Honestly, I don't know why these small companies want so much... they are probably suing for something that is bigger than themrselves.

Who The Hell Is Ip Innovation?

20 million is so little...

^^ u must have 20 million in ur pocket eh? :P that's not the point.. it's significant how a company will sue for more than their worth... smart actually unless they get screwed over.

reminds me of that April's fools joke

lol i never saw this one coming. always thought apple was an original thinker, hmmmm

Lol, no. They were "inspired" to their OS from Xerox.

Sunny69^^ u must have 20 million in ur pocket eh? :P that's not the point.. it's significant how a company will sue for more than their worth... smart actually unless they get screwed over.

i wish :cry:,

but 20 million is pocket change for apple...

Saying that they make billions off itunes and ipods...

ktri wish :cry:,

but 20 million is pocket change for apple...

Saying that they make billions off itunes and ipods...

It doesn't matter who it is, or how much they're worth; I HATE it when companies pull underhanded tricks like this. I hope IP Innovation loses the lawsuit, then gets countersued for being stupid and petty -_-x

then you will hate verizon who basically killed vonage :(

People do have rights on what they have patented...

Verizon is a bit better in my eyes because they have provided excellent service to me. I should reword my previous statement... I hate it when small unknown companies patent something, find out that someone is infringing on the patent, wait until that company makes a lot of cash before finally filing a lawsuit in which they ask for more than what the smaller, unknown company is worth. With all the lawsuits on patent infringment going on, I wonder why any company, big or small, would offer a service or product without checking if it's been patented/copyrighted before...

Who's to say they knew about it for a long time and finally decided to act on it? How long ago was Mac OS X 10.4 released? While I understand what you are saying, it actually makes less sense to me. A copyright infringement is still that. Look at it the other way around. If IP Innovations was doing this in a reversal role, Apple would be all over them. The point is moot anyways. Im sure the $20,000,000 USD is what they estimate Apple has made on the OS X 10.4. They may reach an agreement and agree to royalties for the use.

I actually worked as a patent examiner and had the power to approve or deny patents. There will always be the paper inventor that tries to get an idea patented for the sole purpose of sitting on the intellectual property and waiting until someone with deep pockets comes along and doesn't have enough sense to check the patent database (which is completely open to the public to search) and infringe on their patent. It sucks, it happens, and Apple is just as bad as Adobe, Microsoft, IBM, and some of the other large names when it comes to applying for frivilous patents solely to either corner the market in intellectual goods or so that they can go after their competitors in lawsuits... that's a large reason why I stopped working there because the system, while necessary for the protection of true progress, is so abused it's hard to see the good that comes from it.

Just to clarify, copyright infringement and patent infringement are two completely different monsters. Similar and actually both are done on the same campus in Old Town Alexandria, VA but still fundamentally different. Also a lot of small companies (also patent holding firms that buy patents from individuals that they believe they could sit on either sue other parties in the future or license the patent) just don't have the resources to mass produce their idea so they wait for someone to do it for them then reap the benefits. I don't understand why they aren't sueing for a lump sum then demanding a percentage of the profits for the sale of OS X. Why have them ban sales? That's just bad business, lease your info and continue to make money off the hard work of others.

They waited too damn long to bring it up, although $20 million isn't that much. Probably a low-ball amount to make the lawsuit more plausible for a win.

or, as I stated, what they deem Apple has made on the suit. The whole thing with them telling them to cease production of the OS, if they win, a judge will probably side with them and Apple will say, ok, we will pay you this amount (could be 20 mil could be less) and then say we will give you a certain percentage of our profit to lease your patent. Thats probably what they are going after. It may be their hard work they are riding on, but it was their hard work to come up with the software, technology, etc first. So a company takes it without asking, saying thanks or any monetary payment. Yeah, I would be pissed too if I were the small company. they will probably settle this and it will be done and over with. as I said, the point is moot anyways.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the sales ban. That's just ridiculous, although Verizon's lawsuit with Vonage temporarily forbade them to register new customers. It was pretty ironic because at first the judge said Vonage had to pay Verizon royalties from future sales, but then they said they couldn't sign up anymore customers. Lawsuit has been kind of a mess like that.

I'm actually in agreement with you on this one WarEagle, I think you just read it differently than I meant it. It'd be bad business if they got the lump sum and had OS X banned, good business to get your money then get royalties off Apple's sales (let them front all the capitol, man-hours, etc). I'm also assuming that since the patent infringement is only for a one feature within the entire OS X, they know they're more likely to win if they don't ask for an exorbitant amount of money. By the way, if anyone wants to keep themselves amused, you could spend countless hours looking up all the "I can't believe that's a patent" patents. There's at least one for a musical condom that you can record the message it plays, a motorized ice-cream cone, I know there's one patent application that is still in the appeals court on a method for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (the peanut butter is spread on both peices of bread with the jelly in the middle). I think that one is from Smuckers, can't remember exactly. What's even worse though is all the patent attorneys that tell their clients that their idea is great and deserves a patent when even they know it's crap. There's a special place in hell for most laywers (not all, but still most), even though they are a necessary evil.