by lkjuhygthyujk »

unexpected wrote: post #20
lkjuhygthyujk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand the difference between a patent troll and an IP company. The company I work for designs antennae for cell phones, wifi, GPS receivers etc. We barely have a website, just a couple of PhDs and a lawyer. We rely on licencing our designs and file a lot of patents. It's judgements like this that stop cell phone makers deciding that it's cheaper to just copy our inventions than pay us a licence…

I don't even think you should receive a patent unless you intend to commercialize it. In this system, you have incentives to make your patent as broad as possible, as well as look for "me-too" patents that you can get by studying existing ones. If your sole source of revenue is licensing the patents that you've created, you're a patent troll. The initial patent wasn't intended for this. The patent wasn't originally i…

>you intend to commercialize it

The problem then is that cell phone makers would have a monopoly, since no small company could come up with a better antennae, or better screen etc without also having all the other parts of a cell phone.

The original idea of the patent was to grant the inventor a limited monopoly in return for the invention being published and adding to the set of human knowledge - rather than a maker keeping it a secret part of their product.

Post reply on HN