Apple loses A7 patent lawsuit to University of Wisconsin, faces $0.9 billion damages

[Eug]

Ouch:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/13/us-apple-wisconsin-patent-idUSKCN0S72T320151013

Apple Inc could be facing up to $862 million in damages after a U.S. jury on Tuesday found the iPhone maker used technology owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison's licensing arm without permission in chips found in many of its most popular devices.

The jury in Madison, Wisconsin also said the patent, which improves processor efficiency, was valid. The trial will now move on to determine how much Apple owes in damages.

 

[happy medium]

that's pocket change. Apple has that in their petty cash fund.

 

[Phynaz]

It will take a decade to go through all the appeals.

 

[Eug]

They have over $200 billion in cash or cash equivalents, but $0.86 billion is still a fsck of a lot of money. Plus, another lawsuit had been launched for the A9 and A9X. And what happens when A10/A10X launches. Yet another lawsuit?

Intel got around this by licencing the technology for $110 million.

 

[Arachnotronic]

What a load of BS, IMO. No patent is worth this much.

 

[maddie]

What a load of BS, IMO. No patent is worth this much.

Shouldn't the value of a patent be relative to the revenue/profit generated by it's use? If Apple made tons with this, then its worth it.

 

[gdansk]

Interesting to note that Intel settled out of court ahead of time.
Let's see which approach was more prudent.

 

[Shehriazad]

Just give em their money and be done with it.

If you're violating patents you gotta pay...I mean if apple can make others pay for using their innovative and exciting rectangle shaped smartphone design awe, then I'm pretty sure that this will go through easily.

 

[Borealis7]

is the sum derived from the amounts of units sold? seems like it should be much higher.

 

[NTMBK]

What a load of BS, IMO. No patent is worth this much.

Apple sold literally hundreds of millions of infringing devices.

 

[Thanatosis]

And in 10 years UW might see 10% of that settlement. Maybe.





Apple will appeal, and that's an absurd judgment on its face, so I think they have a good chance of winning. Is patent trolling by educational institutions a new thing?


In any case, 900M is chump change to apple. Tim cook farts and their stock goes up 900M.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Wow, Apple infringed a patent 3 times in a row ...

I hope they know what karma is ...

 

[maddie]

And in 10 years UW might see 10% of that settlement. Maybe.





Apple will appeal, and that's an absurd judgment on its face, so I think they have a good chance of winning. Is patent trolling by educational institutions a new thing?


In any case, 900M is chump change to apple. Tim cook farts and their stock goes up 900M.

You sir, need some educating.

Can someone explain the difference between Patent Trolling and Defending your patent.

 

[III-V]

What a load of BS, IMO. No patent is worth this much.

UoW is "only" asking for $300M something, IIRC.

 

[Rakehellion]

WARF used the patent to sue Intel Corp in 2008, but the case was settled the following year on the eve of trial.

Intel also lost the same case. I wonder what the patent is.

 

[MrTeal]

Intel also lost the same case. I wonder what the patent is.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...XT&s1=5781752.PN.&OS=PN/5781752&RS=PN/5781752

 

[dahorns]

What a load of BS, IMO. No patent is worth this much.

Absolutely disagree and the law does as well. The whole point of patents is to incentivize the public disclosure of scientific advancement by providing the patent holder with the exclusive right to make use of the discovery for a period of time. The value of the patent is thus necessarily tied to the profits the patent holder lost because of the infringement/failure to obtain a license to use the patent.

If we do not strongly enforce the rights of patent holders, the incentive mechanism fails. Instead of having a large public database of knowledge, everything would be kept in secret, potentially significantly delaying further advancement.

Apple will appeal, and that's an absurd judgment on its face, so I think they have a good chance of winning. Is patent trolling by educational institutions a new thing?

As mentioned earlier, the University of Wisconsin is not a patent troll. Generally, patent trolls would be entities that buy patents with no intent of actually using them other than to extort a nuisance settlement from other parties. And, at any rate, since we freely allow the transfer of patents, I'm not sure there is a principled, legal reason to disallow "patent trolls" from enforcing their rights.

 

[stingerman]

It's only one algorithm in a processor that uses hundreds of thousands of different techniques. Paying a fee for using a lookup table? No previous art, I doubt it. Anyway, licensing would give them from half a penny to a few pennies per processor.

 

[III-V]

Absolutely disagree and the law does as well. The whole point of patents is to incentivize the public disclosure of scientific advancement by providing the patent holder with the exclusive right to make use of the discovery for a period of time. The value of the patent is thus necessarily tied to the profits the patent holder lost because of the infringement/failure to obtain a license to use the patent.

If we do not strongly enforce the rights of patent holders, the incentive mechanism fails. Instead of having a large public database of knowledge, everything would be kept in secret, potentially significantly delaying further advancement.

Unfortunately, patents are also incredibly expensive, and are basically big-boy toys for the rich.

The entire system needs to be gutted... as well as anybody that stands in the way

 

[stingerman]

FYI, the patent is basically:

If this instruction was executed prematurely because it depended on data that was modified by another instruction
Then Add this to the mis-prediction table so that we don't run it out of sequence again.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I have a hard time mustering up anything but a grumpy-cat "good" for ol' "we invented rounded corners".

 

[ctsoth]

^^

Apple has been plenty happy to sue anyone and everyone, patent trolling themselves.

Karma's a bitch.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

It's only one algorithm in a processor that uses hundreds of thousands of different techniques. Paying a fee for using a lookup table? No previous art, I doubt it. Anyway, licensing would give them from half a penny to a few pennies per processor.

The claims of the patent in question do not specify the use of a lookup table.

Also - this was a high stakes patent litigation where the defendant (Apple) has literally unlimited funds available to try an invalidate the asserted patent. They have some of the best patent lawyers around and access to the best patent litigators in the world. And they still lost. Given that context, your assertion that no previous art exists is questionable at best.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

You sir, need some educating.

Can someone explain the difference between Patent Trolling and Defending your patent.

IMO there really is no difference.

But - some would argue that the difference lies in the type of entity that is asserting the patent in question. If the entity is a university or a business that is using the technology covered by the patent - thats AOK. If the business is an entity that solely exists to enforce patents that it acquired on technology that it did not develop -> troll.

This distinction does not take into account finer business points, e.g., the fact that many large companies assign various groups of patents to subsidiary holding companies, which exist for the purpose of enforcing the patents assigned thereto and to advance the interest of the parent company. One reason to do that is to insulate the parent from the ramifications of adverse judgments in patent enforcement actions, which may require the patentee to pay attorneys or other fees of the opposing party. Are those subsidiary companies patent trolls? Some would say yes.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Absolutely disagree and the law does as well. The whole point of patents is to incentivize the public disclosure of scientific advancement by providing the patent holder with the exclusive right to make use of the discovery for a period of time. The value of the patent is thus necessarily tied to the profits the patent holder lost because of the infringement/failure to obtain a license to use the patent.

If we do not strongly enforce the rights of patent holders, the incentive mechanism fails. Instead of having a large public database of knowledge, everything would be kept in secret, potentially significantly delaying further advancement.

As mentioned earlier, the University of Wisconsin is not a patent troll. Generally, patent trolls would be entities that buy patents with no intent of actually using them other than to extort a nuisance settlement from other parties. And, at any rate, since we freely allow the transfer of patents, I'm not sure there is a principled, legal reason to disallow "patent trolls" from enforcing their rights.

All good points. But to be honest I would save your breath. Most of the folks on the AT boards are patent hating "everything should be free" communists. At least when it comes to the tech world.