1. anon(3940229)'s Avatar
    http://www.itcblog.com/wp-content/up...nnovations.pdf

    Apple Transfers Patents Through Shell Company To Sue All Phone Makers - Slashdot
    This is rediculus
    Apple wants to sue everyone for patentents from 20 years ago? I mean they sue everyone for... making mobile devices.
    From that what I saw rim is going to be sued for 50 patents (more or less), and that is less then all others.
    Last edited by maciek226; 12-11-11 at 07:31 PM.
    12-11-11 07:23 PM
  2. bbmme's Avatar
    haven't read it yet, but if it's true, that's pretty crazy eh
    12-11-11 07:33 PM
  3. kbz1960's Avatar
    Guess that is the way they will kill everyone else so they can become a monopoly like they would love to be.

    The American way sue over any and everything.
    up488 likes this.
    12-11-11 09:10 PM
  4. Thud Hardsmack's Avatar
    Guess that is the way they will kill everyone else so they can become a monopoly like they would love to be.

    The American way sue over any and everything.
    Fortunately we have laws against that.
    12-11-11 09:26 PM
  5. anon(3940229)'s Avatar
    What do u mean by we and laws against that.
    I actually doubt it will happen because when i looked closly at it, thouse were not theire patents and they were about regualr phones not smart ones.
    12-11-11 10:07 PM
  6. gwanstarr's Avatar
    Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to 'patent troll'

    By Josh Ong

    Published: 01:52 AM EST (10:52 PM PST)

    According to a new report, Apple has transferred some of its patents to patent-licensing firm Digitude Innovations, prompting accusations that the company is aiding a so-called "patent troll."

    Digitude Innovations filed suit against a slew of tech giants this week, including Research in Motion, HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony, Amazon and Nokia. Apple was noticeably absent from the list.

    Further investigation by TechCrunch revealed that two of the patents wielded in the lawsuit had belonged to Apple earlier this year. The report noted that documents had been uncovered confirming a license agreement between Apple and Digitude, though the actual details of the agreement were not available to the public.

    Apple apparently transferred a dozen patents to a shell company, called Cliff Island LLC, earlier this year. Though little information was available on Cliff Island, report author Jason Kincaid was able to ascertain that the company's address is the same as Digitude investor Altitude Capital. Cliff Island subsequently transferred the patents to Digitude.

    A Forbes report from June noted that Digitude Innovations was "put together" by Altitude founder Robert Kramer. Altitude then went on to invest $50 million for the purpose of purchasing consumer electronics patents that would be used to sue big tech companies.

    At the time, Kramer said he had "reached out to many of our prospective customers to encourage them to become early strategic licensees," while a formal licensing program was set to launch in the fourth quarter. Kramer also noted that Digitude is utilizing a new investment strategy of allowing investors to contribute patents instead of money. Participating companies would then receive a license for all of the firm's patents.

    Given that Digitude is in the business of acquiring patents to sue others, the company has been labeled a "patent troll." However, Kramer asserts that he is a financial investor with legitimate claims.

    Though it's not completely clear whether Apple has entered into a more formal agreement with Digitude beyond a licensing agreement, Kincaid offered several plausible scenarios for its relationship with the company. According to him, Apple could be using Digitude as a "hired gun" in its patent battles. However, he did point out that Apple not hesitated to sue its competitors outright when it felt its intellectual property was being infringed on.

    Alternatively, Apple may have traded its patents to Digitude as part of a settlement. Kincaid noted that this scenario "seems more likely," while noting that it was hard to see Apple in a "positive light" if that was the case.

    "The idea that the company didn’t have any options other than handing over valuable patents to a patent troll — knowing full well that it would then use those patents to sue other tech companies — seems ludicrous," he wrote.

    Also worth noting is the fact that Apple, with $81 billion in the bank, is by no means strapped for cash.

    The patent troll issue became a hot topic for debate earlier this year when non-practicing entity Lodsys went after a number of independent iOS and Android developers over an patent related to in-app purchasing. Apple has asked the court to allow it to intervene on behalf of the developers in the suit. The iPhone maker has asserted that iOS developers are covered under its pre-existing license with Lodsys.

    Apple rival Google has been vociferous in its complaints about the current patent system. In August, David Drummond, the company's chief legal officer accused Apple and Microsoft of "banding together" to use patents to attack its Android operating system.

    "Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it," Drummond wrote.

    Google has also said that "anticompetitive" patent lawsuits from Apple and Microsoft against Android vendors had forced the company into purchasing Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. The handset maker has nearly 17,000 issued patents and more than 7,000 filed patent applications.

    AppleInsider | Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to 'patent troll'
    12-11-11 10:51 PM
  7. soccernamlak's Avatar
    I've stated in another post about patents, etc. my thoughts on this:


    The problem is multi-fold. First, you have issues with how patents are issued; the entire system needs to be reformed in my opinion. Many patents are purposely vague so when they do pass, it blankets a larger area of who is infringing on the patents.

    Combined with just how confusing they are to decipher, you get this:

    This is the text from the two patents in question (abstract only; the actual details are about 72+ pages in length).


    First patent:

    "The objective of the present invention is to have a desired screen displayed with shortened waiting time in using functions for the electronic note, etc., while engaging in telephone talk. Another prime objective of the present invention is to achieve an easy-to-use mobile information terminal equipment which also functions as an electronic note, word processor, personal computer, and so on. In transitting from telephone mode (cover closed status) to information terminal mode (cover opened status), the screen to be displayed is determined to be either a historical information, talk log information, or user setting screen. This enables the user to obtain the desired screen with fewer number of operations and with less waiting time."

    Second patent:

    "A mobile communication apparatus capable of notifying a user of the presence of reproduction waiting information like a short message with proving the user with an impact. A controller of the mobile communication apparatus decides, when a flip is opened, whether the reproduction waiting information is stored in a RAM. If it is stored, the controller displays on a screen a window image including an icon associated with the reproduction waiting information. If there are more than one pieces of the reproduction waiting information, multiple icons are displayed in the window image. One of the icons is selected by placing the cursor on it, so that the reproduction waiting information associated with the icon is replayed in response to the operation of a memory key by the user."



    Right, anybody have any idea about a specific tech they are patenting? Or does it sound like a notification pull down (1st) and pop up message / alert (2nd)?

    So you have that. Combine with what companies are faced in doing.

    You own these vague patents. If you don't protect your interests, people will continue to infringe. After a while, you can actually lose your copyright according to patent law if my memory serves correctly: essentially to protect your interests, you must do everything to protect them. In the US, this means sue. But since the patents are so vague to begin with, every single manufacturer has to be included in the lawsuit.

    And then you get this cat and mouse game that's been going on for months if not years now. Companies don't want to lose their patents and IPs, so they sue to protect them and to support shareholders (sue = money; shareholders like money). This means suing everyone under the sun; everyone has patents to protect, so you get the cluserf*** that you see today in patent litigation.

    What's the solution? Personally, patent reform would be the step to go. But until then, sadly these companies can't back down without losing a lot of investments, so away they sue.
    12-11-11 11:56 PM
  8. xandermac's Avatar
    We also have laws that require you to defend a patent or its invalidated. I'm sure a lot of these defense suits would go away if that requirement also went away. Apple probably couldn't be bothered to defend them, so sold them to someone else, who apparently are more than willing to defend them. I don't agree with it but it is what it is.

    Fortunately we have laws against that.
    Last edited by xandermac; 12-12-11 at 10:45 AM.
    12-12-11 10:41 AM
  9. Thud Hardsmack's Avatar
    What do u mean by we and laws against that.
    I actually doubt it will happen because when i looked closly at it, thouse were not theire patents and they were about regualr phones not smart ones.
    If they get companies embroiled in court battles while they keep releasing new products, they may be able to gain a further lead. Whether Apple can actually get companies' production stopped isn't guaranteed, but without the attempt to put bumps in the road it's definitely not happening.

