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

151–160 of 188 posts

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

#151

Post by Apocryphon »

arcturus17 wrote: post #75
bencollier49 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have tons of opportunities in the UK to build a mobile firm. ARM is based here, for starters. Unfortunately with Brexit it has become fashionable in certain quarters to 'do-down' the UK's capabilities.

Like I said in another comment, the high-end consumer mobile market outside of Apple is a red ocean and I seriously doubt the UK would be able to build a global scale corporation commanding ludicrous margins like Apple. > with Brexit it has become fashionable in certain quarters to 'do-down' the UK's capabilities It has also certainly become fashionable in other quarters to 'do-up' the UK's capabilities. I don't deny…

Time for the great Dana Sibera (https://twitter.com/NanoRaptor) to make some wondrous alternate history pictures of a world where there was a BBC Micro smartphone, or a ZX tablet.

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

#152

Post by tonyedgecombe »

willis936 wrote: post #120
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To avoid their executives going to prison.

Their executives in the US? Going to trial in the UK, where the company would no longer do business? How does that work, exactly? Has the US ever extradited a white collar criminal?

They have executives in the UK.

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

#153

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

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.

Split a company's research from its production and sales departments into two organisations, and one licenses its patents to the other.

You have transformed a structure where one entities invents and produces to a market structure with one where those are separate roles.

You like the former and abhor the later. But from the outside, this change is absolutely meaningless. It's no different than any other make-or-buy decision.

(Note that "sells a license" is exactly the same as "patent trolling".)

All these feelings you people have are based on the idea of "superficial" patents that aren't "real innovation". Which is, indeed, a problem. But it has nothing to do with the above. Assume some actually useful patent, and these objections fall apart.

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

#155

Post by willis936 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #152
willis936 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their executives in the US? Going to trial in the UK, where the company would no longer do business? How does that work, exactly? Has the US ever extradited a white collar criminal?

They have executives in the UK.

Why would they have executives in a country that they don't do business in?

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

#156

Post by freeone3000 »

dkersten wrote: post #131
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.

> 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 peo…

The facts alleged here are that apple is using a patented technology, held by someone else, without licensing it first. And now that this is discovered, the remedy is to have Apple pay the licensing fees for the patent (including retroactively).

Without the ability to sue people infringing on your patent, how do you ensure people will pay to license it?

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

#157

Post by dkersten »

freeone3000 wrote: post #156
dkersten wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 peo…

The facts alleged here are that apple is using a patented technology, held by someone else, without licensing it first. And now that this is discovered, the remedy is to have Apple pay the licensing fees for the patent (including retroactively). Without the ability to sue people infringing on your patent, how do you ensure people will pay to license it?

If whoever is holding the patent is not using it for anything other than sue people, then I really don't care that Apple infringed it without licensing.

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

#158

Post by tooltalk »

rasz wrote: post #148
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, I'm glad it's actually targeting Apple. There are a bunch of small innovative companies targeted by patent trolls that don't have means of Apple to fight back and actually change the system to be more level-headed. But I'm afraid Apple will not fight for the reform of the patent system, but will just try to protect itself. In which case I don't care about the outcome, since Apple also uses the same pate…

Apple is super pro patents, they never go for patent invalidation. Case in point they got sued by S3 for S3TC, despite S3TC being stolen Apple QuickTime Road Pizza patent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26758884 , and caved in without much fight.

Apple knows how to play the patent game and routinely petitions PTAB review to invalidate patents. I'm willing to wager that there are at least a few dozens of on-going reviews petitioned by Apple (and its proxy) at any given moment. Take for instance Apple's lawsuits with VirnetX which have been dragged out for several years appeal after appeal with multiple patent invalidations -- in one of the lawsuits, Apple ended up losing to the tune of $500+M, finally paid out in 2021. Apple is pro-patent -- and also one of the most egregious abuser -- insofaras it can game the system in their favor. Like many patent trolls, Apple also shops around for favorable legal outcome, aka, forum shopping, -- eg, Lucy Koh in Apple's backyard is one notorious example.

And who can forget Apple's patent troll operation, Rockstar consortium, that crashed and burned as it was taking off.

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

#159

Post by freeone3000 »

dkersten wrote: post #157
freeone3000 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The facts alleged here are that apple is using a patented technology, held by someone else, without licensing it first. And now that this is discovered, the remedy is to have Apple pay the licensing fees for the patent (including retroactively). Without the ability to sue people infringing on your patent, how do you ensure people will pay to license it?

If whoever is holding the patent is not using it for anything other than sue people, then I really don't care that Apple infringed it without licensing.

That sort of goes in the face of your "licensing or selling it to others" above though, right?

Let's say you have a patent. You're trying to get someone to license it. They decide, no, we'd rather just use it for free instead. Now you have no buyers, and no licensors -- what is your option but a lawsuit?

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

#160

Post by joshstrange »

onion2k wrote: post #30
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…

It shouldn't matter who owns a patent. If the person or company who registered it has decided to 'cash it in' and sell it to a company whose business is patent licensing is OK. Whether or not the patent is valid is the important issue. Optis 'won' $506m in the US as well, but the supreme court reverted the decision on Apple's appeal. The UK court has decided that it is valid (for now). Something very important to not…

> It shouldn't matter who owns a patent. If the person or company who registered it has decided to 'cash it in' and sell it to a company whose business is patent licensing is OK. Whether or not the patent is valid is the important issue.

Disagree, fully, 100%. To believe this you have to first buy into the idea that the patent system is a good one and/or that people who are doing none of the actual work should be able to rent-seek the people who actually are. If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed to force other companies to pay you for it, that's just a stupid system (even if it's the system we currently have). I don't care if it's Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, or an indie developer, none of them should have to put up with BS patents like this.

Post reply on HN