or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Patent infringement suit targets Apple over use of Intel CPUs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Patent infringement suit targets Apple over use of Intel CPUs - Page 2

post #41 of 65
I'd prefer if this site just added a lawsuit section. While they these postings may be news to some, I think most would prefer not see them unless they choose to see them in the lawsuit section.

just my 2 pennies.
post #42 of 65
Well I guess I can expect a suit for purchasing and using these "stolen" items.
jgb
Reply
jgb
Reply
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

US should be more nationalistic.
All patent cases with US companies against non US companies = US companies automatically win

I second this motion.

I thought these jokers are from PA and the last time I looked PA was still part of the Union.
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamdeadfish View Post

Don't blame the lawsuits, blame the U.S. Government for approving these vague, logical conclusion tech patents in the first place!

Dont blame others. They are bringing conclusive technology patents to the courts.

Apple, on the other hand, is bringing a highly subjective area ( aesthetic "trade dress" ) as a patent infringement case

Double standards arent cool when its not Apple.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquia33 View Post

Well I guess I can expect a suit for purchasing and using these "stolen" items.

Why? They aren't the RIAA, lol!
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by railstop View Post

Seriously, You can't build anything without someone calling infringement. And the suing crap has got to stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
- Shakespeare (Henry VI)

(You'd think someone would have gone and DONE it by now. Geez.)

But... ...not. The US is the most "litigious" country in the history of the world and has the most lawyers per capita. And lawyers support and make laws that keep lawyers busy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by normang View Post

Tort Reform, if the company suing loses, they pay bigtime. that would slow this crap down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post

Great idea. This should definitely be done. Getting sick of all the effing patent trolls out there. It's getting ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Write your local Democrat to get on board with the Republicans, who have been touting tort reform for years, and let's get this done!

The anti-tort reform lawyer's lobby is the single biggest contributor to the Democratic Party. And have a fair number of Republicans in their pocket as well. Lawyers want tort reform about as much as tax accountants want a truly simple flat tax or "fair tax" (replacing the income tax with a national sales tax) system.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Dont blame others. They are bringing conclusive technology patents to the courts.

Who are "they"? X2Y?

Quote:
Apple, on the other hand, is bringing a highly subjective area ( aesthetic "trade dress" ) as a patent infringement case

Double standards arent cool when its not Apple.

Hold on. There exists a "design patent" which is different type of patent than a regular patent, and it covers the aesthetic look of a product. Yes, it is subjective, which is why there is a court system to sort that out. A design patent is somewhat like a trademark, but a trademark is more or less the product name, logo design, that sort of thing, where a design patent covers the overall shape of the product.
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Just reading the story I can tell this isn't the usual patent-infringement stuff.

1. it seems to be for hardware, not software. And these folks manufacture stuff.

2. It's not filed in the Eastern District of Texas, which is the preferred locale for patent trolling (and some non-trolls as well, to be fair)

3. It is filed in Western District of Pennsylvania which is, golly gosh, where they do business

Let's wait and see how this one goes.

Great points! I guess I'm finding this suit interesting for exactly these types of reasons. You can't compare x2y to strictly IP companies like St. Clair IP Consultants (that sued HTC, RIM and some others last year) that filed IP lawsuits. Some of these other companies like St. Clair, as I understand it, don't even offer licenses, but just sit on patents and wait for someone to violate them.

X2Y reminds me of ARM- http://www.arm.com/about/company-profile/milestones.php, which is a design house and licensor (the tech cpu's like the A4-5, Cortex, etc. use), though ARM is a LOT more successful, at the moment. But what if ARM sued Intel over IP? Why wouldn't this be as frivolous? IP is IP. I get the feeling a lot of the negative comments come from a lack of understanding how important real IP is and just because the company doesn't fab the hardware it designs/invents doesn't make it's product any less tangible. X2Y says it can send product samples so they are definitely in business to produce.

The fact that (according to Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ter-chips.html ) , Intel was invited to licence the technology, declined and then apparently used it anyway, tells me this isn't just some vague concept that was worded well enough to get a patent. Not to mention, Intel's track record with doing this kind of thing pretty much speaks for itself. I wouldn't be surprised if they just try to buy x2y
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Just a note, Lodsys also has licensing deals with major players, like Apple.

