9 ms·

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 innovatio

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 state to extract money from companies actually producing goods. All people holding patents need to be innovating with them, or otherwise, lose them after a short period.

Black101 5y ago
> All people holding patents need to be innovating with them, or otherwise, lose them after a short period. A patent only last 15 or 20 years... copyright is a much bigger issue (copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years).
tut-urut-utut 5y ago
In this case, I'm glad it's actually targeting Apple. There are a bunch of small innovative companies targeted by patent trolls that don't have means of Apple to fight back and actually change the system to be more level-headed. But I'm afraid Apple will not fight for the reform of the patent system, but will just try to protect itself. In which case I don't care about the outcome, since Apple also uses the same patent trolling tactics elsewhere to suppress its competition, e.g. litigations against Samsung in Germany, to name one such case.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  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.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    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.
    - inertiatic 5y ago
      Apple sells 7 million iPhones a year in the UK, Google tells me. Even at just 100 profit a unit, should be way more than 50 million in profit. Ignoring income from other things like accessories, the store etc.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Not to mention, the complementary effects. Someone buying an iPhone today is more likely to choose an Apple device as their laptop. Someone buying an iPhone today is more likely to buy another iPhone in a few years, over an Android phone.
        bilbo0s 5y ago
        If it's only 7 million, then Apple would definitely leave. I had no idea it was that low. I would have thought it would be from 10 to 14. To put it in perspective, Apple sells 4 times that many in China. With China and the US being their bread and butter. Also, their marketshare in China and the US has way more upside. (Room for growth.) I can understand now. You definitely don't want to pay money to stay in a market that has less upside than your money makers. That would mean you're using money from your money makers to fund customers who are not your money makers. From a much smaller businessman's perspective, I'd file that under, "There are some customers out there that are too much trouble."
        Tsiklon 5y ago
        There are 65 Million people in the UK, China and the United States are significantly larger both in terms of population. I haven't checked the numbers, but it is not unreasonable to assume that there is a similar amount of iPhones sold per year per capita in the UK as compared to those other two markets.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    Doesn't seem to be that detrimental in China. Apple always manages to work something out over there.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  > bunch of small innovative companies The smart move for the patent troll is to target some of these smaller companies and write license agreements in the form of "I agree to pay $20 per device sold to license this patent". $20 is nothing to a company selling Ships, Oil rigs, tunnel boring machines, etc. Then when it comes to apple, paying $20 per iphone is suddenly rather expensive, but the troll can show the court lots of licensees all agreeing to pay that rate, and it can then be established as a reasonable rate for this specific patent.
- rasz 5y ago
  Apple is super pro patents, they never go for patent invalidation. Case in point they got sued by S3 for S3TC, despite S3TC being stolen Apple QuickTime Road Pizza patent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26758884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26758884, and caved in without much fight.
  - tooltalk 5y ago
    Apple knows how to play the patent game and routinely petitions PTAB review to invalidate patents. I'm willing to wager that there are at least a few dozens of on-going reviews petitioned by Apple (and its proxy) at any given moment. Take for instance Apple's lawsuits with VirnetX which have been dragged out for several years appeal after appeal with multiple patent invalidations -- in one of the lawsuits, Apple ended up losing to the tune of $500+M, finally paid out in 2021. Apple is pro-patent -- and also one of the most egregious abuser -- insofaras it can game the system in their favor. Like many patent trolls, Apple also shops around for favorable legal outcome, aka, forum shopping, -- eg, Lucy Koh in Apple's backyard is one notorious example. And who can forget Apple's patent troll operation, Rockstar consortium, that crashed and burned as it was taking off.
throw0101a 5y ago
> 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 patent to get something, and then the new holder can use their potentially larger resources to get licensing compliance.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Sure -- my conditions were on the holder of the patent, not whether it can be sold. In the case the patent owner isn't doing any R&D or engaging in economically productive activity (at all; nor esp. related to the patent). I think we need, even a very minimal, condition here: The government is only going to shake-down your competitor if you're actually in the same market. If you're just a guy hold a slip of paper, sorry, the government isn't your muscle.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    > In the case the patent owner isn't doing any R&D But by licensing the patent to interested parties, they might be supporting R&D of people who might not otherwise be doing R&D in this direction. The ability to license some tech you know is likely to work in the form of a patent has some value.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      They might be. All of this can be weighed by judges. I'd be inclined to say: sorry, licensing/selling to companies not in the market is now not possible. If you need to mitigate risk, insurance companies (etc.) can offer products against patents -- they still have value, just only now to companies actually operating in the relevant market. And of course, "relevant market" can be read broadly by judges. Either way, patent law is running amok over innovation, and goverment shake downs and money transfers from producers to rentseekers is a net loss for everyone.
