
Apple Updates Response in Lodsys Patent Case - davethenerd
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_updates_response_in_lodsys_patent_case/
======
lukejduncan
I'd be curious if anyone can comment on this line:

“Apple’s license agreement with Intellectual Ventures presumably precludes
Apple (and Google) from this unless they risk losing their license to those
patents and potentially many others (up to more than 30,000).”

Is it really possible to have a license that says "you can't challenge the
validity of lawsuits that stem from patents we own/profit from"?

~~~
monochromatic
> Is it really possible to have a license that says "you can't challenge the
> validity of lawsuits that stem from patents we own/profit from"?

If you mean "challenge the validity of the patents," then it is absolutely
possible, and it is a very common thing to put into a license. You don't want
your licensee to insulate himself from suit by signing the license agreement,
and then immediately turn around and sue for a declaratory judgment of
invalidity. Having this clause puts the spectre of an infringement suit into
his head, and it makes him less likely to challenge your patent's validity.

------
dpcan
Where is the updated response? This article just says there has been an
updated response.

------
nkassis
Why aren't they just trying to void the damn patent in question?

~~~
timerickson
I would imagine they have a very smart team of lawyers that has informed them
that the action they are taking currently is the smartest, quickest, and
cheapest way to settle the issue.

------
digiwizard


