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

101–110 of 188 posts

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

#101

Post by denton-scratch »

mjburgess wrote: post #38
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…

Well as you say it's "leave the market for mobile phones", ie., it'll be iPhone which goes -- rather than Apple as such. If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return. Also, my issue is exactly with "validity" conditions. Regardless of what they are , my view is we need…

Trying to blackmail the government by threatening to leave the market suggests phrases involving noses, faces, and spite. It's apple buyers that would be hurt by apple leaving the market -not the government, which would look weak if it capitulates to blackmail threats.

The government doesn't care about apple users. They don't care about any citizens. And anyway, the apple users can always buy their devices in the EU.

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

#102

Post by denton-scratch »

mjburgess wrote: post #28
Tenoke wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are literally fighting it with this case, no? Exiting if they fail will also be great as it might become more clear to those who can change the system how much of a detriment it is.

If apple's UK iPhone profits really are in the c. 50mil range, then a (5 to 10)bn fee to remain is commercially non-viable. Note that this is about Apple's ability to sell an iPhone in the UK, and as far as I can see, it wouldnt affect whether the entire company would remain in the UK. If I were apple, I would withdraw a product from a country which supported this kind of racketeering.

Leaving the UK market won't save them licence fees. They've already been incurred. It would be less like relatiation, more like flouncing off in a huff.

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

#103

Post by cma »

snarf21 wrote: post #84
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…

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.

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

#104

Post by sharken »

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.

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.

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

#105

Post by FridayoLeary »

marak830 wrote: post #71
DocTomoe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. On the other hand, this will create societal backlash, not against Apple, but against the government. Tracy needs her iPhone.

Maybe it's time Tracy grew up. Flippant answer aside, we need governments to learn to stand up more against the superlarge multinational companies that think they can bully their way over what a countries government thinks is good for the population. (I know a whole bunch of hand waving - elected by the people for the people that doesn't always work). We should applaud a government for standing up though.

>We should applaud a government for standing up though.

Don't get excited, it's just one Supreme Court justice, who has very little to lose either way. No one has even heard of these guys before. I don't believe that Johnson would have the backbone to do such a thing.

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

#106

Post by tomatotomato37 »

throw0101a wrote: post #22
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…

> 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…

If we want that to be the case then we need to start differentiating between patents still owned by the original inventor and those transferred through whatever means. Making it so transferred patents lose their protection unless they are actively being used by their new owner would eliminate patent companies being a law office and nothing else while still allowing for people who want to just run a Bell Labs-esque institute without dealing with manufacturing to still run a decent businesses. You could also extend this to disallowing licensing for non-original owner patents too, though I'm not as sure about the second-order effects on that one.

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

#107

Post by evandijk70 »

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.

An example would we the Biotech/Pfizer vaccine - it could never have finished clinical trials so quickly if patents were not transferrable between companies

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

#108

Post by cmorgan31 »

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.

And yet the patents are often not for innovation but are purposefully vague to capture iterative improvements under their umbrella and profit from it. It's nonsense in this actual case but the concept of patent protections would be fine if to your point it was actual innovation. How would you even decide what is or is not innovative though? Any idea not in the patent database already? Patents are going to become trickier as we abstract and build more complexity into the overall ecosystem.

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

#109

Post by tpoacher »

nickpp wrote: post #52

I wish more companies would have the guts to fight all these crazy government requests and regulations. Let the people choose if they want to lose the services they rely on so that some politician has a glory bulletpoint on his CV. Alas, the money is too sweet and hard to say no to...

Similarly I wish more democratic governments would have the guts to fight all these crazy corporate monopolies. Let the people choose if they want to allow unstifled innovation rather than rely on sneakily created monopolies, so that some CEO has another bonus this year.

Alas, the lobby money is too sweet and hard to say no to...

Post reply on HN