All I can say is the Island is finally sinking under its own weight. Bad Karma of 600 years has finally caught up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Threatens to Leave UK Market Due to $7 Billion Patent Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
****ing.
Make.
Patent.
Trolling.
Illegal.
It’s not hard.
If you invent something but don’t intend to make a product out of it then you’re a science fiction writer not a product developing company.
Make.
Patent.
Trolling.
Illegal.
It’s not hard.
If you invent something but don’t intend to make a product out of it then you’re a science fiction writer not a product developing company.
Sorry bud, that’s not correct. Apple actually makes things. A troll doesn’t.
I've learned that powerful entities don't make idle threats. They make statements.
If Apple is willing to leave the UK market over 7 billion dollars, that means the UK market is pretty insignificant to their bottomline. Don't worry Brits, y'all can still buy Apple stuff in Ireland (not part UK).
You are quite funny. If I invent something and apply for a patent and then receive said patent, I can then do as little or as much with the patent as I choose. What do you not understand about that simple premise?
If another party wishes to use some or all of my invention which was invented and patented due to my intelligence and skills, that party is free to approach me and open negotiations. Whether I agree to licence or sell the patent is up to me. I own it.
Here's my interpretation of it:
This is Apple's way of knocking Mr. Justice Meade down a peg or two. He appears to believe that they've got Apple over a barrel, that they can make any demand, and Apple will be powerless because their only recourse would be to leave the UK market, which Mr. Meade clearly doesn't think they'll ever want to do.
Apple, on the other hand, has made it clear that the option is on the table for consideration. Kind of giving off the impression - 'we don't need you as much as you seem to think we do, so think very carefully'. It may be a scare-tactic, but that's not to say there's no truth and that Apple is just bluffing.
As a UK citizen and avid Apple user it's unsettling, even if it is unlikely Apple will ever exit the market. Still it's got me thinking a lot about not putting my eggs in one basket, and diversifying my device line up with products from other brands.
If, hypothetically, Apple were to cease selling in the UK and closing down their services on top of that, that's all your iCloud Photos, files, iCloud Music Library gone. Food for thought, I guess.
This is Apple's way of knocking Mr. Justice Meade down a peg or two. He appears to believe that they've got Apple over a barrel, that they can make any demand, and Apple will be powerless because their only recourse would be to leave the UK market, which Mr. Meade clearly doesn't think they'll ever want to do.
Apple, on the other hand, has made it clear that the option is on the table for consideration. Kind of giving off the impression - 'we don't need you as much as you seem to think we do, so think very carefully'. It may be a scare-tactic, but that's not to say there's no truth and that Apple is just bluffing.
As a UK citizen and avid Apple user it's unsettling, even if it is unlikely Apple will ever exit the market. Still it's got me thinking a lot about not putting my eggs in one basket, and diversifying my device line up with products from other brands.
If, hypothetically, Apple were to cease selling in the UK and closing down their services on top of that, that's all your iCloud Photos, files, iCloud Music Library gone. Food for thought, I guess.
I can see British people googling “How can people in Iran get MacBooks”… or does google plan to leave the market too!
Certainly you should diversify or always be prepared to in a quick fashion. One never knows what may happen to products or companies.
Simple response: One, you can't infringe on your own patents, and two, there is a things called "licensing" a patent from the patent holder, which Apple apparently has done, which gives them the legal right to practice that art or portion thereof.
There is no such thing as a patent troll.
For any given patent:
There is only valid IP and the opposite.
There are only buyers and sellers of IP.
There is only enforceable IP and the opposite.
There are only users of that IP and the opposite.
There are only users who violate that IP and the opposite.
There are only IP owners with valid enforceable IP who perceive enforcement and are willing to try to do so and the opposite.
People talking “Patent Troll” aren’t very knowledgeable about the subject.
if anything, perhaps, a patent troll could be an IP holder who stretches their patent beyond logical limits to generate income. But that’s an uphill battle at every turn.
The ability to assert infringement and to defend against it is as fundamental to our legal system as at other legal challenge regarding property ownership or personal liberty.
If patent aggregators weren’t allowed to exist, or to assert claims to derive income from their IP, it would vastly lower the value of IP because this part of the patent market would cease to exist.
Anybody who invests resources to develop an idea and pursue a patent and possibly want to sell it someday, is unlikely to view aggregators as trolls. (Although not the same thing, aggregators are as essential to the smooth functioning of the secondary patent market as short sellers are to the functioning of the stock market.)
For any given patent:
There is only valid IP and the opposite.
There are only buyers and sellers of IP.
There is only enforceable IP and the opposite.
There are only users of that IP and the opposite.
There are only users who violate that IP and the opposite.
There are only IP owners with valid enforceable IP who perceive enforcement and are willing to try to do so and the opposite.
People talking “Patent Troll” aren’t very knowledgeable about the subject.
if anything, perhaps, a patent troll could be an IP holder who stretches their patent beyond logical limits to generate income. But that’s an uphill battle at every turn.
The ability to assert infringement and to defend against it is as fundamental to our legal system as at other legal challenge regarding property ownership or personal liberty.
If patent aggregators weren’t allowed to exist, or to assert claims to derive income from their IP, it would vastly lower the value of IP because this part of the patent market would cease to exist.
Anybody who invests resources to develop an idea and pursue a patent and possibly want to sell it someday, is unlikely to view aggregators as trolls. (Although not the same thing, aggregators are as essential to the smooth functioning of the secondary patent market as short sellers are to the functioning of the stock market.)
According to the article if they leave the UK market they won’t have to pay the fine. $7 billion is an awful lot of motivation.
Agreed. That lawyer shouldn’t be allowed to make statements on behalf of Apple again. Nonsense talk like that just pulls the tail of the judicial tiger.
i didn’t particularly care if they won or lost but their lack of sportsmanship by taking off their medals showed them for the true loser baby men they truly are.
On that point alone their loss is most apropos.
If it's not your property, it's still not your property even if I'm not using it, or can't bring it out commercially for some reason right now. You can approach me and see if I'll license it to you or sell it to you. How is this not clear to you?
If you have a luxurious vacation home that you don't really use, I don't get to just move in and claim it, or lease it out or sell it out from under you. It's not mine, it's yours.
If you have a luxurious vacation home that you don't really use, I don't get to just move in and claim it, or lease it out or sell it out from under you. It's not mine, it's yours.
The thing is, nobody uses your invention. Companies like Qualcom and Apple came to the exact same solution independently of yours and now you demand billion for something quite basic.
Were Apple and Qualcom granted patents for the identical invention for which I was granted a patent first? I think not. So there is your answer. I was the first one to receive a patent for the invention. If others wish to use the invention, pay me.
If it's not your property, it's still not your property even if I'm not using it, or can't bring it out commercially for some reason right now. You can approach me and see if I'll license it to you or sell it to you. How is this not clear to you?
If you have a luxurious vacation home that you don't really use, I don't get to just move in and claim it, or lease it out or sell it out from under you. It's not mine, it's yours.
If you have a luxurious vacation home that you don't really use, I don't get to just move in and claim it, or lease it out or sell it out from under you. It's not mine, it's yours.
There are about 3.25 million applications every year worldwide. Good luck with that. You make a good faith effort and move on and hope your method-design-claim doesn't infringe. There is also the cost-benefit analysis to the search.
Probably in the ballpark of 6% on iPhones. At about 76 billion in net income (TTM) and iPhone probably 50% of that, it's 2 billion per year in net income from iPhone UK sales (assuming margins are the same in UK)
Those are estimates but probably not too very far off either way.
As far as 7 billion judgement? Assuming Apple used a patent unknowingly, that's so far over the top. But if they found Apple (if emails or the like showing it) willfully used a patent (something big companies do more than people know, Microsoft was a big doer of the use, capture market, litigate, pay if can't be acquired strategy) then it's going to be over the top. Companies that willfully patent infringe, IMHO, must be held to a punitive level.