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

171–180 of 188 posts

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

#171

Post by pjc50 »

benjaminjosephw wrote: post #47
arcturus17 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know about your politics, but regardless, “the UK will be able to build an Apple competitor” sounds like a level 99 brexiteer delusion.

Imagining a change in the tech landscape isn't that absurd. If there's a vacuum in the market, do you not think there are capable technology startups in the UK that could fill it?

Someone did try: https://wileyfox.com/

Made in China, obviously, but British labelling and marketing. They lasted a few years before bankruptcy.

I think if apple somehow did exit the UK the replacement would be (a) black market iphones and (b) all the other Android manufacturers.

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

#172

Post by pjc50 »

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.

Fortunately the UK has an open land border with Ireland. Pop over to Belfast, train to Dublin.

(Apple make €110bn profit in Ireland according to their accounts. There is no Dublin Apple Store.)

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

#173

Post by willis936 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #162
willis936 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They wouldn't if they were fined, as the headline and article clearly state.

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

#174

Post by jbluepolarbear »

joshuaissac wrote: post #165
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lice…

Licensing is providing a product through 3rd party. I’m talking about a holder that has just sat on the patent and no product has been developed from its issue.

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

#175

Post by joshuaissac »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #174
joshuaissac wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lice…

Licensing is providing a product through 3rd party. I’m talking about a holder that has just sat on the patent and no product has been developed from its issue.

If no product is ever developed, then there is no licensing or infringement. A troll may still try to use it to suppress some other product but that can be done regardless of whether a product is developed.

I looked at one of the patents from the Apple case, US6393286B1. Unlike the "small fry" scenarios described above, this was registered by Ericsson. I cannot tell whether the patent is actually inventive, but it seems likely that Ericsson themselves did create a product, as they were involved in creating the 3G standards in the 1990s and they also produced phones. The accusation here is that Apple also created a product based on the same technology, without paying the licensing fees. The current holder bought the rights to the patent in the secondary market. The effect on Apple is the same whether it is Ericsson or the current owner enforcing it.

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

#176

Post by marak830 »

fallingknife wrote: post #88
marak830 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what a countries government thinks is good for the population Sounds like China

Sounds like what is supposeto happen when we elect officials to do our bidding.

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

#177

Post by dkersten »

freeone3000 wrote: post #159
dkersten wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you can demonstrate that you were trying to get it into production, then there's nothing wrong with a lawsuit. I mean, maybe there are better solutions (making them more and more expensive to hold the older they get was mentioned by someone). The goal should be to prevent hoarding for the purpose of rent seeking, without intention for ever actually producing anything. That is, that patents are to protect your invention while you implement it, in order to encourage innovation.

But honestly, I'd be happier to just abolish patents altogether.

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

#178

Post by betwixthewires »

Sanguinaire wrote: post #134
sharken wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So there are a lot of problems that arise either way. Fist, the way it works now, you file for a patent and get approved, you own it for the generic term that applies to everyone, special considerations depending on the type of patent not withstanding. This leaves us with patent trolls, yes.

The alternative: grant a patent but if it not used within some scope of time in some way it becomes public domain or otherwise no longer considered a person's intellectual property. So you go to some company and say "I've solved your problem and I want to license my solution to you" and they tell you either you're going to sell it to them cheap or they'll just wait you out. You either take it or lose the patent in short order and now they can use it free. Now the only people that even own intellectual property are the big guys, and if you don't sell they let you lay fallow until your ownership becomes forfeit. You either sell to them or lose the patent.

I hate patent trolls too, but this alternative is worse. I personally don't like intellectual property in general, I think the best solution is to just not have it. Trade secrets are one thing, making it illegal for someone to reverse engineer something they bought or draw pictures they saw elsewhere in public is a bit absurd.

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

#179

Post by betwixthewires »

I'm not a fan of patent trolls, and I don't generally like intellectual property or how it is implemented, but this is a bad look for Apple. A court does "justice" according to it's own law and a party in the court tries to throw it's weight around to get the country to not enforce it's own law on them. This is a huge company trying to be above the law.

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

#180

Post by esperent »

vmception wrote: post #137
tomxor wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Job creation is not a good enough reason to let a mega corporation threaten the rule of law in your country.
Post reply on HN