Apple allies with Intel in antitrust case against SoftBank-owned Fortress

[onetheycallEric]

Recap: Last month, Intel made it clear is was prepared to go to war with Fortress, a SoftBank owned investment arm. The litigation war stems from patent infringement lawsuits brought against Intel. The chip maker, for its part, asserts that Fortress has stockpiled patents in a manner that is unlawful and anti-competitive. Intel seemed perfectly willing to test Fortress' patents in court alone, however it's now gained a formidable ally with Apple joining the fray.

Apple and Intel have joined suit against the SoftBank-controlled Fortress Investment Group, following Intel's original suit against Fortress last month. Intel's original filing has now been retracted, being replaced with a new lawsuit listing Apple as a plaintiff.

The new lawsuit echoes the accusations found in the first one, but adds a new set of patents and complaints from Apple. Specifically, Apple alleges it has "suffered economic harm in the form of litigation costs and diversion of resources away from innovation to respond to these entities’ serial nuisance suits."

Apple also notes that firms associated with Fortress have brought at least 25 lawsuits against the company, seeking between $2.6B and $5.1B in damages. Now, Apple and Intel are responding to Fortress in chorus, accusing Fortress of anti-competitive and unlawful patent aggregation, with the intent of suing other technology companies. As Anandtech notes, they are seeking the following:

a) That Defendants’ unlawful conduct be declared a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18; and Cal. Bus. Prov. Code § 17200, et seq.;

b) That Intel and Apple recover damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined and multiplied to the extent provided by law, including under Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

c) That all contracts or agreements Defendants entered into in violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, or Cal. Bus. Prov. Code § 17200, et seq. be declared void and the patents covered by those transfer agreements be transferred back to the transferors;

d) That all patents transferred to Defendants in violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, or Cal. Bus. Prov. Code § 17200, et seq. be declared unenforceable;

e) Award to Intel and Apple their costs and expenses associated with this case, together with interest; and

f) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/82903-apple-allies-intel-antitrust-case-against-softbank-owned.html

 

[Uncle Al]

Don't you love it when the big boys step into the ring and want to duke it out! It's a shame the result isn't like the oil companies back in the 70's when they would have gas wars! Oh well, we can dream . . . . . .

 

[krizby]

Darn...so Softbank own both wework and wenotworkonlysue at the same time...both fail spectacularly

 

[Puiu]

Wow, Intel accusing others of being anti-competitive

 

[Irata]

Wow, Intel accusing others of being anti-competitive

Joined by the company who enforced a patent on a rounded rectangle.

While I am not a friend of patent trolls, I feel that a genuine patent can be re-sold and whoever pays money for it should be free to use it in whatever way they seem fit.

Otherwise there should be a "use it or lose it" clause which should equally apply to all other types of IP like brand names, designs, movies, games, music...Don't think the self proclaimed freedom fighters would like that too much.

 

[Bullwinkle M]

Google: Uniloc Softbank

You will find the above story nearly word for word at hundreds of sites as well as the Uniloc story

In order to "afford" software protection, it appears that many inventors need to pool their patents in order to fight the Microsoft's / Intel's and Apple's of the World

I seriously doubt this is a Patent Troll issue as it is made out to be

Check out what Uniloc had to go through against Microsoft for a refresher on this issue

https://www.abc.net.au/austory/a-done-deal/9170392
(Read the Transcript)

If you create a unique technology like Uniloc did, Microsoft will just steal it without any compensation to you

Do you think Uniloc, or any other patent holder should simply produce their own operating system as well, just to compete directly with Microsoft and prevent the "Use it or Lose it" argument of Patents?

REDICULOUS!

Many of these creators cannot use their own creation by itself, and must sell or License their technology to others for use in a larger project like "Windows"

Acting alone, most of these creators cannot afford to protect their rights in Court, which is why these Big Corporations steal whatever they can and label you a Troll if you try to protect what is rightfully yours

Most people believe the Fake News reports because this and other stories are copied almost word for word at HUNDREDS of sites

But a little further digging will get you to the final verdicts of the Court cases of previous litigants (after all the appeals / time and money are exhausted)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniloc

Reading.........It's Fundamental!

 

[mctommy]

Darn...so Softbank own both wework and wenotworkonlysue at the same time...both fail spectacularly

Their money (Softbank's) is on betting on getting paid for their investment of Sprint... Softbank also owns a stake on Brightstar - so some vertical integration in the wireless telco business.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Joined by the company who enforced a patent on a rounded rectangle.

While I am not a friend of patent trolls, I feel that a genuine patent can be re-sold and whoever pays money for it should be free to use it in whatever way they seem fit.

Otherwise there should be a "use it or lose it" clause which should equally apply to all other types of IP like brand names, designs, movies, games, music...Don't think the self proclaimed freedom fighters would like that too much.

This isn't so much a patent troll case as it is a anti-trust case (says so right in the title, and sources). Intel and Apple get to claim that they aren't monopolies because Samsung, ARM, AMD, and Microsoft exist and can compete - but Fortress can't make that claim, especially when they have just been buying out their competitors and consolidating their patent portfolios.