3 ms·
The facts alleged here are that apple is using a patented technology, held by someone else, without licensing it first. And now that this is discovered, the rem
by freeone3000 5y ago
The facts alleged here are that apple is using a patented technology, held by someone else, without licensing it first. And now that this is discovered, the remedy is to have Apple pay the licensing fees for the patent (including retroactively).
Without the ability to sue people infringing on your patent, how do you ensure people will pay to license it?
- dkersten 5y agoIf 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.
- freeone3000 5y agoThat 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?
- dkersten 5y agoIf 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.