Taniwha 5y ago
How would this look different from someone holding a perfectly valid patent that Apple was using without licensing it? (I have no idea as to whether this one is valid or not, I'm as against patent trolls suing people with bogus patents as anyone else) Surely the patent IS the innovation, and a perfectly valid way to use that innovation is to license it to larger companies.
- _Understated_ 5y ago
  It should be fairly trivial for a judge to ascertain whether someone owns a patent to use legitimately (tech company owning a tech patent for example, whether they are currently using it, invented it, bought it etc.) or whether they are a bunch of lawyers extorting money from legit companies by (ab)using the legal system.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The patent holder would be a company operating in the same market as apple, having a viable market for products somewhat related to the patents they hold. Eg., an electronics company. If they can't meet that condition, sell the patent to a company who can. They'll actually innovate with it (ie., use the licence feeds to fund something useful).
  - MikeDelta 5y ago
    This is a great condition that would invalidate all patent-trolls.
  - salawat 5y ago
    This means all patents will eventually flow to a single holder over time (the one most able to offer a patent buyout pipeline). This is a terrible idea without strong anti-trust and forced break-up and anti-consolidation enforcement. I hate patent trolls too, but if your two outcomes are A) all you'll get is a bunch of umbrella companies coupling a legal firm to a modest widget mill. This is a great way to proliferate e-trash though and B ) The leviathan in town sets up a window to buy out every patent they can to save no long term litigation costs... Maybe your system is flawed to begin with.
onion2k 5y ago
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 note here is that the comment was made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple agree to be legal bound by another case next year to decide the patent license fee. Apple are arguing that they'll leave the market if the fee is too high. The reality is actually that if they agree to a binding agreement in the current case, and then decide the fee is too high after the case next year and refuse to pay it, they'll be banned from selling iPhones in the UK. Their exit from the market won't be their choice. This remark is a scare tactic aimed at making the court agree a lower patent fee. No one believes that Apple will voluntarily leave the UK market, but if the court imposes a high fee Apple might be forced to. It's highly improbable, but it's not entirely impossible.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Something very important to note here is that the comment was made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple agree to be legal bound by another case next year to decide the patent license fee. Apple are arguing that they'll leave the market if the fee is too high. The reality is actually that if they agree to a binding agreement in the current case, and then decide the fee is too high after the case next year and refuse to pay it, they'll be banned from selling iPhones in the UK. Their exit from the market won't be their choice. I'm having trouble seeing why this sequence: Court: pay $X fee or stop selling iPhones. Apple: OK, we'll stop selling iPhones. doesn't represent Apple choosing to stop selling iPhones.
  - jsbdk 5y ago
    Pay x or I'll break your legs.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      I think you've gotten your example backwards. If you tell me "Pay $X or I'll break your legs", and I say I'll take the broken legs, and you break my legs -- you really want to argue that that's the decision branch where I wasn't really making a choice?
doublejay1999 5y ago
Apple are a patent troll company, often using their size and weight to beat down competition. They have stolen functionality at will to make the product they want, and then fought it out in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademarks,_copyrights,_and_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademar...
Spartan-S63 5y ago
Curious: what might the unintended consequences be of making patents non-transferable?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Only entities with the money to defend patents would bother to acquire them. Owning a patent would become useless to small-fry. So only large entities would own patents. The solution is to stop registering stupid patents, and (this would require a massive effort) invalidate all the stupid patents that are already on file. Or perhaps, change the law so that if an alleged infringer turns out to have "infringed" an invalid patent, all costs go to the alleged infringer. That would encourage people to fight patent trolls, rather than just roll over. [Edit] I suppose that would only work if the petitioning NPE were required to deposit a bond with the court.
crossroadsguy 5y ago
What do you think of patents Apple owns? If some company decides to borrow those patents and Apple asks for money, who should set the price? Again, Apple?
dantheman 5y ago
Patents shouldn't exist.

