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

Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

appleinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 188 posts

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#131

Post by dkersten »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #91
snarf21 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is the material change we need. Patents must be used as an active and relevant part of your product or you don't deserve protection. The point is to encourage innovation and from someone from basically just reselling your idea. If you aren't selling it, then why do you deserve protection?

It makes literally no difference, as the parent comment already mentioned. You deserve protection for coming up with the technology, not for using it. These patent trolls are one of the methods to support a research program. Universities, for example, aren't set up to sell devices. As long as the patent is for some actual innovation, there is nothing wrong with this market structure, economically or morally.

> You deserve protection for coming up with the technology, not for using it.

Why? Ideas are cheap, execution is everything and all that. You don't have to literally be the person executing on it, but whoever you transfer or sell the patent to should. I'd be ok with licensing or selling patents to others to build the technology, I'm not ok with licensing or selling the patent to others who will only use it to sue people who do try to build something similar.

The concept of patents was to encourage innovation, not stifle it.

Its also quite common that multiple people invent the same thing at roughly the same time. With these patent trolls, if one of these people gets the invention patented first, but does nothing but rent seeking with it, that will prevent others who came up with the same thing but were too slow to patent it to even try.

Couple that with overly broad, vague or downright invalid patents and you end up with a system that discourages, hinders or puts a large cost on actual innovation. Even if a patent is provably invalid, it costs money in legal fees to get it overturned.

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#132

Post by simonh »

ip26 wrote: post #98
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes literally no difference, as the parent comment already mentioned. You deserve protection for coming up with the technology, not for using it. These patent trolls are one of the methods to support a research program. Universities, for example, aren't set up to sell devices. As long as the patent is for some actual innovation, there is nothing wrong with this market structure, economically or morally.

The whole point of the patent program is to give you a boost in using the technology (to encourage you to come up with it in the first place) A research program that only produces patents for patent trolls seems like a useless research program.

That is no the whole point, and certainly hasn't been going back to the 18th century at least. It is routine for patent holders to license their patents to manufacturers for production. That would not be possible if inventors had to make the product for commercial sale by themselves. It would render novel inventions by independent inventors untenable. Only big corporations with manufacturing resources would ever be able to patent anything.

Take James Watt for example, Matthew Boulton could just have told Watt to take a hike and started manufacturing improved steam engines by himself. Watt couldn't have afforded to make steam engines independently, and why would any investor bother supporting him with capital if they could just set up production without him too?

The problem is with trivial patents, not patents in general.

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#133

Post by crossroadsguy »

mjburgess wrote: post #14

Let's be clear. This is a patent troll company engaged in anti-innovation rent-seeking behaviour. They're seeking billions in payouts and provide zero innovation, research, development, etc. Just because it's targeting Apple doesn't make it right. Companies of this type should be illegal. A patent is a government-sponsored monopoly which shouldn't be "pooled" by "patent companies" whose only purpose is to use the sta…

What do you think of patents Apple owns?

If some company decides to borrow those patents and Apple asks for money, who should set the price? Again, Apple?

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#134

Post by Sanguinaire »

sharken wrote: post #104
ip26 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of the patent program is to give you a boost in using the technology (to encourage you to come up with it in the first place) A research program that only produces patents for patent trolls seems like a useless research program.

Useless to the general public, but a great way to collect fees from those infringing. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that you need to actively use the patent in a product or forfeit all protection.

I'd say actively use or pro-actively license to someone else. If a company can't show that their patents are generating revenue somehow other than lawsuits, the holder should be forced to give the clarinet to a kid who is gonna use it.

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#135

Post by petre »

tpush wrote: post #129
amelius wrote: post #7

When a quasi-monopolist threatens to exit your market ... perhaps the reason why isn't really all that important.

How is Apple a 'quasi-monopolist'?

They have nearly 50% of UK smart phone market share. The next big player, Samsung is at 28.7%. That's also probably why the judge said they are unlikely to leave.

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#136

Post by Brian_K_White »

mjburgess wrote: post #32
Taniwha wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this look different from someone holding a perfectly valid patent that Apple was using without licensing it? (I have no idea as to whether this one is valid or not, I'm as against patent trolls suing people with bogus patents as anyone else) Surely the patent IS the innovation, and a perfectly valid way to use that innovation is to license it to larger companies.

The patent holder would be a company operating in the same market as apple, having a viable market for products somewhat related to the patents they hold. Eg., an electronics company. If they can't meet that condition, sell the patent to a company who can. They'll actually innovate with it (ie., use the licence feeds to fund something useful).

I don't see how "operating in the same field" or even "somewhat related" can be determined or valid.

Tons of technology is used in fields other than where it originated.

Probably a lawyer didn't legitimately invent an important new chemistry for a glue, but a baker could, or a landscaper, etc. And math and process/logistics can come from anyone anywhere at any time, even a lawyer.

This may be hard to define and be correct and fair about it.

Then again... in that case they'd be the originator which could be a special status vs purchased as an asset. Maybe not so hard to manage after all.

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#137

Post by vmception »

tomxor wrote: post #124
vmception wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cute but you forget that countries and municipalities are in competition with each other over attracting business, trillion dollar companies should make good on these threats more often because then they get to come back later for pennies on the dollar

> countries and municipalities are in competition with each other over attracting business What's the point in attracting a business that doesn't pay any tax... further, I (and many others) would argue Apple has a far less positive impact on it's users than it used to, it has turned into more of a money extracting machine and vehicle for consumption. In other words, if not having a quasi-monopoly operate in your coun…

Jobs? Whether from the company directly or third parties

Such as the market for accessories creation and trading

All helps GDP and the local economy

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#138

Post by Nasrudith »

onion2k wrote: post #2

How much the fees should be and how Apple react to them are separate issues. Given the fact that Apple Retail UK posted a profit of just £39m in 2020 though, it seems likely that they'll have to exit the market as they won't be able afford even a reasonably low patent fee. Assuming that their reported profit wasn't just a massive lie to avoid tax, obviously.

Bad global precedent can be far more expensive and damaging than a mere $39M.

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#139

Post by Brian_K_White »

onion2k wrote: post #2

How much the fees should be and how Apple react to them are separate issues. Given the fact that Apple Retail UK posted a profit of just £39m in 2020 though, it seems likely that they'll have to exit the market as they won't be able afford even a reasonably low patent fee. Assuming that their reported profit wasn't just a massive lie to avoid tax, obviously.

The reported profit is probably a joke, since they devize ways to under-report to pay less tax.

Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees

#140

Post by Nasrudith »

PeterisP wrote: post #56
jowsie wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will simply import iPhones from elsewhere, or buy Samsungs instead.

"People will simply import iPhones from elsewhere" is not an option - if there's a patent decision, then it would also mean that imports are a patent violation, all iPhones would have to be seized at the customs. Not-for sale items in personal luggage might be exempt, but bringing a new iPhone in a box for someone else would literally be contraband in this situation.

Well yes but smuggling is a very old occupation for a reason. People won't follow a law they think is illegitimate when they feel they can get away with it. So it would work like the war on drugs. Cocaine is very common for a consumable "not an option" for importing.

Hell that same circumstance of personal use is how the underground USSR blue jeans market came about!

Post reply on HN