Comment by Terretta | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Terretta | Hacker News Reader

Gruber, almost alone in a sea of reporting, manages to mention Apple's action here may be related to Nokia's patent suit against Apple.

So rewind a bit, to put this in context:

- Apple accuses HTC of iPhone tech theft (2 March 2010)

- Kodak prompts ITC to consider iPhone ban (18 February 2010)

- Motorola seeks ban on US BlackBerries (26 January 2010)

- Nokia sues Apple, says iPhone infringes ten patents (22 October 2009)

One test for patents' validity is whether the company is enforcing them. With Kodak, Sony, Nokia, Motorola, RIM, and others suing one another as a business-as-usual step in licensing negotiations, the value of Apple's defensive patent portfolio at the licensing negotiation table depends in part on Apple's perceived willingness to stand behind the validity of their portfolio and enforce their patents.

I'd suppose this is a signal to the marketplace not that competitors should create their own original technology, but that if they want to copy, they should license or trade.

Could you point to a reference of patent validity tests which includes enforcement? The three tests, "utility, novelty, and non-obviousness", seem to be the standard ones.

Perhaps you are confusing patent law with trademark law, which does require enforcement?

Sorry, I should have clarified that. I almost mentioned trademark law to compare and contrast. No, you don't lose the patent by not enforcing it. But you can lose the value of the patent both at the negotiating table and in the courts if there's a belief you won't enforce it or a belief you suspect it's unenforceable (e.g., if you seem to worry by using it aggressively, you could have it challenged, and lose it).

First, as alluded to in the article, note the word "need":

> "Perhaps it’s a by-product of the suit Apple is engaged in against (and initiated by) Nokia. Apple’s counter-suit against Nokia involves some of the same patents at play here, and perhaps Apple’s lawyers have concluded that they need to enforce them against someone like HTC in order to use them in their counter-suit against Nokia."

Second, to quote a non-neutral party, note the phrase "lax attitude":

> "But neglecting stick licensing has two problems. First, it results in a loss of potential royalty and damages revenues from infringed patents. Second, it undermines carrot licensing of both infringed and noninfringed patents. If an industry perceives a lax attitude on the part of a university in enforcing its patents, it will think it can infringe with impunity. Under these circumstances, taking a license would be tantamount to making a charitable gift, which few in this economic climate are inclined to do." -- Alexander Poltorak of General Patent Corporation in http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Thars+gold+in+Tham+thar+patent...

But you can lose the value of the patent .. at the negotiating table

True, it comes down to people and what they think you will do, not what you can do.

The definition of "Patent Validity" remains very ambiguous -- with varying opinions/conclusions from different courts and the USPTO itself. An helpful resource for Plaintiffs or Defendants in patent infringement battles: Article One Partners (www.articleonepartners.com) -- an online service that connects clients to a cloudsourced community of expert researchers worldwide-- who are rewarded when they discover quality prior art to support patent validity/invalidity.

Very insightful, it shines a different light on the spirit with which these filings were made. One thing that's hard to see in a different light though, is how angry Steve Jobs sounds in his quote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com