Black101 5y ago

> All people holding patents need to be innovating with them, or otherwise, lose them after a short period. A patent only last 15 or 20 years... copyright is a much bigger issue (copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years).

tut-urut-utut 5y ago

In this case, I'm glad it's actually targeting Apple. There are a bunch of small innovative companies targeted by patent trolls that don't have means of Apple to fight back and actually change the system to be more level-headed. But I'm afraid Apple will not fight for the reform of the patent system, but will just try to protect itself. In which case I don't care about the outcome, since Apple also uses the same patent trolling tactics elsewhere to suppress its competition, e.g. litigations against Samsung in Germany, to name one such case.

Tenoke 5y ago
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.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  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.
  - inertiatic 5y ago
    Apple sells 7 million iPhones a year in the UK, Google tells me. Even at just 100 profit a unit, should be way more than 50 million in profit. Ignoring income from other things like accessories, the store etc.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Not to mention, the complementary effects. Someone buying an iPhone today is more likely to choose an Apple device as their laptop. Someone buying an iPhone today is more likely to buy another iPhone in a few years, over an Android phone.
      - bilbo0s 5y ago
        If it's only 7 million, then Apple would definitely leave. I had no idea it was that low. I would have thought it would be from 10 to 14. To put it in perspective, Apple sells 4 times that many in China. With China and the US being their bread and butter. Also, their marketshare in China and the US has way more upside. (Room for growth.) I can understand now. You definitely don't want to pay money to stay in a market that has less upside than your money makers. That would mean you're using money from your money makers to fund customers who are not your money makers. From a much smaller businessman's perspective, I'd file that under, "There are some customers out there that are too much trouble."
        Tsiklon 5y ago
        There are 65 Million people in the UK, China and the United States are significantly larger both in terms of population. I haven't checked the numbers, but it is not unreasonable to assume that there is a similar amount of iPhones sold per year per capita in the UK as compared to those other two markets.
- rchaud 5y ago
  Doesn't seem to be that detrimental in China. Apple always manages to work something out over there.
londons_explore 5y ago
> bunch of small innovative companies The smart move for the patent troll is to target some of these smaller companies and write license agreements in the form of "I agree to pay $20 per device sold to license this patent". $20 is nothing to a company selling Ships, Oil rigs, tunnel boring machines, etc. Then when it comes to apple, paying $20 per iphone is suddenly rather expensive, but the troll can show the court lots of licensees all agreeing to pay that rate, and it can then be established as a reasonable rate for this specific patent.
rasz 5y ago
Apple is super pro patents, they never go for patent invalidation. Case in point they got sued by S3 for S3TC, despite S3TC being stolen Apple QuickTime Road Pizza patent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26758884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26758884, and caved in without much fight.
- tooltalk 5y ago
  Apple knows how to play the patent game and routinely petitions PTAB review to invalidate patents. I'm willing to wager that there are at least a few dozens of on-going reviews petitioned by Apple (and its proxy) at any given moment. Take for instance Apple's lawsuits with VirnetX which have been dragged out for several years appeal after appeal with multiple patent invalidations -- in one of the lawsuits, Apple ended up losing to the tune of $500+M, finally paid out in 2021. Apple is pro-patent -- and also one of the most egregious abuser -- insofaras it can game the system in their favor. Like many patent trolls, Apple also shops around for favorable legal outcome, aka, forum shopping, -- eg, Lucy Koh in Apple's backyard is one notorious example. And who can forget Apple's patent troll operation, Rockstar consortium, that crashed and burned as it was taking off.

throw0101a 5y ago

> 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 patent to get something, and then the new holder can use their potentially larger resources to get licensing compliance.

mjburgess 5y ago
Sure -- my conditions were on the holder of the patent, not whether it can be sold. In the case the patent owner isn't doing any R&D or engaging in economically productive activity (at all; nor esp. related to the patent). I think we need, even a very minimal, condition here: The government is only going to shake-down your competitor if you're actually in the same market. If you're just a guy hold a slip of paper, sorry, the government isn't your muscle.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  > In the case the patent owner isn't doing any R&D But by licensing the patent to interested parties, they might be supporting R&D of people who might not otherwise be doing R&D in this direction. The ability to license some tech you know is likely to work in the form of a patent has some value.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    They might be. All of this can be weighed by judges. I'd be inclined to say: sorry, licensing/selling to companies not in the market is now not possible. If you need to mitigate risk, insurance companies (etc.) can offer products against patents -- they still have value, just only now to companies actually operating in the relevant market. And of course, "relevant market" can be read broadly by judges. Either way, patent law is running amok over innovation, and goverment shake downs and money transfers from producers to rentseekers is a net loss for everyone.

