Perpetual Innovation

Category: law suit

  • Apple Loses Patent Infringement Suit, Ordered to Pay $533 Million | Rolling Stone

    Apple Loses Patent Infringement Suit, Ordered to Pay $533 Million | Rolling Stone:

    It seems apropos that Rolling Stone would have a great report on the iTunes (Apple) law suit loss to the tune of 1/2 billion dollar$. The loss rules that Apple did infringe on the 6 patents related to the storing and accessing of songs, videos and games.

    In the suit that might well be called the the Apple vs. the Troll, the ruling was that Apple not only infringed, but willingly did so and consequently results in the terrible treble-damages penalty that makes patents such a powerful weapon.

    The other company is Smartflash. This is a non-practicing entity (NPE), that might unkindly be called a patent troll.

    Apple plans to appeal. Smartflash is aiming for the iPhone and iPad sales/profits because those devices actually play iTunes music that is subject to the infringing patents.

    Imagine how many billion paid downloads from iTunes it takes to make up a $0.5B to pay the fine.? WoW.

    This could get uglier and uglier.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • The Toll of the Patent Troll by any other name: Intellectual Property – Bloomberg

    Symantec, Microsoft, Blue Cross: Intellectual Property – Bloomberg:

    A patent troll, by any other name, may not be called a “patent troll” in court.

    This would be funny, if it weren’t true. The often called “patent troll” company Intellectual Ventures LLC, can not be disparages by such names as “patent troll” in court the presiding judge says. IV — a play on the vampire concept of draining all the blood from the body of otherwise living and productive entities — does not produce anything and has a monster war chest of patents which it brings out only during the stealth of night.

    In the case of an entity that buys up patents but doesn’t invent and doesn’t produce anything, the company is often referred to unkindly as a “patent troll”. In the real world, like cell phone makers, someone producing a product is exposed to other producer’s patents, and vise verse. The players are forced to work together, license and cross-license in order for anyone to produce anything.

    But the troll has a wonderful vantage point. Any product produced is fare game, and the real players in the game don’t have much recourse if they want to produce anything and run a productive business.

    Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) is another name for the troll, but it is not nearly so accurate.

    IV was rated #1 troll in 2012 in the kingdom of patent trolls: here.

    And, of course, the targets of the NPEs are larger and more innovative companies like AT&T and Google. In 2013 the “troll” toll in terms of law suites were up 19% from the prior year. (Fortune article on this topic.) It will be interesting to see what the stats for 2014 are since there has been a big drop in several types of law suits based on benchmark legal rulings.

    For now, a patent troll, by any other name, will have to be by a nicer name, at least in court. I wonder if Patent Vampire, or intellectual property parasite is acceptable?

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Courthouse News: Marvell at this. $1.17B x 3 is almost Comic!

    Courthouse News Service:

    A chip maker, Marvel Technology Group, just lost a $1.17B law suit for stealing the technology of Carnegie Mellon University.

    One has to marvel at this company’s antics, a company that trades by the symbol MRVL, and should in no way be confused with the comic company, although its antics carry both intrigue and humor.

    You might call them the Chip Pirates of the Caribbean given their off-short headquarters in Bermuda. Their not chip makers, they are chip takers. [Insert poker chip puns here.]

    The settlement as to the $1.17B law suit is still to be determine. Because of the willful and continued infringement, MRVL is subject to treble damages of $3.51B. (Half of the current market cap.) Plus they now are required to license the technology that they “borrowed” for so many years at a whopping $.50 per $2 chip sold which will chip away at the profits. The royalty payments are probably 25% of the company’s profits.

    I like that MRVL’s own chips — in infringed chips — were the but of jokes internally. Because you wouldn’t want to use them in any electronic devise, the next best use for them is as “coffee warmers”!:-)

    Even though there have been penalties and sanctions by the SEC, these rouge execs are still in power and still making big salaries.

    However, shareholders have taken up a class law suit against the execs Satardja and Dai, attesting: “damages for breach of fiduciary duty, failure to maintain adequate controls, and unjust enrichment and breach of duty of honest services”

    This is the story line from crime-fighting comic books. One has to marvel at it!

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Should Monsanto own patent rights on the elements of life? – Los Angeles Times:

    Should Monsanto own patent rights on the elements of life? – Los Angeles Times:

    Few people realize how patent intensive the food industry has become.

    The top 10 seed companies account for 2/3 of all seeds sold.

    A huge % of the seed sold are patented. Wow!

    “Over an 11-year period, the cost per acre of planting soybeans has risen a dramatic 325%.” Ouch!…
    BUT if the yield is improved, then the added cost to sow is well justified.

    Remember that genetically modified  (GMO) can/possibly be patented, organic not.

    But owning a gene and the patent on all activity to monitor/manage/tread based on that gene has interesting implications.  You can expect the pharma industry to watch this law suit in plants very closely.

    Keywords: GMO, organic, plant patents, Monsanto, seeds, farming, law suit,  genes,
    First blogged at: SustainZine

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Should Monsanto own patent rights on the elements of life? – Los Angeles Times

    Should Monsanto own patent rights on the elements of life? – Los Angeles Times:

    Few people realize how patent intensive the food industry has become.

    The top 10 seed companies account for 2/3 of all seeds sold.

    A huge % of the seed sold are patented. Wow!

    “Over an 11-year period, the cost per acre of planting soybeans has risen a dramatic 325%.” Ouch!…
    BUT if the yield is improved, then the added cost to sow is well justified.

     Remember that genetically modified  (GMO) can/possibly be patented, organic not.

     But owning a gene and the patent on all activity to monitor/manage/tread based on that gene has interesting implications.  You can expect the pharma industry to watch this law suit in plants very closely.

    Keywords: GMO, organic, plant patents, Monsanto, seeds, farming, law suit,  genes,

    ‘via Blog this’