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

161–170 of 188 posts

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

#161

Post by Tsiklon »

bilbo0s wrote: post #125
TeMPOraL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention, the complementary effects. Someone buying an iPhone today is more likely to choose an Apple device as their laptop. Someone buying an iPhone today is more likely to buy another iPhone in a few years, over an Android phone.

If it's only 7 million, then Apple would definitely leave. I had no idea it was that low. I would have thought it would be from 10 to 14. To put it in perspective, Apple sells 4 times that many in China. With China and the US being their bread and butter. Also, their marketshare in China and the US has way more upside. (Room for growth.) I can understand now. You definitely don't want to pay money to stay in a market…

There are 65 Million people in the UK, China and the United States are significantly larger both in terms of population. I haven't checked the numbers, but it is not unreasonable to assume that there is a similar amount of iPhones sold per year per capita in the UK as compared to those other two markets.

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

#162

Post by tonyedgecombe »

willis936 wrote: post #155
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have executives in the UK.

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

They do do business in the UK, as you well know.

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

#163

Post by joshuaissac »

joshstrange wrote: post #160
onion2k wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abl…

> If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed to force other companies to pay you for it

Companies like ARM would not be able to exist under the system you propose. Their whole business model is creating patents and licensing them to others instead of using the patents themselves.

Preventing companies like ARM from licensing their patents would only benefit incumbents like Intel who can afford the massive amounts of investment required to turn those patents into chips.

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

#164

Post by joshstrange »

joshuaissac wrote: post #163
joshstrange wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 abl…

> If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed to force other companies to pay you for it Companies like ARM would not be able to exist under the system you propose. Their whole business model is creating patents and licensing them to others instead of using the patents themselves. Preventing companies like ARM from licensing their patents would only benefit incumbents like Intel who can afford the massiv…

So I think we can all agree there is a big difference between the generic/basic patents we’ve seen trolls use over and over again (stuff like “an input device causes and output device to do something”) and an instruction set/CPU architecture. Also I’d bet money ARM has multiple in-house processors for testing/R&D. That’s a far cry from the patent trolls who do nothing but “own” a patent they do nothing with and didn’t come up with in the first place most of the time.

All that said: so what? My ideal world wouldn’t have patents at all. They cause way more harm than good. And we’ve seen time and time again that the big companies will just straight up copy or buy up any competition, the system is broken.

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

#165

Post by joshuaissac »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #118
throw0101a wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A patent is a government-sponsored monopoly which shouldn't be "pooled" by "patent companies" whose only purpose is to use the state to extract money from companies actually producing goods. Devil's advocate: If the original holder of a patent is a small fry, and does not have the resources to go after the big fish if they take advantage of the patent, shouldn't the original inventor have the right to sell the pate…

How does that harbor fair trade? Neither the inventor nor the holder have made any attempt to bring a product to market. It should be the burden of the court to prove that the patent was actively being used (by the holder) to produce a product and that the infringement directly hurt the potential target market of the product in question.

The patent may be too expensive for a small fry to convert into a product. Requiring them to do that turns the patent system into an instrument for incumbents to absorb inventions from others (who cannot afford to build the full product) while not having to release any of their own rights (because they can afford to build the product, so preserve the patent).

A non-practising patent holder is also more likely to licence the patent to lots of other entities compared to one that makes products. This is one of the concerns around NVidia's proposed takeover of ARM, a non-practising entity that creates and licences computer processor designs.

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

#166

Post by joshuaissac »

joshstrange wrote: post #164
joshuaissac wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed to force other companies to pay you for it Companies like ARM would not be able to exist under the system you propose. Their whole business model is creating patents and licensing them to others instead of using the patents themselves. Preventing companies like ARM from licensing their patents would only benefit incumbents like Intel who can afford the massiv…

So I think we can all agree there is a big difference between the generic/basic patents we’ve seen trolls use over and over again (stuff like “an input device causes and output device to do something”) and an instruction set/CPU architecture. Also I’d bet money ARM has multiple in-house processors for testing/R&D. That’s a far cry from the patent trolls who do nothing but “own” a patent they do nothing with and didn’…

> Also I’d bet money ARM has multiple in-house processors for testing/R&D

When I worked at ARM, we just used FPGAs to emulate the chips and waited for the customers to give us a board with the actual chips. Maybe another division did create their own hardware, but everything we worked with for testing in ours was from customers.

> there is a big difference between the generic/basic patents we’ve seen trolls use over and over again (stuff like “an input device causes and output device to do something”)

If it is a generic/basic patent, why should it make a difference whether the enforcer is a practising entity (PE) or not? Unlike a non-practising entity (NPE), a PE would be less inclined to licence it because they want to keep competitors out. ARM is big enough that they can instigate litigation on their own against infringers. Smaller inventors have no chance of doing that, and patent trolls are often their only venue. Many times, the problem is with bogus patents that should never have been granted because of prior art or obviousness (supported by the authorities failing to perform due diligence before granting patents). And the other is the expense of defending against a valid patent that does not apply to the defendant's product. Patent trolls' portfolios are often full of such patents, but this is not limited to NPEs.

> big companies will just straight up copy or buy up any competition

An example that comes to my mind is Nuance, a practising entity that engaged in frivolous patent infringement lawsuits against a new competitor Vlingo. Nuance did turn their patents into products (Dragon NaturallySpeaking), so they are not considered a patent troll under the usual definition. Yet, their actions against Vlingo were the same as that of a troll, and even though Vlingo won, they were weakened enough to be bought out by Nuance.

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

#167

Post by 3mr »

cma wrote: post #103
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?

This would mean only mega corporaions capable of funding hundred million dollar FDA trials could have drug patents, and people who came up with novel drug mechanisms would all have to work for these companies rather than specialize on early stage innovative research and sell to them.

Mega corporations capable of funding FDA trials buy patents and use them to create/produce drugs. Patent trolls don't create anything.

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

#168

Post by pjc50 »

mjburgess wrote: post #126
denton-scratch wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any of the British jurisdictions, neither parliament nor the government can dismiss judges. Nor can anyone else. If they displease the government, then they might not be chosen to head lucrative judicial inquiries - I think that's the only sanction that government can inflict on them. Neither government nor parliament can "reverse" a patent decision. Government and parliament have been known to "censure" (criticis…

> neither parliament nor the government can dismiss judges This is wholly untrue. Parliament can do what it pleases, including disestablish the judiciary and the executive.

This is technically true but kind of irrelevant? If it comes down to that level of radical transformation, of abolishing the judiciary, the state is on its way to disintegrating. Rather like the Royal power that exists only as long as it's not used.

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

#169

Post by joshuaissac »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #153
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.

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 d…

It is not meaningless. The split structure is actually better (if it is genuinely spun off, rather than created as a tax evasion mechanism) because it can licence the technology to multiple entities, which spurs competition among them.

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

#170

Post by cma »

3mr wrote: post #167
cma wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would mean only mega corporaions capable of funding hundred million dollar FDA trials could have drug patents, and people who came up with novel drug mechanisms would all have to work for these companies rather than specialize on early stage innovative research and sell to them.

Mega corporations capable of funding FDA trials buy patents and use them to create/produce drugs. Patent trolls don't create anything.

> buy patents

Whose non-existant patent would they buy under the new system where the non-practitioner can't have one to sell? Or I can see you could only let practitioners enforce, but what would be the details on that? The non-practioner could just threaten to become a practitioner or sell to one in exchange for a settlement from someone violating, or if prior violators were grandfathered in once practitioning from the holder began, it would be a race to violate as many as possible before they could be put into practice, in order to get them free through grandfathering.

Post reply on HN