“Apple Inc. was ordered by a jury to pay damages to Mirror Worlds LLC for infringing patents related to how documents are displayed on a computer screen,” Susan Decker reports for Bloomberg.
“The federal jury in Tyler, Texas, awarded $208.5 million in damages for each of the patents infringed. The verdict form was unclear as to whether the amount applies to the three patents collectively or would be charged individually. Lawyers for closely held Mirror Worlds declined to discuss the verdict,” Decker reports.
MacDailyNews Take: Tyler, Texas. Rocket Docket.
Decker reports, “Mirror Worlds, a software business started by a Yale University computer-science professor David Gelernter, claimed Apple’s iPod music device, iPhone and Mac computers infringed its patents. Apple challenged the validity of the patents and whether they were infringed, according to court records. Gelernter said after the verdict he was ‘tremendously grateful’ to his lawyers for ‘their overwhelmingly brilliant performance.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Excessive.
Parasite lawyers!! Appeal!!!!!
Parasite lawyers!! Appeal!!!!!
Steve: cash or check?
Steve: cash or check?
Damages?
More like profits.
They didn’t lose anything. Apple only made them money.
Damages?
More like profits.
They didn’t lose anything. Apple only made them money.
Why are these cases held in Texas?
Why are these cases held in Texas?
Given the magnitude of the verdict, an appeal by Apple is a certainty. It is still unclear to me why other companies can market products that are superficially very similar to an iPhone in form and function with apparent impunity (caveat – the current status of the Apple-HTC dispute is unknown to me). In contrast, the fact that a patent on general display concepts is even deemed valid, much less worthy of an infringement award of over $200M is just plain nuts.
@A
East Texas courts – judges and juries – are known for their favoritism towards patent holders. As a result, patent trolls swarm to east Texas to pursue alleged cases of patent infringement.
Given the magnitude of the verdict, an appeal by Apple is a certainty. It is still unclear to me why other companies can market products that are superficially very similar to an iPhone in form and function with apparent impunity (caveat – the current status of the Apple-HTC dispute is unknown to me). In contrast, the fact that a patent on general display concepts is even deemed valid, much less worthy of an infringement award of over $200M is just plain nuts.
@A
East Texas courts – judges and juries – are known for their favoritism towards patent holders. As a result, patent trolls swarm to east Texas to pursue alleged cases of patent infringement.
I love some of these patent lawsuits, especially where obvious concepts are in pay. I mean I would like to have patented “mode of transportation with 4 round and rotational support forward propelling where feet (or some other future method of supplimentary powered system) generate movement in forward or backward motion. Some kind of round steering control allows for multi-directional travel. Doors and windows are optional. Will NOT support weight of cooked Brontosaurus ribs.”
I think these patents have to work a lot harder and need to be not so generally worded. It’s often not the concepts but the execution of said concepts anyway that’s the difference. Microsoft tries something and it’s a resounding failure (tablets,etc.) and then Apple does it and it’s a resounding success (tablets, etc.). Same idea, different approaches with one completely myopically retarded and the other brilliant. I don’t have to tell you which one was created by Northwest Neanderthals.
I love some of these patent lawsuits, especially where obvious concepts are in pay. I mean I would like to have patented “mode of transportation with 4 round and rotational support forward propelling where feet (or some other future method of supplimentary powered system) generate movement in forward or backward motion. Some kind of round steering control allows for multi-directional travel. Doors and windows are optional. Will NOT support weight of cooked Brontosaurus ribs.”
I think these patents have to work a lot harder and need to be not so generally worded. It’s often not the concepts but the execution of said concepts anyway that’s the difference. Microsoft tries something and it’s a resounding failure (tablets,etc.) and then Apple does it and it’s a resounding success (tablets, etc.). Same idea, different approaches with one completely myopically retarded and the other brilliant. I don’t have to tell you which one was created by Northwest Neanderthals.
Don’t know much about patent laws but I’ve read that Apple spends very little money in political lobbying :
in one quarter Q2 2010:
apple spent 330,000
msft spent 1.8 million
Verizon 4.4 million
Google 1.34 m
Perhaps Apple should spend more to get patent laws changed if it affects them? (not to mention it’s going to help them if they get into problems about being monopolistic etc as Apple gets bigger. Apple has held aloof from all this believing that ‘just making great products’ is the key but unfortunately the real world intrudes. Msft learnt that and I think that’s why it spends 6 times in lobbying money). I understand that Apple as part of a consortium is supporting Microsoft in its recent attempt to get a general web patent invalidated.
Don’t know much about patent laws but I’ve read that Apple spends very little money in political lobbying :
in one quarter Q2 2010:
apple spent 330,000
msft spent 1.8 million
Verizon 4.4 million
Google 1.34 m
Perhaps Apple should spend more to get patent laws changed if it affects them? (not to mention it’s going to help them if they get into problems about being monopolistic etc as Apple gets bigger. Apple has held aloof from all this believing that ‘just making great products’ is the key but unfortunately the real world intrudes. Msft learnt that and I think that’s why it spends 6 times in lobbying money). I understand that Apple as part of a consortium is supporting Microsoft in its recent attempt to get a general web patent invalidated.
@Bizarro
Please go sell off all your Apple gear (at much better resale prices than used ickety PCrap) and go buy something from your so-called “open” garden of craptastic Windows dreck of your choice and join your fellow WinLemmings cavorting in their Fool’s Paradise (Pleasure Island? ) and leave us be. There are plenty of people rushing past you in a hurry from the down WinPOS direction to fill in the gap buying Macs at the Apple Store.
And good freaking riddance of a clueless nuisance! Some people have to learn things the hard way.
@Bizarro
Please go sell off all your Apple gear (at much better resale prices than used ickety PCrap) and go buy something from your so-called “open” garden of craptastic Windows dreck of your choice and join your fellow WinLemmings cavorting in their Fool’s Paradise (Pleasure Island? ) and leave us be. There are plenty of people rushing past you in a hurry from the down WinPOS direction to fill in the gap buying Macs at the Apple Store.
And good freaking riddance of a clueless nuisance! Some people have to learn things the hard way.
Apple needs better lawyers.
Apple needs better lawyers.
Apple should just buy them.
Apple should just buy them.
Did “Bizarro” say something today that FINALLY got his ass kicked off this site? Really?
FANTASTIC! Haters and PCTrolls of his ilk have no place in civilized, intelligent discourse. Please, MDN moderator . . . do not let this “person” return! (And, yes, I’m all for free speech and all that, but only TO A POINT.)
Did “Bizarro” say something today that FINALLY got his ass kicked off this site? Really?
FANTASTIC! Haters and PCTrolls of his ilk have no place in civilized, intelligent discourse. Please, MDN moderator . . . do not let this “person” return! (And, yes, I’m all for free speech and all that, but only TO A POINT.)
I see the judgement being reduced on appeal, to an amount which may seem large to us, but which Apple can pay with the change found under the sofas in their executive lounge.
This stuff happens. I don’t for a minute believe Apple maliciously violated the patent.
——RM
I see the judgement being reduced on appeal, to an amount which may seem large to us, but which Apple can pay with the change found under the sofas in their executive lounge.
This stuff happens. I don’t for a minute believe Apple maliciously violated the patent.
——RM
In a completely unrelated piece of trivia, the Yale professor who holds these patents – David Gelernter – was one of the victims of the Unabomber. He survived, obviously, but was rather seriously injured.
– HCE