Apple Ordered to Pay $625M to Patent Troll in FaceTime Lawsuit

Post by schoen » Fri, Feb 05, 2016, 1:37 AM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #144

freehunter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river? Yes. Lawyers have to eat, and they get paid enough to eat well. They need a place to stay, and they get paid enough to stay at a nice hotel. They need coffee, they need an airport, they need a rental car that needs gas. Your argument is that having people come to your city doesn't add to the local economy, but the fact that whole cit…

It's more than that. I used to work at company that turned patent troll. They actually paid "folks on the ground" who essentially lived there (part of that may have been pure corruption with campaign funds sent to judges re-election campaigns). And that was a small company. Multiply that by 1000x and then add the defense payoffs from big corps... The thing is that East Texas no longer has a monopoly on this - more ju…

Post by tannhauser23 » Fri, Feb 05, 2016, 1:48 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #128

jahewson wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the judges and the court - somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US. This is a part of the country which has very little, so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater. It's a federal court, so the same laws apply as anywhere else, but there's enough wiggle room in t…

Wow. > somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US. Different courts form slightly different interpretations. There's a reason that the 2nd Circuit is the most liberal court. This court happens to be the most pro-plaintiff patent court you can find. It's not surprising the plaintiffs file there. > This is a part of the country which has very little Have you ever been…

Post by notacoward » Fri, Feb 05, 2016, 2:07 AM UTC

azth wrote: post #149

Why doesn't the legal system immediately dismiss such lawsuits by the patent trolls? It is obvious what they're after.

Post by kristianp » Fri, Feb 05, 2016, 3:19 AM UTC

rms_returns wrote: post #132

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, only Congress can impeach federal judges. So POTUS can't do anything in that regard, but POTUS administers the Patent Office. Obama could write one little letter telling them to mark all new patents and all old patents up for review as invalid. I believe this can be done without the approval of congress. I imagine there would be a lawsuit immediately from various parties. My best guess is that SCOTUS would be f…

patents.stackexchange.com is the answer to this. As you mentioned crowdsourcing as a means to scrutinize the patents, this website is exactly doing that. I hope someone on the jury panel at least refers to this website before awarding the patent trolls their victories.

Post by such_a_casual » Fri, Feb 05, 2016, 4:00 AM UTC

macintux wrote: post #140

zanny wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we just please abolish patents? Not just software patents, all of them. Can anyone give me an example of a patent issued in the last twenty years for a novel invention that then proved wildly successful and either protected the inventor from competition or even more importantly led to a lawsuit where the creator successfully beat a large company trying to copy their idea? And even if you can - is the exception ou…

Big pharma, for all its flaws, does in fact provide value. And drug research & development absolutely relies on patents. If you spend half a billion (or more) developing a drug and generic drug manufacturers can immediately sell it for a few cents a pill, how do you recoup your investment? I agree the patent system is broken, but abolishing it entirely isn't the answer. Perhaps revoking the business method patent dec…