Judge Steps Down From Apple's Siri Patent Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.

thefizzle656

Honorable
Sep 9, 2012
23
0
10,510
Shouldn't Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the holder of the patent in question, be the one suing for patent infringement? I would think that the case would be thrown out just based on that. But maybe Dynamic Advances has brought the law suit forward on behalf of both.
 
[citation][nom]tramit[/nom]How does that work out? They don't even own the patent and are just licensing it...[/citation]Dynamic Advances owns an exclusive license gained from the inventor's place of work, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
 

wannabepro

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
296
0
18,810
[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]Well, the judge did the right thing. On a side note, does the author of this article ever covers anything not related to apple?[/citation]

It's Zak Islam.
It's all he covers.. And he seems to never read all the comments screaming "ENOUGH APPLE STUFF"
(Check like 90% of the articles he's done and almost all of those comments have quite a few thumbs up.)
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
[citation][nom]tramit[/nom]How does that work out? They don't even own the patent and are just licensing it...[/citation]

Company A has a patent, but isn't entirely interested in using it itself anymore. It licenses it to Company B so that it can still make some profit off it. Company B happens to not have a huge name or brand so average people hardly know it exists. It wants to control the use of the products made using the patent it is licensing to ensure it makes the most of it. Company C comes along and starts using the principles in the patent. Company A doesn't necessarily care all that much, or is planning to come along later, because it's already getting its license fees. Company B however is is place to lose big because it is paying to license the patent, and now someone else is using the same principles of the patent, thereby undercutting the ability of Company B to control/make profit off the patent.

That basically sums it up. Dynamic probably got first bite since Rensselaer didn't want to get into this too soon (better to fight it later if they have to rather than spending on it now). Could be that Rensselaer will just roll itself in as a co-party to the complaint. Or the judge could decide that Rensselaer has to be a co-party as the original patent owner. This is what makes patent cases so long and sometimes confusing.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
@DRosencraft
This 'innovative' litigation was tried (and lost) by Copyright Troll by the name "Righthaven". He (Righthaven) sued several bloggers on behave of Las Vegas Review Journal by obtaining only "license to sue".
Nevada (and Colorado) Courts "Dismisses Righthaven's Lawsuit for Lack of Standing". [1]

So, unless Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has sold the patent in question to Dynamic Advances, they (Dynamic Advances) should expect same faith as Righthaven. The lawyer behind Righthaven is bankrupted and defended in several counter-lawsuits.

[1] http://righthavenlawsuits.com/
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]@DRosencraftThis 'innovative' litigation was tried (and lost) by Copyright Troll by the name "Righthaven". He (Righthaven) sued several bloggers on behave of Las Vegas Review Journal by obtaining only "license to sue".Nevada (and Colorado) Courts "Dismisses Righthaven's Lawsuit for Lack of Standing". [1]So, unless Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has sold the patent in question to Dynamic Advances, they (Dynamic Advances) should expect same faith as Righthaven. The lawyer behind Righthaven is bankrupted and defended in several counter-lawsuits.[1] http://righthavenlawsuits.com/[/citation]

To begin with, Righthaven got the patent rights after the fact. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Second, Righthaven was suing a bunch of people without actually contacting any of them first. In this case you basically have one company suing another company, which is a slightly different situation. Finally, you're talking with Righthaven about cases in Nevada and Colorado. I'm not saying New York courts are gonna ignore those cases, but you are dealing with a different court that very well could reach a different conclusion. I'm not gonna pick a side here because I don't know enough about the case, I'm simply explaining the legal theory behind it thus far.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I forgot, when was the last time i seen on Toms Hardware that did not include an article about Apple on a weekday?
 

hate machine

Honorable
Jun 14, 2012
255
0
10,780
[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]Well, the judge did the right thing. On a side note, does the author of this article ever covers anything not related to apple?[/citation]

Only if it is bad news about the competition.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
@DRosencraft

I'm not looking for argument and I'm not disputing your point of view. Yes, the case is different and different court in NY could decide differently. My comment was more like FYI. Your explanation sounds a lot a like Righthaven's strategy. Yes, Righthaven is about copyright shake down, but both Copyright and Patent laws are federal laws. As result president in US District Court would be very strong guidance for US District court in NY. Also the decisions in Nevada and Colorado have been appealed in Federal Circuit court and upheld.
I don't know much about this case, but if DA has only 'exclusive license' their case is very weak.
 

back_by_demand

Splendid
BANNED
Jul 16, 2009
4,821
0
22,780
[citation][nom]goodguy713[/nom]just buy the stupid company out and get the patent.. and then disolve it.[/citation]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute isn't a company, they are a university, for one thing they aren't for sale and even if they were to do so and break it apart would be like the Nazis burning books. Not good press. This method of exclusive licensing keeps it 100% protected from predatory tech giants with a bad record of patent appropriation (theft) like Apple.
 

lpedraja2002

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2007
620
0
18,990
I see people complain about an Apple article but really, anything related to Apple being sued for patent infringement is good news! After all the bullying they did its time to let others have fun.
 

ven1ger

Honorable
Jul 25, 2012
73
0
10,630
[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]Well, the judge did the right thing. On a side note, does the author of this article ever covers anything not related to apple?[/citation]

Author has an interest in Apple, I don't think it's a problem. People and authors have interests, just like we all do and this author wants to write up about Apple. Same as fans of other hardware, etc want to write about stuff they are interested in and just as we are interested in only certain things skim the article titles to read what we are interested in. I generally don't read articles because of the author, I just read the articles based upon if the title interests me. Btw, I'm no fan of Apple but believe that everyone has the right to write what interests them and we have every right not to read what doesn't interest us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS