3 ms·

>It is pretty rediculous a company that is less than 2 years old can win a settlement for fucking twice it's market cap No it's not. Regardless of what you thi

>It is pretty rediculous a company that is less than 2 years old can win a settlement for fucking twice it's market cap No it's not. Regardless of what you think of them if they own IP that was used by another company to sell a product that generated hundreds of billions of dollars then they should be entitled to fair compensation regardless of their market cap.

vonklaus 10y ago
iMessage came out in 2011, and was likely in development much earlier. this company incorporated in 2015. So, I understand what you are saying and it is why I noted problems with any one factor being used, but summarizing and adding what I said above: * company does not have a product using the technology. * company has not existed longer than the product infringing on their technology, and is not a whollly owned (or largely owned) subsidiary of another company. * company is suiing for a sum larger than its own market cap. * company wants an injunction placed on the "infringing" technology & ops. * company awarded a sum 3x its market cap and is asking for a sum close to its market cap on top of that. So, yes, I get it and noted it in a different comment, age and marekt cap alone would be bad for startups and imperfect metrics. I believe that if you consider the above points, there is a way to create scale/filter for trolls that would allow "real" companies to actually operate. If a company has no product, and its primary source of revenue is from direct litigation and settlements, is new/has recently restructured itself, is a public company with highly consolidated holdings, and is a patent troll, it should be considered a patent troll. edit: I was incorrect, they IPOd in 2015. They started suing apple(or the article I read referenced the suit) as early as 2013 so they are in fact older.

3 ms·

>It is pretty rediculous a company that is less than 2 years old can win a settlement for fucking twice it's market cap No it's not. Regardless of what you thi

by bitmapbrother 10y ago

vonklaus 10y ago
iMessage came out in 2011, and was likely in development much earlier. this company incorporated in 2015. So, I understand what you are saying and it is why I noted problems with any one factor being used, but summarizing and adding what I said above: * company does not have a product using the technology. * company has not existed longer than the product infringing on their technology, and is not a whollly owned (or largely owned) subsidiary of another company. * company is suiing for a sum larger than its own market cap. * company wants an injunction placed on the "infringing" technology & ops. * company awarded a sum 3x its market cap and is asking for a sum close to its market cap on top of that. So, yes, I get it and noted it in a different comment, age and marekt cap alone would be bad for startups and imperfect metrics. I believe that if you consider the above points, there is a way to create scale/filter for trolls that would allow "real" companies to actually operate. If a company has no product, and its primary source of revenue is from direct litigation and settlements, is new/has recently restructured itself, is a public company with highly consolidated holdings, and is a patent troll, it should be considered a patent troll. edit: I was incorrect, they IPOd in 2015. They started suing apple(or the article I read referenced the suit) as early as 2013 so they are in fact older.