Back in 2010, Apple was seemingly randomly sued by an eccentric 70-year-old crank who claimed to have “come up with the idea” of the smartphone. That lawsuit has now come to trial, and the crank has lost, but what’s confusing is how torn the jury seems to have been by the decision, even going so far as to call the alleged smartphone creator a “little guy” crushed by big business.
Let’s back up. The patent in question is one owned by NetAirus Technologies LLC, a company owned by an inventor named Richard L. Ditzik, who patented an idea for a handheld device that combines both computer and wireless-communication functions over both Wi-Fi and a cellular network.
Apple argued in its case in federal court that Ditzik’s patent was the “poster child” for spurious patents, and even presented its own Newton Messagepad as an example of prior art. This wasn’t an invention that Ditzik had made, it was just a description of an invention Ditzik was banking on someone else making so he could sue them. And Apple said it went even further, claiming that Ditzik revised his patent to include smartphone features he had read about in magazines.
What’s weird, though, is how torn the jury was. The jurors were so divided that they asked the judge to allow them to file a majority vote. And one of the jurors after the case went as far as to say he “almost felt like we were failing in doing everything we could for the system and for the inventor,” and that there “was an aspect to the case that Apple was this giant crushing the little guy.” He even said he wanted to find “some other way” to reward Ditzik.
There’s likely some aspect of the case I’m missing here, but this seems like textbook spurious patent stuff. Why people should be allowed to patent ideas instead of specific executions makes no sense to me. What do you think?
Source: Bloomberg
John Brownlee is a writer for Fast Company, and a contributing writer here at CoM. He has also written for Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, VentureBeat, and Gizmodo. He lives in Boston with his wife and two parakeets. You can follow him here on Twitter.
7 responses to “Why Is Apple The Bad Guy For Defeating This Patent Troll?”
Why is it always apple they sue. Why didn’t he file a suit against ALL of the cellular makers out there. It’s a shame that it has gotten so bad that people who never actually invented anything can sue for an idea. There are tons of things that I thought of back in the 80s while toiling away on my commodore and Mac+.
How many people at some point in the 60s, 70s, 80s, didn’t say to themselves… “jesse, I wish i could go sit by the pool and chat without being tethered to this wall phone? People should get a job.
What do I think? You’re an idiot if you think that an inventor has to also make the product in order to sue over a patent. Let’s say I make $20K a year invented and patented the way to make what we call a PET Scan. You’re nuts if you think I have to first build the device that’s going to costs $10s or $100 of millions. The patent system is open so a large company or person with deep pockets can see this incredible invention and decide to invest the money in RnD and make it a reality. That company will make a boat load of money selling the device and the patent holder should be paid as well. If the company made the device without first checking if there was a patent for it then it’s there problem and not the patent holder.
Angry much?
Good “ideas” are a dime a dozen. Actually manifesting the idea … now that’s the hard part.
“Good “ideas” are a dime a dozen. Actually manifesting the idea … now that’s the hard part”
Thats all Im saying!
“Why people should be allowed to patent ideas instead of specific executions makes no sense to me. What do you think?”
John, the idea has as much merit as its successful execution, and sometimes even more. Not giving a visionary right and credit for his idea simply because executing it is out of his reach is ludicrous.
I am not saying this man was not a patent troll, I don’t know enough about this case to say that, but I disagree with your final reflection.
I agree with you, it’s just the “you are an idiot” part that bothers me. Was that really necessary?