OpenTV Files Lawsuit Against Apple Over Allegations iTunes Violates Five Patents

Man we live in such a 'business heavy' country where corporations seemingly enjoy more benefits than the people so it's absurd that we cannot get some patent reform going. I mean seriously, how much money has a company like Apple waisted on patent trolls?

Why do you think that OpenTV is a patent troll? Or is it simply the act of suing Apple that defines a patent troll?

Man we live in such a 'business heavy' country where corporations seemingly enjoy more benefits than the people so it's absurd that we cannot get some patent reform going. I mean seriously, how much money has a company like Apple waisted on patent trolls?

The America Invents Act, AIA, in 2011, introduced a lot of reform which has caused a measurable decline in nuisance suits, has make it affordable to challenge bad patents, and made broad multi-defendant suits impossible. The Supreme Court has also reformed many things, including limiting software patents and making it easier for defendants to recoup their fees if they win. Both of these has increased the quality of patents, decreased the quantity of bad patents, brought down the cost of litigation, and reduced the number of nuisance suits.

What other reform do you want?

Here's a possibility:

"No entity may pursue patent infringement litigation unless said entity owns the patent and is actively marketing and distributing a device/service wherein said patented technology is being utilized"

It's just an idea, and I could be wrong here, but it sounds like this would be beneficial. Well, beneficial to everyone except some of the patent trolls.

It's a fairly old idea, and one that has been debated a bit but mostly dismissed. Two reasons it will actually result in terrible outcomes:

First, this would restrict one of the most innovative members of our society from securing patents, universities. Indeed, many public research institutions rely on patents. In an economy as specialized as ours, it doesn't make sense to require everyone to practice their own inventions. That is what licensing is for. Company A's job is to invent, company B's job is to manufacture, company C's job is to market, and the store's job is to sell. It makes no sense to require Company A to take on all those roles if it doesn't see value in doing so, and when it might be more economicaly efficient to license the patent to B, C, or store instead.

Second, this would restrict a very important part of our economy, and one that is critical to our small businesses and large ones alike: investment. Financial backers of innovators who invest in a company understand that, even if that company’s business fails, its patent portfolio will have value. That value serves as a significant hedge against the substantial risk of investing in new and unproven technology. Erasing it would reduce investment in innovation.

Also, most famously, Thomas Edison did not practice many of his patents. Surely he deserved the rights and protections they offered. :D

----------

And this matters why?

It might matter because if a patent owner knows about infringement, and does nothing about it for a long time, it might be estopped from asserting their rights if the infringer relied on your continued inaction. It's the doctrine of shackles.

Man we live in such a 'business heavy' country where corporations seemingly enjoy more benefits than the people so it's absurd that we cannot get some patent reform going. I mean seriously, how much money has a company like Apple waisted on patent trolls?

What else is news?
If it's not about the Apple Watch, Beats Music, the DoJ or the European Union, it had to be about a patent lawsuit. :mad:

This is just a Zombie attack from a company that's practically the corpse of a long ago promising company.

The America Invents Act, AIA, in 2011, introduced a lot of reform which has caused a measurable decline in nuisance suits, has make it affordable to challenge bad patents, and made broad multi-defendant suits impossible. The Supreme Court has also reformed many things, including limiting software patents and making it easier for defendants to recoup their fees if they win. Both of these has increased the quality of patents, decreased the quantity of bad patents, brought down the cost of litigation, and reduced the number of nuisance suits.

What other reform do you want?

All non-apple companies to forfeit! When do we want it? Now!

Why do you think that OpenTV is a patent troll? Or is it simply the act of suing Apple that defines a patent troll?

Because they've waited this long to file. If the Apple TV really violated their patents, they'd have said something before now.

What else is news?
If it's not about the Apple Watch, Beats Music, the DoJ or the European Union, it had to be about a patent lawsuit. :mad:

This is just a Zombie attack from a company that's practically the corpse of a long ago promising company.

Because they've waited this long to file. If the Apple TV really violated their patents, they'd have said something before now.

Anyone that manages to patent a simple idea that should not have ever been allowed to be patented is a Troll. I mean really, some of the most simple concepts have managed to slip by the patent office.

Every idea, unless truly novel and ground breaking, is based on all knowledge and culture that came before it. To slice off a part of that and call it MINE is problematic. Thats what the court should be for in these cases, to decide it it really a new and novel idea. Im guessing far too many are really not, just minor iterations.

Some of the comments in this thread are silly.

There could be many reasons why they never filed until "now." For example, one might be that they didn't think they would win, but that now there's a precedent on a similar case, it's worthwhile spending the money as it's less likely to cost them in the long run.

Second - at the time of the patents, these types of delivery channels were being born. It's easy to look at something now and deem in not worthy of a patent. And on that note, I believe that the patent system is broken anyway. Certainly a lot of patents NOW being issued are just jokes.

Third - legacy technology - whether being actively used or not - does not a troll make. If a company spends money on R&D and comes up with a way of doing something - whether it's immediate or years later, it's still valid to protect their investment and IP.

Because iTunes is brand new...

Were their lawyers suddenly awoken after a great 14 year slumber or something?