Apple Faces Another Patent Lawsuit as it Beefs Up Litigation Team

In its filing, WiLAN claims that these companies have infringed and continue to infringe WiLAN's U.S. Patent No. 5,515,369 by making and/or selling various products enabled with Bluetooth technology including cellular handsets and personal notebook computers.
Wi-LAN is regarded in the industry as a patent troll, a former manufacturing company that has given up on producing devices to focus on extracting licensing fees and filing lawsuits related to its intellectual property. Wi-LAN's suit was filed in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a court popular in patent litigation for its willingness to move quickly and its typically plantiff-friendly judgments.Meanwhile, 9 to 5 Mac notes that Apple has hired former Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for Sun Microsystems Noreen Krall to a Senior Director position overseeing Intellectual Property and Litigation.
Apple is currently embroiled in legal battles with Nokia and Kodak over intellectual property issues, and recently went on the offensive against Android handset maker HTC, so it is certainly a busy time for Apple on the patent front.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)24 months ago
Patent law needs to be reformed to be similar to trademark law. With trademarks, if you don't use it you loose it. In order to sue someone for trademark infringement, you have to demonstrate that you are actively using said trademark. Likewise, in order to sue someone for patent infringement, you ought to have to demonstrate that you actually intend to build whatever it is you claim to have invented. If you hold the intellectual rights to an invention, but can't prove that you are actively working on producing a prototype, your patent should be unenforceable.
24 months ago
Is there a website that follows these sorts of suits particularly as they apply to products Apple sells like computers, phones (inclusive of pads), base stations, accessories?
It seems to me a valid patent should be compensated for use of the technology and the lawsuit is basically a way to determine if the patent is valid, if the specific claims apply to the product at issue, and what if any license value that has.
It also seems to me the patent owner or troll as some like to malign them as, could probably make more revenue for less overhead cost through settlement or negotiation rather than litigation, unless the "abusers" are merely being as litigous themselves as possible as a tactic to invoke suffering rather than payment to outlast them, which is a typical lawyerly tactic since it funnels 100% of the costs to the lawyers themselves.
Is there a site that follows past conclusions to the end to see what if any benefit this process has to each player? The patent holder, the idea user, the lawyers, the customers of the offending devices.
I don't doubt obscure patents are infringed and some of them are entitled to royalties, but in the case of Bluetooth as an example this is a very minor feature with really poor adoption and use, compared to say wifi or Ethernet or something.
Rocketman
It seems to me a valid patent should be compensated for use of the technology and the lawsuit is basically a way to determine if the patent is valid, if the specific claims apply to the product at issue, and what if any license value that has.
It also seems to me the patent owner or troll as some like to malign them as, could probably make more revenue for less overhead cost through settlement or negotiation rather than litigation, unless the "abusers" are merely being as litigous themselves as possible as a tactic to invoke suffering rather than payment to outlast them, which is a typical lawyerly tactic since it funnels 100% of the costs to the lawyers themselves.
Is there a site that follows past conclusions to the end to see what if any benefit this process has to each player? The patent holder, the idea user, the lawyers, the customers of the offending devices.
I don't doubt obscure patents are infringed and some of them are entitled to royalties, but in the case of Bluetooth as an example this is a very minor feature with really poor adoption and use, compared to say wifi or Ethernet or something.
Rocketman
24 months ago
Hmz, the Law department is having a good year so far.. 2010, the year of lawsuits and iPad spam
24 months ago
And here comes cmaier to babble on and on about why not all patents are invalid, why the patent system is not as broken, or at least not in the same ways, that you think it is, etc.
Actually, I'm too busy today for that. So go ahead and start posting how the patents are clearly obvious, how patents destroy innovation, etc. Go nuts :)
Actually, I'm too busy today for that. So go ahead and start posting how the patents are clearly obvious, how patents destroy innovation, etc. Go nuts :)
[ Read All Comments ]

Analytics firm Chitika today released a report showing that by its metrics iOS has now surpassed OS X in overall web traffic share in the United States. Chitika's methodology involves an analysis...
One of the most frequent reasons for an iPhone to go on a trip to the Apple Store's Genius Bar is because of water damage. Typically, a water damaged iPhone can be replaced for a flat $199...
TheVerge's Joshua Topolsky summarizes the iPad 3 casing findings reported earlier today, but also adds his own sources regarding some details of the iPad 3.
Image from RepairLabs
As...
Last July, Apple discontinued the white MacBook from its consumer lineup, pushing consumers toward the company's popular MacBook Air line or the 13-inch MacBook Pro. The company didn't kill...
Popular iPhone Twitter client Tweetbot has finally arrived on the iPad, with a user interface instantly familiar to any current Tweetbot user. Designed for the Twitter power-user, Tweetbot packs a...