Yes, I'm thinking the more interested I get in this X2Y suit and reading about other cases, that Lodsys might have been a poor example. Thanks for pointing this out though!
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
- Shakespeare (Henry VI)

(You'd think someone would have gone and DONE it by now. Geez.)

You're taking Shakespeare's words out of context (as people do repeatedly). If you're seriously stupid and believe what you're saying, go tell the people who had the wrong leg operated on in surgery that there's no lawyers to help them sue. Or people who got cancer from chemical pollution in their drinking water. Or a lot of other people.

It's easy to throw out words, but try to have an actual thought sometime.
post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

The strange thing is that all other tech companies can copy apple stuff and get away with it. All smartphones today are Iphone clones. All tablets are Ipad clones.

When Steve introduced Iphone he said that Apple had over 200 patent on the Iphone. How can Samsung make exact copies of it?

Would you please email this question to Steve? I'd love to hear his answer.
Thank you.
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
- Shakespeare (Henry VI)

(You'd think someone would have gone and DONE it by now. Geez.)

You'd think that someone would take time to read Shakespeare before quoting it.

Your quote was from someone who wanted to take over the government. He stated that the first step was to kill the attorneys. The point was that the lawyers DEFEND people's rights and if they were all killed, no one would be there to protect the citizens.

Exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post

Coming Soon: Ford sues Ferrari over their use of the Internal Combustion engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markm49uk View Post

Think you need to read up on the internal combustion engine if you think Ford invented it....

Are you always this dense? jetlaw made up the statement just to make a sarcastic point.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #54 of 65
It's time for Apple, HP, Intel, Compaq and whomever is left making stuff..... to file one huge ass lawsuit against companies like this, and the freaking US patent office for allowing so many vague patents to be awarded. It's like the US Patent Office is run by people who just heard of the wheel.

This insane bull crap has got to come to an end. I've never tried to do this, but I often thought it was be funny to try and patent a new written language. You know... something that had a lot of characters that looked like the vowels.... then start a lawsuit rampage against the government for using 'A, E, I, O and U"s in it's documentation without pay usage fees. I am seriously surprised the US patent office hasn't allowed someone to patent the letter "E" when used in a word.

I mean... How in the HELL are you allowed to get a freaking patent on a button inside an application that allows you to upgrade the application. BULL SHIT! And what was it eons ago...... oh yeah... Amazon's "1-click" patent.... that had Apple paying them to have a single "buy" button on the damn web site. This is a huge fraud for lawyers to make money off companies that produce goods and services.... for idiots that can come up with the vaguest of patent ideas about a technology that does NOTHING on it's own. Time for this to come to an end.
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

But... ...not. The US is the most "litigious" country in the history of the world and has the most lawyers per capita. And lawyers support and make laws that keep lawyers busy.

That's because we have a 'capitalist' legal system in this country. It's set up to allow people to seek redress through the courts and to create financial incentive for lawyers to aggressively pursue these cases with the hopes of reaping profits from properly representing their clients.

The alternative, if we actually want to protect people's rights, and not just descend into a state where people can cause injury without consequences, is to have the government itself become much more aggressively involved in enforcing civil law and handing out financial and other penalties.

Take your choice. But it's the anti-government crowd who are making all the noise about "tort reform", so what they are really arguing, many of them thoughtlessly, without even understanding what they are arguing for, is to strip citizens of their right to seek redress in any meaningful form.

Quote:
The anti-tort reform lawyer's lobby is the single biggest contributor to the Democratic Party. And have a fair number of Republicans in their pocket as well. Lawyers want tort reform about as much as tax accountants want a truly simple flat tax or "fair tax" (replacing the income tax with a national sales tax) system.

That tells you that it's the Democratic party that is looking out for protecting the rights of the people and that the Republican party has simply become the tool of the rich and powerful who would prefer to trample those rights with impunity.

(And, since you bring it up, a flat tax, especially a national sales tax, is close to the most regressive -- i.e., unfair tax -- possible.)
post #56 of 65
I live in Erie and have never even heard of this company. Nor have I even seen a building anywhere in the city with a banner or sign saying "X2Y" ... I looked them up on google maps and know where their "main" office building is now. The funny thing is, there office is in a rather run down area.. I don't know... This stuff is getting ridiculous anymore...

The only person I could see that could be sued is Intel. The companies that intel sold to should not be held liable because they license the right to use intel processors with the assumption that all intellectual property rights are licensed with the processor that they are purchasing. Apple/HP did not produce the processor, so they should not be held liable.
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

It's time for Apple, HP, Intel, Compaq and whomever is left making stuff..... to file one huge ass lawsuit against companies like this, and the freaking US patent office for allowing so many vague patents to be awarded. It's like the US Patent Office is run by people who just heard of the wheel.

This insane bull crap has got to come to an end. I've never tried to do this, but I often thought it was be funny to try and patent a new written language. You know... something that had a lot of characters that looked like the vowels.... then start a lawsuit rampage against the government for using 'A, E, I, O and U"s in it's documentation without pay usage fees. I am seriously surprised the US patent office hasn't allowed someone to patent the letter "E" when used in a word.

I mean... How in the HELL are you allowed to get a freaking patent on a button inside an application that allows you to upgrade the application. BULL SHIT! And what was it eons ago...... oh yeah... Amazon's "1-click" patent.... that had Apple paying them to have a single "buy" button on the damn web site. This is a huge fraud for lawyers to make money off companies that produce goods and services.... for idiots that can come up with the vaguest of patent ideas about a technology that does NOTHING on it's own. Time for this to come to an end.

Amen!
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post

Ummm.... the Republican idea of "reform" is preventing or even eliminating class action lawsuits, and capping damages. Take a peek at the following:

"The Tennessee General Assembly approved HB 2008 that places a cap of $750,000 on non-economic damages such as pain and emotional suffering and a $500,000 cap on economic or punitive damages. The bill also places a $1 million cap on catastrophic cases, a cap that would apply in instances where a person became paralyzed, burned, blinded, suffered an amputation or otherwise died leaving behind minor children."

"The bill was Haslam’s legislative centerpiece in his first year in office and part of his campaign promise to make Tennessee more attractive to businesses."

Now read the end of the last line again, "....to make Tennessee more attractive to businesses."

Bingo. To Republicans, "tort reform" would be like the bankruptcy "reform" laws passed recently, choked full of rules benefitting the banks and the credit card industry. Tort reform would be little more than a corporate wish list, designed to make life easier and less expensive for them.

It would not benefit the public in any way, shape, or form.

If you knew anything about business you would KNOW when an economy is suffering business seeks for ways to cut cost to become profitable or stay profitable.
If you are being sued for multiple millions of dollars by person after person for anything and everything with no caps in sight then there is no profit so why even be in business.
Thats not to say that there are not legitimate reasons to sue a company but most plaintiffs receive a settlement or award that is unjust (i.e. Punishment exceeding the crime so to speak).
Also just because a business is a business does mean they should automatic be punished.
If the current treatment of business's continue guess what, you wont have a job and/or business to work for because they will move to Mexico, China or India where the do not try to destroy a company because they are in business.
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGNR8 View Post

If you knew anything about business you would KNOW when an economy is suffering business seeks for ways to cut cost to become profitable or stay profitable.
If you are being sued for multiple millions of dollars by person after person for anything and everything with no caps in sight then there is no profit so why even be in business.
Thats not to say that there are not legitimate reasons to sue a company but most plaintiffs receive a settlement or award that is unjust (i.e. Punishment exceeding the crime so to speak).
Also just because a business is a business does mean they should automatic be punished.
If the current treatment of business's continue guess what, you wont have a job and/or business to work for because they will move to Mexico, China or India where the do not try to destroy a company because they are in business.

Sorry, but your post is nothing but gross exaggeration and misrepresentation.

* Companies are not, "being sued for multiple millions of dollars by person after person for anything and everything."

* Businesses do not, and ought not, have the right to become profitable by causing injury to others, or by making the costs of those injuries small enough that those damages are considered "acceptable loss"

* The idea that, "most plaintiffs receive a settlement or award that is unjust," is not only entirely unsupportable, but based only on a few sensational cases that are not only unrepresentative, but misrepresented -- the McDonald's hot coffee case being a classic example of the latter.

* No one has ever suggested that, "because a business is a business does mean they should automatic be punished." But those against stripping the right of citizens to seek just redress don't believe that because a business is a business they should be exempt from meaningful punishment when deserved.