    We also have laws that require you to defend a patent or its invalidated. I'm sure a lot of these defense suits would go away if that requirement also went away. Apple probably couldn't be bothered to defend them, so sold them to someone else, who apparently are more than willing to defend them. I don't agree with it but it is what it is.
    My reply wasn't directed at the OP or patents. It was in response to the word "monopoly" in kbz's post. Regardless of whether patent lawsuits are won/lost, we have safegaurds against any one company taking over. Protection against stomping companies out, not so much.
    Last edited by Reubechs; 12-12-11 at 11:09 AM.
    12-12-11 11:05 AM
  10. kbz1960's Avatar
    My reply wasn't directed at the OP or patents. It was in response to the word "monopoly" in kbz's post. Regardless of whether patent lawsuits are won/lost, we have safegaurds against any one company taking over. Protection against stomping companies out, not so much.
    Yes I know but seems to be happening in more than phones. No monopoly but more like a duopoly.
    12-12-11 11:15 AM
  11. Thud Hardsmack's Avatar
    Yes I know but seems to be happening in more than phones. No monopoly but more like a duopoly.
    Not sure if that's better or worse: with a monopoly, there's just the one company; while there's a danger that they "can and will do whatever they want", said company can be smacked down by the government if they get too outrageous with policies and prices. With a duopoly companies can work together to gouge customers if they so desired. Nothing that hasn't been said of quite a few companies over the years, just re-hashing the conspiracy theory.
    12-12-11 11:45 AM
  12. Thud Hardsmack's Avatar
    I have confirmation on what I posted earlier - my theory is Apple is indeed seeking an injunction that will halt other companies production while they (Apple) keeps going, it's completely legal. There's the chance it could backfire and the court would halt production on all fronts until the patents were sorted out, but again - if you don't try, you'll never know.
    12-12-11 11:54 AM
  13. kbz1960's Avatar
    Not sure if that's better or worse: with a monopoly, there's just the one company; while there's a danger that they "can and will do whatever they want", said company can be smacked down by the government if they get too outrageous with policies and prices. With a duopoly companies can work together to gouge customers if they so desired. Nothing that hasn't been said of quite a few companies over the years, just re-hashing the conspiracy theory.
    You have a good point there. 2 fisted government? LOL
    12-12-11 12:03 PM
  14. Thud Hardsmack's Avatar
    You have a good point there. 2 fisted government? LOL
    Wish I could remember something a friend told he'd found while researching a paper in college - something about companies having charters and were only in existance as long as the public deemed them necessary, also the public could demand revocation of the company charter thereby putting them out of business. His explanation was a bit longer and more concise. :O
    12-12-11 01:24 PM
  15. kbz1960's Avatar
    I wish we could put government out of business or replace them anyway. Yes we can vote and even though I do I'm not so sure it counts or how long the ones wanting change can hold out before being sucked in to the same ol.

    Ouch said too much.
    12-12-11 01:28 PM
  16. Thud Hardsmack's Avatar
    I wish we could put government out of business or replace them anyway. Yes we can vote and even though I do I'm not so sure it counts or how long the ones wanting change can hold out before being sucked in to the same ol.

    Ouch said too much.
    That's actually a bit relevant - if we replaced the current legislative branch with people who want to do it for no compensation period and forbade lobbying, perhaps some of the more idiotic lawsuits wouldn't gain traction. Sadly, corporations as a single entity seem to act like petulant children in order to get what they want, thereby at times involving government resources which could be put to better use. Plus that would mean streamlining the gov't body, and with a legislative branch working for free might save taxpayers a pretty penny, in addition to having more time to work on issues more pertinent to a federal government. And hey, who knows? If consumers had more cash burning holes in their pockets they might be more apt to purchase products.

    Wishful thinking.
    kbz1960 likes this.
    12-12-11 01:45 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD