5 ms·

Apple ordered to pay $533M for patent infringement

31 points by paralelogram 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mdemare 12y ago
How is it news when the country's most infamous court awards damages to patent trolls? They always do that, and then the defendant always appeals. Boring. Predictable. Not News.
- hayksaakian 12y ago
  This would be clickbait: Shocking/appalling/hyped up title + otherwise boring or non-news article = clicks and ad money
- tzs 12y ago
  Defendants win about as often as plaintiffs do in the Eastern District of Texas. They are about equal both for wins by summary judgement and for wins by jury verdict.
  - huxley 12y ago
    After several of its most plaintiff-friendly judges retired. The district still has a disproportionate rate of out-of-court settlements in the country;
    - tzs 12y ago
      > After several of its most plaintiff-friendly judges retired. Got a cite for that? Defendants have been winning as much on average as plaintiffs since around 2006 or so, which is well before the retirements. There is considerable year to year variation, of course. Defendants did particularly well in 2013 in jury verdicts, for example, but then plaintiffs did well in 2014 so that they were in balance for the two years.
nakedrobot2 12y ago
Besides the fact the behemoths of corporate lobbying will prevent it, is there any reason to keep patents valid for 20 years, as they were 100 years ago? Shouldn't they be limited to, say, 3 or 5 years? I think that would go a very long way to solving this horrendous mess that is the patent system.
- rtpg 12y ago
  3 years is not enough time to commercialise in a lot of industries. Maybe would make sense in software, though software patents are silly to begin with
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    Software patents are specifically prohibited, too: Abstract subjects are not patent-eligible.
  - nakedrobot2 12y ago
    Fine. 5 years then...? 20 years is insane in these times.
GordonS 12y ago
The article doesn't actually mention any details of the patents, or patent numbers. Anyone know what they relate to?
- kamilner 12y ago
  I found a list at http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apples-itunes-store-allegedly-infringes-several-smartflash-patents.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apples-i... "Smartflash's lawsuit filing includes the following list of patents that they're claiming Apple has infringed upon: 7,334,720, 7,942,317, 8,033,458, 8,061,598, 8,118,221 and 8,336,772. All of the patents are respectively entitled "Data Storage and Access Systems.""

31 points by paralelogram 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

How is it news when the country's most infamous court awards damages to patent trolls? They always do that, and then the defendant always appeals. Boring. Predictable. Not News.

hayksaakian 12y ago
This would be clickbait: Shocking/appalling/hyped up title + otherwise boring or non-news article = clicks and ad money
tzs 12y ago
Defendants win about as often as plaintiffs do in the Eastern District of Texas. They are about equal both for wins by summary judgement and for wins by jury verdict.
- huxley 12y ago
  After several of its most plaintiff-friendly judges retired. The district still has a disproportionate rate of out-of-court settlements in the country;
  - tzs 12y ago
    > After several of its most plaintiff-friendly judges retired. Got a cite for that? Defendants have been winning as much on average as plaintiffs since around 2006 or so, which is well before the retirements. There is considerable year to year variation, of course. Defendants did particularly well in 2013 in jury verdicts, for example, but then plaintiffs did well in 2014 so that they were in balance for the two years.

nakedrobot2 12y ago

Besides the fact the behemoths of corporate lobbying will prevent it, is there any reason to keep patents valid for 20 years, as they were 100 years ago? Shouldn't they be limited to, say, 3 or 5 years? I think that would go a very long way to solving this horrendous mess that is the patent system.

rtpg 12y ago
3 years is not enough time to commercialise in a lot of industries. Maybe would make sense in software, though software patents are silly to begin with
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Software patents are specifically prohibited, too: Abstract subjects are not patent-eligible.
- nakedrobot2 12y ago
  Fine. 5 years then...? 20 years is insane in these times.

GordonS 12y ago

The article doesn't actually mention any details of the patents, or patent numbers. Anyone know what they relate to?

kamilner 12y ago
I found a list at http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apples-itunes-store-allegedly-infringes-several-smartflash-patents.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apples-i... "Smartflash's lawsuit filing includes the following list of patents that they're claiming Apple has infringed upon: 7,334,720, 7,942,317, 8,033,458, 8,061,598, 8,118,221 and 8,336,772. All of the patents are respectively entitled "Data Storage and Access Systems.""