Whats with $2.7M being a popular fee for lawyers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The company said that responding to claims, regardless of merit, consumes "significant time and expense.

I do not understand how Apple is responsible for violating a patent on technology built into the CPU - or did I miss something and it is something in the OS?

It reminds me of a local case where a woman slipped and fell on a sidewalk in front of a house and sued the city, the homeowner, AND the real estate agent who had the house listed for sale AND the real estate agent's broker.

Now - IF maintaing the sidewalk is the responsibility of the city AND the sidewalk was in such poor condition that it could not be safely navigated then maybe there is some merit to suing the city. Or if the homeowner is responsible for fixing damaged sidewalks then maybe some merit in suing the home owner. But why the real estate agent and broker? I suppose because presumably they have a lot of money and regardless of guilt and fault and blame etc - you have to go after SOMEONE who has money if your ultimate goal is not justice or to correct the problem but to get a fat check at the end of the case.

I suppose the part I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around is simply this -- Apple assembles the computer, but does not actually manufacture the components in question with this litigation. It seems to me that if you have a beef with a patent on these chips, go after the chip makers.

These patent trolls are worthless leaches on our tech industry. Frankly I like the idea of patents being similar to trademarks -- use them or lose them. You should not be able to just file a patent, sit on it, wait for someone else to come up with the same obvious idea and do all your legwork to create a successful product, then cash in afterwards, having not actually contributed any equity to the product's success. And software patents just need to go, period. Want a copyright on that code? Sure. Patent on it? Go away.

Unless the ridiculous ideas of "intellectual property" as they currently exist are fixed, we are in danger of losing our last competitive advantages in the technology field to countries with saner patent systems.

If they appeal, will the venue be changed? Can they get out of Taliban country to a real court?

There might actually be validity to this patent; at the time it was a novel solution. As I understand it, the "invention" is part of the kernel drivers for the os. Technically, I would think BSD would be in trouble on this as the source code wouldn't be Apple's property.

Ok, everyone here who actually has a copyright or patent raise their hand.

I am a longstanding Mac user, but the double standard here is amazing.

Who thinks that Apple suing the power adapter maker for patent infringement is ok? If so, why and how is this any different than this company suing Apple for infringing on its patents?

Folks, patents are here to protect IP. The patent holder is under no obligation to invent or produce anything beyond the patent.

Robonerd seems to think that patents involve "obvious" ideas, which is by no means the case (think molecular biology).

How would you feel if you invented something got the patent, and had some mega corporation steal your idea? How many of you have the financial resources to do something about it? Could you sue Apple with its legions of lawyers if they stole your idea.