News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

June 15, 2007

legal

Apple inserts tab A into settlement B

Posted Jun. 15, ’07, 9:55 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Legal

Acacia TechnologiesBack in April, a little know company called IP Innovation filed a suit against Apple for its use of tabs in OS X Tiger. The company sought an injunction that would bar the sale of Tiger and any future versions that would continue to infringe upon the patent.

The lawsuit was greeted with many a roll of the eyes; we’ve grown annoyed by these patent trolls—companies that buy up intellectual property and then base their business model around the willy-nilly suing of all the people who may in any way infringe upon the tiniest perceived shred of that property.

Apple apparently didn’t like their chances in a court battle, though, so they’ve elected instead to settle with IP Innovation’s parent company Acacia Technologies (owner of a truly ghastly website) and pay to license the GUI technology.

Legalized extortion or fair recompense? You decide.

Update: IP Innovation (the company in question) ≠ IP Innovations (the company whose logo first appeared on this piece). There’s a certain irony in that.


9 Comments

Avatar said:

Oy, is it just me or has the entire patent industry been distorted and perverted and WEAKENED into the mess that we have today? Patents that can be bought and sold so that a company like Acacia can become a corporate gangster forcing protection money from other companies... it makes me sick.

Oh, and to answer your query: Legalized extortion.

June 15, 2007 11:53 AM
msadesign Author Profile Page said:

Dunno. Based on the report, Dan, you don't really know very much about the specifics of this case, and have pretty much jumped on the Apple bandwagon without a critical review.
I agree that patents are a mess. But I look for a little more dispassionate review-ok, this is a fanboy site, but still, it's important to see both sides of the story. Who knows? maybe Apple is wrong? do you really know this?

June 16, 2007 3:57 AM
Kalessin Author Profile Page said:

@ msadesign: for someone who looks for dispassionate reviews, you seem very quick to pin Dan's approach to this article on his appreciation of certain Apple products.

Many large companies and organisations have been victims of lawsuits filed on behalf of companies who buy patents with the express intention of using the patents for litigation. It may be legal, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth; sort of like a cross between ambulance-chasing, cybersquatting and suing the parents of file sharers.

You should notice that Dan didn't say whether he thought Apple was right or wrong, no matter what you perceived. I submit that you didn't read the article dispassionately enough.

June 16, 2007 7:00 AM
tayker Author Profile Page said:

Apple has acquired companies and they have also sued over patents, so what makes them different? I agree that the patent situation is a mess, but I have yet to read about a company that is above it all - even Apple. I agree that Dan didn't come out and say that the company is a patent troll, but the way he wrote it has an air of presupposition, so, in my opinion, he might as well have said it. Like msadesign mentioned, this is a fanboi site, so I take some comments with a grain of salt. However, when it comes to questioning a company's ethics or policies, I think that's outside the scope of Apple reporting. I don't have much respect for media that try to portray themselves one way when their actions speak differently. I'll continue to read MacUser and Mac World just to stay on top of Apple's products, but I don't see their reviews and commentary being up to to PC reporting.

June 18, 2007 6:22 AM
Dan Moren Author Profile Page said:

Sure, Apple's bought IP from other companies, but the difference to my mind is that as a company, Apple is actually engaged in creating things. From what I can tell, IP Innovation is a company whose business model is buying other people's IP and taking companies to court if they infringe it.

I'll say this: In my opinion, the patent system is in need of a complete overhaul. And you know what? Apple would survive that because their business is making and selling products. IP Innovation? Not so much.

June 18, 2007 6:36 AM
tayker Author Profile Page said:

Apple is as sue-crazy as the next company. Look at the Creative & Apple debacle, cases involving "Apple" in a company's name, and the use of the term "podcast,"just to name a few.

I think the comparison between Apple and IP Innovation isn't an inaccurate one because IP Innovation's whole purpose is to protect patents and copyrights. Here's what it says on their main page: "Copyright and Trademark protection is essential for any business. At IP Innovations, our staff of research professionals can help you ensure that your creative property is protected and free of potential conflicts from unanticipated sources of copyright or trademark dispute." Me being upset over them protecting their client's work would be on par with me getting upset over Apple making a device. I think Apple would survive a patent overhaul, but I also think they would be hurt from the fallout, whereas IP Innovation will be around as long as someone has an idea to protect.

June 18, 2007 8:24 AM
tayker Author Profile Page said:

I borked my second paragraph. I meant to type this:

I think the comparison between Apple and IP Innovation isn't an accurate one because IP Innovation's whole purpose is to protect patents and copyrights. Here's what it says on their main page: "Copyright and Trademark protection is essential for any business. At IP Innovations, our staff of research professionals can help you ensure that your creative property is protected and free of potential conflicts from unanticipated sources of copyright or trademark dispute." Me being upset over them protecting their client's work would be on par with me getting upset over Apple making a device. I think Apple would survive a patent overhaul, but I also think they would be hurt from the fallout, whereas IP Innovation will be around as long as someone has an idea to protect.

June 18, 2007 8:54 AM
Dan Moren Author Profile Page said:

You're right that being mad at IP/Acacia for suing over that is silly, given that's what their mission statement is. I'm not so tweaked as I am about that as I am about the abuse of the patent system that makes that a viable business in the first place. That's not to say that inventors and companies shouldn't be able to defend their patents, but so many of these deals are less about protecting the client and more about making money for the holding company via the threat of litigation (and resulting settlements) or suits themselves.

Maybe I'm an idealist—okay, I'm an idealist—but it'd be nice if there was a system that rewarded/defended the inventors who need it while preventing the abuse of patent trolls who are merely out to make a buck for themselves without having contributed anything. Perhaps I should wish for a pony while I'm at it.

June 18, 2007 12:30 PM
Dave-O said:

Dan, the system is set up so the inventor is rewarded when IP/Acacia buys the patent. Now IP/Acacia is rewarded by either licensing the technology or suing infringers. It is a business after all, not a charity to reward inventive spirit.

The part that stinks is people can obtain a patent, sit on the invention, then sue someone who independently invents the same thing. There should be an obligation that goes along with the limited monopoly granted by the government. If you aren't going to sell the invention, you should seek licenses and publish what you've done so others can. This is, of course, why all patents granted by the PTO are published. Unfortunately, the only people mining that are probably the ones trying to sell patent award plaques (seriously, I found out a patent was rewarded when one of the other inventors received a price list for plaques 2 days after the award--our company didn't tell us for almost a month).

June 18, 2007 1:50 PM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: