12 ms·

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

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?
    - jsbdk 5y ago
      Of course you were... You could've paid.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jerf 5y ago
        Common law has the concept of "under duress". I'm sure other legal traditions have something similar. It is also common sense in the US culture in general that you can't be said to agree to having your legs broken in a situation like that. While the mythical "homo econominus" may say that there's no difference between "give me $$$ or I'll inflict severe negative utility on you" and "give me $$$ or I'll reduce the positive utility you receive from selling goods by the same amount" by saying it's the same amount of utility in absolute terms in both branches, in practice nobody feels or operates that way, and that's with steelmanning this argument by declining to note all the obviously relevant ways in which this metaphor is a mismatch.
- onion2k 5y ago
  No doubt it's possible to reframe it so it looks like Apple's decision but it isn't really. It's more like; Court: Pay $x fee Apple: No Court: Your punishment is that you're no longer to allowed to sell iPhones The outcome is the same, but the reality is that Apple really don't want to stop selling iPhones and would never voluntarily stop, so they're not really choosing to if they're legally prevented from doing so.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    In your framing, did Apple not choose to say "No"? It's not like they're not aware of the situation -- you're commenting on them talking about it. The court is providing circumstances. Apple responds to circumstances. But the only way they can respond is by determining what they want to do, and then trying to do it. Note also that in your framing, unless you believe the court would respond to Apple attempting to pay the fee by saying "no, you had your chance, it's gone now, get out of the market", it's still Apple choosing not to sell iPhones.
mjburgess 5y ago
Well as you say it's "leave the market for mobile phones", ie., it'll be iPhone which goes -- rather than Apple as such. If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return. Also, my issue is exactly with "validity" conditions. Regardless of what they are, my view is we need a change in the law to make cases of this kind non-starters. My initial stab is this: patents have to held by companies operating in the relevant market to be valid. The ensures licensing fees go towards companies capable of innovation, and limits patent trolling. I'd prefer, even, to add: those companies are using those patents; or otherwise, have +10 years from their last use in a product (etc.). However, one step at a time.
- vinni2 5y ago
  > If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return And loose the customers base who would otherwise be locked into iOS/Apple ecosystem? It’s not just profits from iPhones they would be loosing.
  - chasil 5y ago
    E.U. countries are very close by. Apple products would likely be in duty free in force. Trade in used devices would be brisk, fed in part by what is brought in. Then, Apple begins running ads for sympathetic members of parliament, with astonishing levels of cash.
    - pmyteh 5y ago
      You're right about the imports. Not sure the lobbying campaign would go like that: party discipline in the UK is too strong for picking off sympathetic MPs to be a useful strategy, and political advertising is very heavily regulated.
    - blibble 5y ago
      the devices that infringe identify themselves to cell towers don't they? would be easy enough for the patent owner to obtain an injunction preventing new devices being used on major cellular operators
chasil 5y ago
In the interests of demonstrating a harsh penalty for judicial overreach, I would like to see this case made, and Apple abandon the market. I don't know the British system well enough to understand what reaction public opinion would have on members of parliament, but some censure of the judge and reversal of the patent decision could happen.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Even as a Brit, I don’t feel that I understand the British system, though from everything post 2016 I’ve reached the conclusion that neither does the current British government, and therefore they may well censure the judges even though the judges are supposed to be independent. Or they might do nothing, because Apple isn’t a British company and they want to help Amstrad take over its market share.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    The judiciary isnt supposed to be independent. That is the american system. In the UK all power is held by parliament and extends from parliament.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      The power may flow from parliament, but the judiciary is still (supposed to be) independent: • https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/ https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-t... • https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-new-lord-chancellor-the-rt-hon-robert-buckland-qc-mp/ https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-ne...
      - mjburgess 5y ago
        That is a different sense of the word "independent" than the American "separation of powers" one.
snarf21 5y ago
I think that is the material change we need. Patents must be used as an active and relevant part of your product or you don't deserve protection. The point is to encourage innovation and from someone from basically just reselling your idea. If you aren't selling it, then why do you deserve protection?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  It makes literally no difference, as the parent comment already mentioned. You deserve protection for coming up with the technology, not for using it. These patent trolls are one of the methods to support a research program. Universities, for example, aren't set up to sell devices. As long as the patent is for some actual innovation, there is nothing wrong with this market structure, economically or morally.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    Everyone keeps touting that in the future technology will solve climate change. Will it? Or will we have to wait for the patent period to expire of said technologies.
  - ip26 5y ago
    The whole point of the patent program is to give you a boost in using the technology (to encourage you to come up with it in the first place) A research program that only produces patents for patent trolls seems like a useless research program.
    - sharken 5y ago
      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.
      - Sanguinaire 5y ago
        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.
joshstrange 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. Disagree, fully, 100%. To believe this you have to first buy into the idea that the patent system is a good one and/or that people who are doing none of the actual work should be able to rent-seek the people who actually are. If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed to force other companies to pay you for it, that's just a stupid system (even if it's the system we currently have). I don't care if it's Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, or an indie developer, none of them should have to put up with BS patents like this.
- joshuaissac 5y ago
  > If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed to force other companies to pay you for it Companies like ARM would not be able to exist under the system you propose. Their whole business model is creating patents and licensing them to others instead of using the patents themselves. Preventing companies like ARM from licensing their patents would only benefit incumbents like Intel who can afford the massive amounts of investment required to turn those patents into chips.
  - joshstrange 5y ago
    So I think we can all agree there is a big difference between the generic/basic patents we’ve seen trolls use over and over again (stuff like “an input device causes and output device to do something”) and an instruction set/CPU architecture. Also I’d bet money ARM has multiple in-house processors for testing/R&D. That’s a far cry from the patent trolls who do nothing but “own” a patent they do nothing with and didn’t come up with in the first place most of the time. All that said: so what? My ideal world wouldn’t have patents at all. They cause way more harm than good. And we’ve seen time and time again that the big companies will just straight up copy or buy up any competition, the system is broken.
    - joshuaissac 5y ago

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?
  - jsbdk 5y ago
    Of course you were... You could've paid.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jerf 5y ago
      Common law has the concept of "under duress". I'm sure other legal traditions have something similar. It is also common sense in the US culture in general that you can't be said to agree to having your legs broken in a situation like that. While the mythical "homo econominus" may say that there's no difference between "give me $$$ or I'll inflict severe negative utility on you" and "give me $$$ or I'll reduce the positive utility you receive from selling goods by the same amount" by saying it's the same amount of utility in absolute terms in both branches, in practice nobody feels or operates that way, and that's with steelmanning this argument by declining to note all the obviously relevant ways in which this metaphor is a mismatch.
onion2k 5y ago
No doubt it's possible to reframe it so it looks like Apple's decision but it isn't really. It's more like; Court: Pay $x fee Apple: No Court: Your punishment is that you're no longer to allowed to sell iPhones The outcome is the same, but the reality is that Apple really don't want to stop selling iPhones and would never voluntarily stop, so they're not really choosing to if they're legally prevented from doing so.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  In your framing, did Apple not choose to say "No"? It's not like they're not aware of the situation -- you're commenting on them talking about it. The court is providing circumstances. Apple responds to circumstances. But the only way they can respond is by determining what they want to do, and then trying to do it. Note also that in your framing, unless you believe the court would respond to Apple attempting to pay the fee by saying "no, you had your chance, it's gone now, get out of the market", it's still Apple choosing not to sell iPhones.

mjburgess 5y ago

Well as you say it's "leave the market for mobile phones", ie., it'll be iPhone which goes -- rather than Apple as such. If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return. Also, my issue is exactly with "validity" conditions. Regardless of what they are, my view is we need a change in the law to make cases of this kind non-starters. My initial stab is this: patents have to held by companies operating in the relevant market to be valid. The ensures licensing fees go towards companies capable of innovation, and limits patent trolling. I'd prefer, even, to add: those companies are using those patents; or otherwise, have +10 years from their last use in a product (etc.). However, one step at a time.

