10:52 am ET
Oct 5, 2010

Intellectual Property

Apple Staring Down One of Largest Patent Verdicts in History

    • Just Pay Up and move on with life...

    • It's not worth the time and bad press to fight patent trolls.
      Instead spend a Billion lobbying congress to pass Use It or Lose It legislation for Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks.
      Enough parking & Suing Already!


    • No one wins when lawsuit abuse happens. This will just increase the price of Apple products and the cost will be passed on to the consumer.

    • Expect the judge to significantly reduce the amount as juries tend to go overboard with their monetary awards in favor of individuals against large corporations. Otherwise, appeal is a certainty.

    • This is just another example of why we need to do away with jury trials. Juries are too stupid to make decisions like this. This dispute should have been settled with an arbitrator selected by the defendant.

    • I really wonder where they come up with that number - which kinda looks ridiculous.

    • @Tort Reform - Why on earth should a patent infringement case be settled by an arbitrator selected by the defendant? There is no contract between the parties that would obligate them to submit to arbitration. Further, our Court system was established to settle legal disputes between parties. If performing that task is outside the scope of the courts, I am not sure what you want them to do with all their free time.

    • @Tort Reform - yes, this is abuse. But it's Texas, very pro-plaintiff. And, yes, the cost will be passed on to consumers. They are the big losers here.
      The big winners? The lawyers!

    • The infringers should pay.... but an outlandish amount??? A continuing royalty is also due, based on the importance of the infringed patent in the performance of the product. Use it or lose it disenfranchises the 'little guy' or perceptive intellect that identified and thought throuh the idea, formula, etc. in the first place. Innovation replaces those who want to endlessly collect on yesterdays/yesterdecades ideas.

    • Texas has not been particularly plaintiff friendly for some time now - over a decade. Also, a commercial dispute like this is hardly grist for the mill of the usual plaintiff defendant arguments. I am not sure commercial arbitration, in which the loser also pays the winner's costs, would necessarily have been better for the defendant, but since Apple stole Gelertner's publicly patented work, I am not sure what contest Gelertner would ever have signed away his right to a jury trial to the people who robbed him here. For that matter, why would a patent, a matter of universal application, be decided by a no-precedential body like an arbitrator that needn't release its findings or reasoning or any details of its proceedings. Some things, like criminal trials, need to be public. Since this case is similar to theft of publicly described property (that's why it iwas a patent case and not a trade secrets case), I'd say many of the same policy arguments apply here.
      But I expect Professor Gelernter can handle the pressure from the commentariat. After getting attacked by the Unabomber (and quite badly injured, actually) and most lefty pundits in the last few decades (he's a very straightforward neocon), I think the good professor can handle @Tort Reform's knee jerk and unsubstantiated criticism. So can Texas. They're tough down there.
      As for the argument that the number sounds odd and therefore was likely arbitrary, that number would have been feuded over by dueling economists and accountants at great length.

    • Tort Reform, do you even know what the term "tort reform" refers to?? It isn't this.

    • Sounds like Apple needs better attorneys.

    • Honza Prchal,

      Why do plaintiffs file in the ED of Texas then? Seriously, your post is a joke. Was there any evidence that Apple actually took the inventor's idea? You know, "stole it." I don't think you understand patents or innovation. Do you think Apple's product would be different without the patent? My guess is that the supposed "inventor" wrote a patent to cover an obvious improvement (as it appears it is in the software program) so he could cash in on a law suit. Now if there was actual evidence that Apple used his patent as a basis for their product, then I'm all for it. However, my inclination is that Apple never heard of this patent until they got slapped with the lawsuit.

    • Apple apparently did not do a good clearance search before release of their products, or they knew about the patents and either thought they weren't infringing or decided to deal with a potential suit later. These are simply business decisions that can have consequences.

      Apple didn't become a successful company by avoiding the benefits of the patent system, so there is no reason to prohibit someone else from doing the same. Patents actually increase innovation outside of the initial incentive for a monopoly because they spawn other technologies as work-arounds...which are sometimes better. In any case, there is a good chance the jury award will be reduced on appeal anyway.

    • Of course Apple declined to comment, they're too busy collectively crapping their pants.

    • I'd imagine the huge number represents a fraction of a cent per unit sold? This is a common settlement in patent disputes.

      This is going to RAISE the price of Apple products? Don't make me laugh - their inflated prices for years have built a war chest for such events, they'll settle for half and pay it. It's a calculated risk and I'd be surprised if their legal department didn't have some sort of insurance against such an action being taken.

    • Don't look for Apple to settle this one, after the S. Ct. undermined patents of this type.

Add a Comment


About Law Blog



    • Law Blog on Twitter

Must Reads

Law Bureau

Top Law Stories