OPTi wins $19 million from Apple in patent lawsuit

[AppleInsider]

In a rare public legal defeat, Apple this week was found to have infringed on a patent for computing technology and has been asked to pay $19 million dollars in damages.

An Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division court handed down the amount on Thursday after ruling that Apple had "willfully" violated three claims in a patent for predictive snooping of cache memory that helps shuttle information between a processor, its memory and other elements of a computer.

Begun in January 2007, the lawsuit is a classic example of a firm suing based on very broadly worded patents designed to catch out and collect royalties from as many firms as possible, regardless of whether they were actually aware of the patent. OPTi had filed a similar suit against AMD despite its making processors Apple and other companies don't use; it also dropped all of its original manufacturing and sales businesses in 2003 to concentrate on its lawsuits as a primary source of income.

Apple for its part had tried to thwart the plaintiff by claiming that the patent was invalid both through prior art and through the obviousness of the techniques involved. Judge Charles Everingham of the Marshall court rejected both arguments in his verdict, letting the patent stand.

The Mac maker in its typical fashion hasn't commented on the loss. However, OPTi has already gone on record as hoping to "realize licensing revenue" from Apple and other companies in the future.

[Trajectory]

Ouch! Well, this is what happens when Patents run rampant. Apple is just as guilty of pulling this kind of "patent everything" crap as OPTi (whoever the hell they are). Soon no company will be able to do anything without paying royalties to someone else.

[macdanboy]

Originally Posted by Trajectory

Ouch! Well, this is what happens when Patents run rampant. Apple is just as guilty of pulling this kind of "patent everything" crap as OPTi (whoever the hell they are). Soon no company will be able to do anything without paying royalties to someone else.

I wonder if I could put a Patent on "Patent Lawsuits" and collect royalties forever? One of the real problems here is the fact that the US Patent office is approving patents that they simply don't understand. Remember this is a division of the federal government and we aren't blessed with the brightest lightbulbs on the shelf.

[Phone-UI-Guy]

I sure hope the patent reform legislation passes soon. And I am sick an tired of East Texas agreeing with almost every patent holder regardless of the situation. Patent trolls need to go away.

[mariofreak85]

Originally Posted by macdanboy

I wonder if I could put a Patent on "Patent Lawsuits" and collect royalties forever? One of the real problems here is the fact that the US Patent office is approving patents that they simply don't understand. Remember this is a division of the federal government and we aren't blessed with the brightest lightbulbs on the shelf.

absolute genius

[l008com]

Originally Posted by mariofreak85

absolute genius

I don't get it though. Apple doesn't make processors, and chipsets... intel does. Why is Apple liable for this?

[Trajectory]

The scariest patents are those trying to patent the human DNA or genetically-modified food. They need to stop. This isolationism in Corporate America only hinders innovation.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

An Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division court handed down the amount on Thursday after ruling that Apple had "willfully" violated three claims in a patent for predictive snooping of cache memory that helps shuttle information between a processor, its memory and other elements of a computer.

I don't see how Apple can legitimately be held liable for that, if it's really in regards to Apple's desktops, notebooks and servers. They didn't design or build the cache snooping, for the most part, they simply bought common parts and very likely wired them together in a standard way. Even the unusual variants that Apple gets doesn't seem to count.

[NeilM]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Begun in January 2007, the lawsuit is a classic example of a firm suing based on very broadly worded patents designed to catch out and collect royalties from as many firms as possible, regardless of whether they were actually aware of the patent.

It's irrelevant whether a patent infringer is aware of the fact or not.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by italiankid

Apple loves to sue others and warn others of not to use their patents. Apple should listen to themselves. Glad they lost 19$ million.

In this case, all this means is that you don't know jack about microarchitecture or simply couldn't be bothered to read the article. Don't just praise an article you don't understand, even if you think you agree with it.

Apple shouldn't be held responsible for patent infringement in parts they didn't design. If anyone should be held responsible, it's Intel.

Originally Posted by NeilM

It's irrelevant whether a patent infringer is aware of the fact or not.

I think it factors into punitive damages though, willful infringement would likely be given higher damages.

[Hiro]

This is just a first result from a very patent-holder friendly district. It is meaningless first because it's what $19 million? That's nothing to Apple and defines the worst-case outcome of this case. More likely as the suit goes up through the appeals process and the not so patent-holder-friendly appeals courts get ahold of the invariable "judge screwed up interpretation of X, Y & Z items" and the case gets overturned.

The value is small enough Apple might just pay it to make it go away, but it is also small enough a drawn-out appeals process may make the plantiff settle for less out of court so they don't loose everything on the appeal legal fees, let alone loose the judgement too.

The decision on how this one goes forward has more to do with how Tim Cook's family life has been this past week than anything else really. If he's happy Apple probably pays up and moves on. If he's pissed, to-bad-so-sad this one goes to the wire on principle.

[Unbeliever]

Originally Posted by italiankid

I didn't read the boring article. I just saw that Apple was slapped with another fine lawsuit.

So you just admitted you're a biased idiot who doesn't even read the stuff he's commenting on?

Brilliant!

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't see how Apple can legitimately be held liable for that, if it's really in regards to Apple's desktops, notebooks and servers. They didn't design or build the cache snooping, for the most part, they simply bought common parts and very likely wired them together in a standard way. Even the unusual variants that Apple gets doesn't seem to count.

Maybe part of it is firmware or driver controlled that Apple wrote?

Anyways, if the patent system is designed to grant patents for almost anything and rely on the legal system to sort it out after, the jury should at least be made up of people with relevant technical background. Kind of like peer-review reviewed journals. I just don't think the average person could judge whether one cache line access algorithm is similar to another. Either that or the entire patent system needs to be overhauled to fully judge the applicability of a patent at the application stage. Again, peer-review makes sense. Admittedly, it'll make the process slower, but that'll partially be offset by people no longer bothering to apply if they know it isn't defendable.

[roehlstation]

Originally Posted by Trajectory

Ouch! Well, this is what happens when Patents run rampant. Apple is just as guilty of pulling this kind of "patent everything" crap as OPTi (whoever the hell they are). Soon no company will be able to do anything without paying royalties to someone else.

Wait a minute....Apple is far more specific on its patents, and in many cases at least they have the ability to actually produce what they patent. In this case the patent holder deliberately patented an idea they could never produce, just to sit and wait for someone to produce it so they can show up at the door with their affidavit and hand out.

[stompy]

The most telling phrase in this article

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

An Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division court

[coolfactor]

Originally Posted by l008com

I don't get it though. Apple doesn't make processors, and chipsets... intel does. Why is Apple liable for this?

Unlike most PC manufacturers, Apple doesn't just slap together parts designed by Intel and other companies. They design their own motherboards, and that includes some custom chips and chipsets.

[coolfactor]

Originally Posted by italiankid

Apple loves to sue others and warn others of not to use their patents. Apple should listen to themselves. Glad they lost 19$ million.

There is a big difference between what OPTi is doing and what Apple does. Apple actually brings real products to the marketplace. It's my opinion that a company has a right to protect their inventions if those inventions are used in real products in the marketplace. The real question here is: was the patent broadly-enough written that it was easy for Apple to infringe upon without even knowing through their own R&D?

[satchmo]

Originally Posted by italiankid

on some issues yes. others no.

There is not much more to add when someone admits to their own idiocy.

[ckh1272]

Originally Posted by italiankid

I didn't read the boring article. I just saw that Apple was slapped with another fine lawsuit.

"Way to prove your ignorance on this subject as well as every other past and future subject matter. What a waste of space!

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by roehlstation

Wait a minute....Apple is far more specific on its patents, and in many cases at least they have the ability to actually produce what they patent. In this case the patent holder deliberately patented an idea they could never produce, just to sit and wait for someone to produce it so they can show up at the door with their affidavit and hand out.