vinni2 5y ago
> If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return And loose the customers base who would otherwise be locked into iOS/Apple ecosystem? It’s not just profits from iPhones they would be loosing.
- chasil 5y ago
  E.U. countries are very close by. Apple products would likely be in duty free in force. Trade in used devices would be brisk, fed in part by what is brought in. Then, Apple begins running ads for sympathetic members of parliament, with astonishing levels of cash.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    You're right about the imports. Not sure the lobbying campaign would go like that: party discipline in the UK is too strong for picking off sympathetic MPs to be a useful strategy, and political advertising is very heavily regulated.
  - blibble 5y ago
    the devices that infringe identify themselves to cell towers don't they? would be easy enough for the patent owner to obtain an injunction preventing new devices being used on major cellular operators

chasil 5y ago

In the interests of demonstrating a harsh penalty for judicial overreach, I would like to see this case made, and Apple abandon the market. I don't know the British system well enough to understand what reaction public opinion would have on members of parliament, but some censure of the judge and reversal of the patent decision could happen.

ben_w 5y ago
Even as a Brit, I don’t feel that I understand the British system, though from everything post 2016 I’ve reached the conclusion that neither does the current British government, and therefore they may well censure the judges even though the judges are supposed to be independent. Or they might do nothing, because Apple isn’t a British company and they want to help Amstrad take over its market share.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The judiciary isnt supposed to be independent. That is the american system. In the UK all power is held by parliament and extends from parliament.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    The power may flow from parliament, but the judiciary is still (supposed to be) independent: • https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/ https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-t... • https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-new-lord-chancellor-the-rt-hon-robert-buckland-qc-mp/ https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-ne...
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      That is a different sense of the word "independent" than the American "separation of powers" one.

snarf21 5y ago

I think that is the material change we need. Patents must be used as an active and relevant part of your product or you don't deserve protection. The point is to encourage innovation and from someone from basically just reselling your idea. If you aren't selling it, then why do you deserve protection?

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
It makes literally no difference, as the parent comment already mentioned. You deserve protection for coming up with the technology, not for using it. These patent trolls are one of the methods to support a research program. Universities, for example, aren't set up to sell devices. As long as the patent is for some actual innovation, there is nothing wrong with this market structure, economically or morally.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  Everyone keeps touting that in the future technology will solve climate change. Will it? Or will we have to wait for the patent period to expire of said technologies.
- ip26 5y ago
  The whole point of the patent program is to give you a boost in using the technology (to encourage you to come up with it in the first place) A research program that only produces patents for patent trolls seems like a useless research program.
  - sharken 5y ago
    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.
    - Sanguinaire 5y ago
      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.

joshstrange 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. Disagree, fully, 100%. To believe this you have to first buy into the idea that the patent system is a good one and/or that people who are doing none of the actual work should be able to rent-seek the people who actually are. If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed to force other companies to pay you for it, that's just a stupid system (even if it's the system we currently have). I don't care if it's Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, or an indie developer, none of them should have to put up with BS patents like this.

joshuaissac 5y ago
> If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed to force other companies to pay you for it Companies like ARM would not be able to exist under the system you propose. Their whole business model is creating patents and licensing them to others instead of using the patents themselves. Preventing companies like ARM from licensing their patents would only benefit incumbents like Intel who can afford the massive amounts of investment required to turn those patents into chips.
- joshstrange 5y ago
  So I think we can all agree there is a big difference between the generic/basic patents we’ve seen trolls use over and over again (stuff like “an input device causes and output device to do something”) and an instruction set/CPU architecture. Also I’d bet money ARM has multiple in-house processors for testing/R&D. That’s a far cry from the patent trolls who do nothing but “own” a patent they do nothing with and didn’t come up with in the first place most of the time. All that said: so what? My ideal world wouldn’t have patents at all. They cause way more harm than good. And we’ve seen time and time again that the big companies will just straight up copy or buy up any competition, the system is broken.
  - joshuaissac 5y ago