Taniwha 5y ago

How would this look different from someone holding a perfectly valid patent that Apple was using without licensing it? (I have no idea as to whether this one is valid or not, I'm as against patent trolls suing people with bogus patents as anyone else) Surely the patent IS the innovation, and a perfectly valid way to use that innovation is to license it to larger companies.

_Understated_ 5y ago
It should be fairly trivial for a judge to ascertain whether someone owns a patent to use legitimately (tech company owning a tech patent for example, whether they are currently using it, invented it, bought it etc.) or whether they are a bunch of lawyers extorting money from legit companies by (ab)using the legal system.
mjburgess 5y ago
The patent holder would be a company operating in the same market as apple, having a viable market for products somewhat related to the patents they hold. Eg., an electronics company. If they can't meet that condition, sell the patent to a company who can. They'll actually innovate with it (ie., use the licence feeds to fund something useful).
- MikeDelta 5y ago
  This is a great condition that would invalidate all patent-trolls.
- salawat 5y ago
  This means all patents will eventually flow to a single holder over time (the one most able to offer a patent buyout pipeline). This is a terrible idea without strong anti-trust and forced break-up and anti-consolidation enforcement. I hate patent trolls too, but if your two outcomes are A) all you'll get is a bunch of umbrella companies coupling a legal firm to a modest widget mill. This is a great way to proliferate e-trash though and B ) The leviathan in town sets up a window to buy out every patent they can to save no long term litigation costs... Maybe your system is flawed to begin with.

onion2k 5y ago

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 note here is that the comment was made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple agree to be legal bound by another case next year to decide the patent license fee. Apple are arguing that they'll leave the market if the fee is too high. The reality is actually that if they agree to a binding agreement in the current case, and then decide the fee is too high after the case next year and refuse to pay it, they'll be banned from selling iPhones in the UK. Their exit from the market won't be their choice. This remark is a scare tactic aimed at making the court agree a lower patent fee. No one believes that Apple will voluntarily leave the UK market, but if the court imposes a high fee Apple might be forced to. It's highly improbable, but it's not entirely impossible.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Something very important to note here is that the comment was made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple agree to be legal bound by another case next year to decide the patent license fee. Apple are arguing that they'll leave the market if the fee is too high. The reality is actually that if they agree to a binding agreement in the current case, and then decide the fee is too high after the case next year and refuse to pay it, they'll be banned from selling iPhones in the UK. Their exit from the market won't be their choice. I'm having trouble seeing why this sequence: Court: pay $X fee or stop selling iPhones. Apple: OK, we'll stop selling iPhones. doesn't represent Apple choosing to stop selling iPhones.
- jsbdk 5y ago
  Pay x or I'll break your legs.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    I think you've gotten your example backwards. If you tell me "Pay $X or I'll break your legs", and I say I'll take the broken legs, and you break my legs -- you really want to argue that that's the decision branch where I wasn't really making a choice?

doublejay1999 5y ago

Apple are a patent troll company, often using their size and weight to beat down competition. They have stolen functionality at will to make the product they want, and then fought it out in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademarks,_copyrights,_and_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademar...

Spartan-S63 5y ago

Curious: what might the unintended consequences be of making patents non-transferable?

denton-scratch 5y ago
Only entities with the money to defend patents would bother to acquire them. Owning a patent would become useless to small-fry. So only large entities would own patents. The solution is to stop registering stupid patents, and (this would require a massive effort) invalidate all the stupid patents that are already on file. Or perhaps, change the law so that if an alleged infringer turns out to have "infringed" an invalid patent, all costs go to the alleged infringer. That would encourage people to fight patent trolls, rather than just roll over. [Edit] I suppose that would only work if the petitioning NPE were required to deposit a bond with the court.

crossroadsguy 5y ago

What do you think of patents Apple owns? If some company decides to borrow those patents and Apple asks for money, who should set the price? Again, Apple?

dantheman 5y ago

Patents shouldn't exist.