Actually, the timing of events don't support that. The AI opening article said that OPTi stopped their own manufacturing in 2003. The patent was originally filed in 2000 and granted in 2002, so the patent was filed and granted in a period when the company was actively designing and making stuff.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/6,405,291

I'm not an expert on caching algorithms or patents, but OPTi's patent doesn't seem too broad. It's specific to PCI bus mastering and talks about how different PCI clients and masters and cache line access should interact.

I think the patent itself has some legitimacy in that it isn't some broad fluff. At the same time, Apple may be correct that while the QPTi's technique is legitimate, it may not be unique enough to warrant a patent. Or it may well be that QPTi's patent is valid, but the Judge/Jury interpreted it's scope too broadly. ie. the patent is specific to PCI-bus mastering, but the Judge may have mistakenly extended it to other motherboard components or software.

[hittrj01]

Originally Posted by italiankid

I got nothing to hide.

You do realize any small shred of credibility you may have been hanging on to is gone, right? At least we can all just ignore you from here on instead of having to put up with your useless, nonsensical rants about things you clearly and admittedly don't understand.

[Fast Fred 1]

Originally Posted by ckh1272

"Way to prove your ignorance on this subject as well as every other past and future subject matter. What a waste of space!

Yes I agree. I find it totally Obserbia.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by italiankid

Apple loves to sue others and warn others of not to use their patents. Apple should listen to themselves. Glad they lost 19$ million.

You are a xxxxxxxx, as usual. As everyone else also confirmed.

EDIT:
Keep it down.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by italiankid

I didn't read the boring article. I just saw that Apple was slapped with another fine lawsuit.

Of course you didn't read it, because you are too stupid to know how to read. Ignorant is the only thing you have proven yourself to be.

[hillstones]

This court case is an example of how stupid the residents of Texas really are.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by italiankid

I got nothing to hide.

Of course you don't, your complete stupidity shines right on through, all the way down to your brilliant grammar skills. That is the only thing you have proven yourself to be...a complete retard. Thankfully, there is an IGNORE feature, which more members are using so we don't have to see how much more retarded you can become.

[zeromeus]

I think this is what happened... The Texas government encourages companies to file frivolous patents for ideas they can't even dream of making. Then these companies are to sit back and relax until someone unknowingly tread on a patent and then they collect money. The Texans then "pretend" to have a trial and make sure it looks legitimate enough so that their texan companies can win the trial, thereby getting lots of money. Now these so called companies must pay taxes on these revenues, so the state gains some money with minimal effort.

Therefore, I think this whole East Texas court scam should be brought to justice! Texans should not be allowed to rule a patent case and should not be allowed to hold a patent...

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by hillstones

This court case is an example of how stupid the residents of Texas really are.

You, sir, are a bigot and an ass.

It's always interesting to see what happens when some people get angry. Rather than try and understand the problem, determine its cause, and propose solutions, they start picking at their own festering sores. They single out the most obvious arbitrary demographic (which they probably already sneered at, for no more intelligent reason than not having belonged to it), and then voila, they're magically transformed into a most public tool.

Way to show us what you're made of, hillstones and zeromeus. In this day and age, doesn't it bother you just a little bit to be so publicly bigoted?

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by italiankid

I didn't read the boring article. I just saw that Apple was slapped with another fine lawsuit.

So then you're using the article headline to feed your confirmation bias? I've heard of people not looking too critically at what they agree with, but this is silly because you're basically admitting it here.

There may well be times where Apple deserves a smackdown, but I don't think it is the case here. Wanting Apple to be punished for something they probably didn't do wrong to cover for some things you think they do wrong is a poor way to do justice. Getting punished for doing something despite being innocent of that is a double insult and a good way to discourage corrective changes.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Trajectory

The scariest patents are those trying to patent the human DNA or genetically-modified food. They need to stop. This isolationism in Corporate America only hinders innovation.

