Posted on 02/25/2015 11:52:36 AM PST by Citizen Zed
A federal jury has ruled that Apple willfully infringed on patents when developing iTunes' data storage systems, following eight hours of deliberation. The Tyler, Texas–based judge presiding over the case has ordered the company to pay $532.9 million in damages, according to Reuters.
The plaintiff, Smartflash LLC — which is based on the British Virgin Island of Tortola but also has a Texas address — filed the suit (viewable as a PDF) in May 2013, seeking $852 million in damages and citing six patents that related to the storing and accessing of songs, videos and games. The company does not make any products, nor does it have any employees other than founder Patrick Racz, who is a co-investor in the patents.
At the time, the suit named three game manufacturers as defendants in addition to Apple, claiming that another one of iTunes' functions violated Smartflash's in-app-purchase patents, but they were later dismissed from the suit. Regarding Apple's role, it claimed that Racz had met with one of Apple's current senior directors, Augustin Ferrugia, in 2000 when he was at another company to discuss the technology related to the patents. Bloomberg reports that Smartflash also claimed it deserved a percentage of sales of iPhones, iPads and Macs, which use iTunes.
Apple had attempted to get the case thrown out, claiming that Smartflash's technology was too generic for patenting, Reuters reported, but the judge who presided over the case ruled against them. Apple's subsequent argument in trial was that the jury should deem Smartflash's patents invalid because other, previously patented technologies had similar functions, and were worth only $4.5 million.
Bloomberg reports that Apple made $18 billion off iTunes in the last fiscal year, about 10 percent of the company's total revenue.
(Excerpt) Read more at rollingstone.com ...
take it out of petty cash
I used to work with the legal department of T-Mobile. One of the challenges they had was some companies existed for the sole purpose of reverse engineering other companies’ hardware, finding what functionality was not patented, then patenting it and suing the company for patent infringement.
It can be a lucrative business.
Sounds like what this company does. No products, no employees. They just own patents.
Chump change
It used to be first to invent, though now it is first to file. If first to invent, a stunt like that would be impossible.
It used to be first to invent, though now it is first to file. If first to invent, a stunt like that would be impossible.
It has become simply a game.
maybe the punishment for infringing patents should be.... death!!!
/s
Actually, no, this one seems legit, at least insofar as Samsung is implicated.
From the lawsuit:
22. In or around the beginning of 2002, Patrick Racz, one of the co-inventors of the patents- in-suit, collaborated with Britney Spears to commercialize the technology covered by the patents-in-suit.
23. Mark Steverson, one of Ms. Spears’ lawyers, was involved in these commercialization efforts.
24. Mr. Steverson contacted Samsung Richardson and eventually gave a presentation to Samsung Richardson about the technology covered by the patents-in-suit and Mr. Racz’s plans to continue developing the technology for reader player devices and cell phones.
Already posted here, though.
Exclusive: China drops leading technology brands for state purchases
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3261437/posts
Following the verdict, which applied to three of Smartflash’s patents, Apple said it planned to appeal the ruling. “Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented,” the company said in a statement. “We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating, and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take this fight up through the court system.”
“The court in Tyler, Texas has a history of ruling against Apple in suits like these. In 2012, a judge ordered the company to pay $368 million to VirnetX Inc. in a patent suit, Reuters reported, though a federal appeals court later ruled that the court had calculated the damages wrong and threw out that amount.”
I’ll bet they are going to have to fire some more staff they find to be not “gay friendly” enough, so they don’t have to dip into their stash.
A company that has shipped tons of jobs to China, patents stuff it didn’t invent or goofy stuff likes shapes and animations or things it never even sells (but will sue if someone else does), has the nerve to spout off about these guys?
In the scenario you describe the patent applications should fail the novelty test. I.e., no patent for YOU!
Even if it flies by the examiner in the first stage, there are remedies to nullify a patent that shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.
If that fails and it goes to some incompetent judge/jury - good luck!
There is a story about Alexander Bell getting the patent on the phone because his competitor (Gray), who filed his patent on the same day, stopped for lunch on the way to the patent office.
Always amazing to me that there were two patents for the phone filed on the same day.
You said ... “Sounds like what this company does. No products, no employees. They just own patents.”
Yep, it’s happening all over the place to many companies. It’s time to fix the problem ... in the law!
No, that is not the issue. Under ‘first to invent’ the proof would have had to be provided that that was the case. In general terms, the same level of proof applies to show that the invention was not novel at the time of filing by a third party.
No one can obtain a valid patent under ‘first to file’ for something that was previously disclosed by public use or publication (other than in the 1 year grace period provided to the original inventor - 35 U.S.C. 102(b)).
I hate patent trolls. We laugh because Apple had to pay out a load of cash, but how many small companies do patent trolls ruin every year? I don’t know, but I’ve had my battles with patent trolls. Despicable.
Yes, they are called “patent trolls” in the electronic industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.