Apple loses patent lawsuit to University of Wisconsin, faces hefty damages

[Homerboy]

Free money for my state!!!

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.

Representatives for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.

WARF sued Apple in January 2014 alleging infringement of its 1998 patent for improving chip efficiency.

The jury was considering whether Apple's A7, A8 and A8X processors, found in the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus, as well as several versions of the iPad, violate the patent.

Cupertino, California-based Apple denied any infringement and argued the patent is invalid, according to court papers. Apple previously tried to convince the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review the patent's validity, but in April the agency rejected the bid.

According to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge William Conley, who is presiding over the case, Apple could be liable for up to $862.4 million in damages.

He scheduled the trial to proceed in three phases: liability, damages, and finally, whether Apple infringed the patent willfully, which could lead to enhanced penalties.

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

Last month, WARF launched a second lawsuit against Apple, this time targeting the company's newest chips, the A9 and A9X, used in the just-released iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, as well as the iPad Pro.

The case is Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 14-cv-62.


UPdate:

http://www.wpr.org/apple-owes-234m-uw-foundation-jury-rules
Apple Owes $234M To UW Foundation, Jury Rules

 

[PokerGuy]

Good for WARF, that's one heck of a payday. I'm sure it will be many years and the legal fees with eat into the payout, but ultimately they will get an (apparently deserved) hefty payout.

 

[Anubis]

apple arguing that others patents are invalid is comical when they patented a rectangle

 

[ControlD]

apple arguing that others patents are invalid is comical when they patented a rectangle

Yes, but it was a rectangle filled with magic. That's the relevant part I think.

 

[PliotronX]

They'll just pay it off with the billion stolen from Samsung.

 

[glenn1]

Should be 10x or 100x bigger. Fvck the patent trolls and thieves at Apple.

 

[twinrider1]

And suddenly the free MS software offers are bouncing @wisc.edu email addresses.

 

[SP33Demon]

Apple are crooks, good. They've been leeching off this patent for most of their flagship products. Time to pay the piper, bitches.

 

[K1052]

Only $202B in cash or cash equivalents left.

Somebody should start a deathwatch thread.

 

[unokitty]

Since Apple has $203 Billion dollars cash on hand, Tim Cook needs to step up and write a check.

Contrats to the University of Wisconsin! (Though, I expect that the lawyers, and politicians, rather than the students will be the primary beneficiaries...)

Uno

 

[Sonikku]

By the time they're done appealing and/or throwing endless litigation resources at it to lower the pay out those guys will be lucky to recoup their legal fees.

 

[CPA]

Wait, no one is going to bitch about the patent and how it's 17 years old and it shouldn't be valid for that long, and fair use, and open source and blah, blah, blah?

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Wait, no one is going to bitch about the patent and how it's 17 years old and it shouldn't be valid for that long, and fair use, and open source and blah, blah, blah?

That's not that long ago IMO

 

[MarkXIX]

This will be settled and the university will end up with an Apple feeder program and some amount of millions in cash. It's a win/win.

 

[lxskllr]

Wait, no one is going to bitch about the patent and how it's 17 years old and it shouldn't be valid for that long, and fair use, and open source and blah, blah, blah?

Normally I would, but Apple deserves to be fucked. They should be fucked a few more times til we get some patent reform.

 

[cubby1223]

That's not that long ago IMO

Not that long ago? 1998 was the year cpu's finally began pushing 400Mhz in speed. We all bought our first copies of Windows 98. And these were the innovative tech in cell phones:

It terms of technology, 1998 is ancient and yes, the patent should be reviewed to determine if it even applies to today. Personally, I haven't a clue what exactly is in this patent, hence I'm open to either possibility of valid or invalid. While so many others have determined their preferred conclusion based solely on the entities involved.

 

[TheGardener]

It will be settled with the university taking a grant for research. That way Apple can take a tax deduction, and the US taxpayers will be on the hook for a big chunk. Win/win?

 

[Rakehellion]

Lol at the Apple haters in this thread. Apparently they sued Intel for the same thing.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think it's the first time I hear of a company actually losing a lawsuit like this, AND having to pay. Nice to see that actually happen. Not that I really agree with the idea of patents, they only encourage monopoly.

 

[Rakehellion]

I think it's the first time I hear of a company actually losing a lawsuit like this, AND having to pay. Nice to see that actually happen. Not that I really agree with the idea of patents, they only encourage monopoly.

Big companies lose lawsuits all the time. The jury's still out on how much they have to pay.

 

[Aikouka]

I took a peek at the patent, and essentially, it's a patent on instruction prefetching. You'll notice that the lawsuit specifically mentions the A7 and the A8 -- it'd likely mention the A9, but it was probably filed too soon for that -- and that's because the A7 SoC was the first SoC from Apple that included out-of-order execution. Out-of-order execution is important in processing because it's not uncommon to run into situations in code where the next instruction that will be executed is not the next instruction in line. An if statement is an easy example of this...

if (x > 1)
     cout << "x > 1";
else
     cout << "x <= 0";

If our variable x is greater than 1 (i.e. 2 or higher), we will execute the next line; however, if it is 0 or lower, then we will execute the else line. In this case, a tool called a branch predictor will attempt to predict where it will go. In this case, it could prefetch the first instruction under the else and begin decoding it, which helps avoid delays. To note, a prediction can be wrong, which is called a pipeline stall.

Now, I haven't delved nearly enough into their patent to know how deeply it ties to things and whether it's one of those overly generic ideas. Also, it's worthwhile to mention that Apple is just their latest target. They've already sued bigger fish like Intel.

 

[SKORPI0]

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc.

COMPLAINT against Apple Inc.. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0758-1291514.), filed by Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit A - U.S. Patent 5,781,752,
# 2 Summons,
# 3 Report on Filing Patent/Trademark Action,
# 4 JS-44 Civil Cover Sheet) (Gregor, Jennifer)

pdf (7 pages) - https://cases.justia.com/federal/di...wdc/3:2014cv00062/34766/1/0.pdf?ts=1391451626

U.S. Patent No. 5781752
pdf of patent (16 pages) - http://www.warf.org/documents/ipstatus/P96055US.PDF

Abstract
A predictor circuit permits advanced execution of instructions depending for their data on previous instructions by predicting such dependencies based on previous mis-speculations detected at the final stages of processing. Synchronization of dependent instructions is provided by a table creating entries for each instance of potential dependency. Table entries are created and deleted dynamically to limit total memory requirements.
The invention relates generally to architectures of electronic computers and specifically to electronic computers for parallel processing.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I don't mind patents on actual hardware, new physical types of circuits, etc. but patents on how existing circuits are arranged are ridiculous and a complete failure of the patent office's knowledge of computing at a basic level, especially 20 years ago (not that it's much better now because it seems to be based on precedent). The WARF-owned patent doesn't account for anything new and should be invalid. However, in the case of Apple or any other large hardware arranging designer/manufacturer, you reap what you sow.

 

[natto fire]

Nice that they got a taste of their own medicine.

There was a really good article in Wired a few years ago, about how much money is wasted lining lawyers pockets in the patent trolling process.

 

[Raduque]

How you like them apples, Apple?