This is happening all around the world.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by NeilM

It's irrelevant whether a patent infringer is aware of the fact or not.

Often, the company that has designed the product, Intel, for example, will indemnify the customers who buy their products and might otherwise be sued.

It's possible in this case, that Apple has written some code to facilitate this, so they would also be liable.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Hiro

This is just a first result from a very patent-holder friendly district. It is meaningless first because it's what $19 million? That's nothing to Apple and defines the worst-case outcome of this case. More likely as the suit goes up through the appeals process and the not so patent-holder-friendly appeals courts get ahold of the invariable "judge screwed up interpretation of X, Y & Z items" and the case gets overturned.

The value is small enough Apple might just pay it to make it go away, but it is also small enough a drawn-out appeals process may make the plantiff settle for less out of court so they don't loose everything on the appeal legal fees, let alone loose the judgement too.

The decision on how this one goes forward has more to do with how Tim Cook's family life has been this past week than anything else really. If he's happy Apple probably pays up and moves on. If he's pissed, to-bad-so-sad this one goes to the wire on principle.

That's not quite correct. If this does hold up, as the article says, and it's correct there, Apple may have to pay royalties to use the patented product, if as I said earlier, Apple has contributed to it in some way.

[harleighquinn]

Originally Posted by italiankid

I got nothing to hide.

Wow. Do you even read what you're responding to or are you typing and looking at the TV over your shoulder?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by hillstones

Of course you didn't read it, because you are too stupid to know how to read. Ignorant is the only thing you have proven yourself to be.

Please, we've gone through this before, keep the name calling to yourself.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by hillstones

Of course you don't, your complete stupidity shines right on through, all the way down to your brilliant grammar skills. That is the only thing you have proven yourself to be...a complete retard. Thankfully, there is an IGNORE feature, which more members are using so we don't have to see how much more retarded you can become.

This is the LAST time you are going to respond this way, correct?

[iVlad]

Its ok, Apple can collect double that money from all the cell-phones companies who ripped iPhone IP and OS. (only if they wanted)

[harleighquinn]

I read the patent.

In other words it IS general and nothing new and quite interesting they went after the biggest, yet less threatening target they could get in their sites.

Apple is just about on top right now, and like hollywood and politics, everybody wants to knock down the king of the mountain.

They didn't go after intel and the article states they intentionally dropped their case against AMD, but the Judge gave them apple and they won't get a dime in the end.

When it hits appeals generality will be argued and precedence will be shown considering their previous cases and the fact they have produced nothing in the last 6 to 8 years.

They will attempt to settle out of court and drop the licensing revenue attempt and it will be up to apple as to whether they will want to drag Opti through the streets or not.

But I guess this short victory was sweet while it lasted, huh?

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Why do idiots come out of the woodwork every time this happens to say, "Wow, Apple sues people too! I sure am glad they got a taste of their own medicine!" Stop and think for a moment, people. These are companies creating broadly written patents specifically to sue other companies for revenue (or at least that has become the case with this company in question)—they don't even have products in most cases, and when they do, they're rarely more than superficial shams of a would-be product on a poorly created website. Apple, on the other hand, is creating patents to protect devices they have engineered and are marketing. Big difference. Think before you speak.

I agree with others. These people creating patents specifically to generate income from our nation’s actual innovators are parasites, and this needs to be stopped.

[ckh1272]

Originally Posted by italiankid

sorry you feel that way.

Don't be sorry. Be informed for once. Like some other posters have said, when you state that you didn't even read the article and throw out silly statements, what little credibility you had left is now zip zero!! It just doesn't make any sense to think with that mentality and then expect other people to take you seriously!!

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by melgross

This is the LAST time you are going to respond this way, correct?

couldn't that question also be levelled at italian kid?

why are obvious trolls tolerated here?