* The idea that all companies, "will move to Mexico, China or India," if we don't grant them immunity from being held accountable is nonsense. Not only will they not, but, even if they did, it wouldn't have any effect on lawsuits.

All this right wing nonsense boils down to a bunch of contradictory bullshit that is nothing more than a pack of lies and scare tactics designed to convince people they must give up all their rights to the wealthy if they want to be happy, just like people were convinced we had to give up our freedom through the patriot act if we wanted to be safe.
post #60 of 65
But limits placed on malpractice awards have seen benefits to the public, both in (somewhat) reduced costs as well as increased access to medical care hasn't it?

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/tortcaps/tortcaps.htm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

But limits placed on malpractice awards have seen benefits to the public, both in (somewhat) reduced costs as well as increased access to medical care hasn't it?

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/tortcaps/tortcaps.htm

I wouldn't trust any "research" that came out of the Bush administration. It's well known that they frequently manufactured and selectively chose numbers to prove whatever they wanted to.

But, it is well established that malpractice insurance premium increases are entirely unrelated to malpractice awards, but directly related to losses insurance companies incur in financial markets. The whole argument for capping malpractice awards is based on insurance companies lying about why rates increase. The truth is they go up because the insurance industry knows they can get away with raising them.
post #62 of 65
"Tort Reform, if the company suing loses, they pay bigtime. that would slow this crap down."

Be careful what you wish for....

I lived under that kind of system half my life and generally, when lawsuits come around, it's the little guys that get the shaft every single time. In fact the big guys tell you flat out they'll bury you in paperwork until you can't pay your lawyers any more.

Limited tort reform I'm O.K. with, but a loser pays system is a losing proposition. The fat cats would just sit back, put a lawyer on staff and laugh at anyone who sues them because once loser pays comes, they won't give a shit and they definitely won't settle, particularly if you need to hire a lawyer.

NOT FORGETTING... there will be NO more contingency fee based lawsuits if loser pays is introduced. Which lawyer in his right mind would represent a client and try to collect HIS fee, having lost... when the other guy is also putting him into bankruptcy.

Tort reform alá Republicans...No thanks!
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGNR8 View Post

Also just because a business is a business does mean they should automatic be punished.

Sure it does - everyone knows business is evil!

post #64 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by svesan03 View Post

"Tort Reform, if the company suing loses, they pay bigtime. that would slow this crap down."

Be careful what you wish for....

I lived under that kind of system half my life and generally, when lawsuits come around, it's the little guys that get the shaft every single time. In fact the big guys tell you flat out they'll bury you in paperwork until you can't pay your lawyers any more.

Limited tort reform I'm O.K. with, but a loser pays system is a losing proposition. The fat cats would just sit back, put a lawyer on staff and laugh at anyone who sues them because once loser pays comes, they won't give a shit and they definitely won't settle, particularly if you need to hire a lawyer.

NOT FORGETTING... there will be NO more contingency fee based lawsuits if loser pays is introduced. Which lawyer in his right mind would represent a client and try to collect HIS fee, having lost... when the other guy is also putting him into bankruptcy.

Tort reform alá Republicans...No thanks!

Some of the proponents were proposing caps on what the loser is required to pay for that reason alone, so that the bigger side doesn't just rack up the bills, or set up a situation of possible mutually assured destruction.

It's tough to support any change in how politics is done, because invariably, it seems like it's subverted so that nothing of substance really changes for the better, and it becomes even harder to change how politics is done. I'm also partial to the idea that "shock doctrine" might indeed be a conscious game plan in politics, though I can still see how it can look like it when it doesn't exist.
post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That's because we have a 'capitalist' legal system in this country. It's set up to allow people to seek redress through the courts and to create financial incentive for lawyers to aggressively pursue these cases with the hopes of reaping profits from properly representing their clients.

The alternative, if we actually want to protect people's rights, and not just descend into a state where people can cause injury without consequences, is to have the government itself become much more aggressively involved in enforcing civil law and handing out financial and other penalties.

Take your choice. But it's the anti-government crowd who are making all the noise about "tort reform", so what they are really arguing, many of them thoughtlessly, without even understanding what they are arguing for, is to strip citizens of their right to seek redress in any meaningful form.

That tells you that it's the Democratic party that is looking out for protecting the rights of the people and that the Republican party has simply become the tool of the rich and powerful who would prefer to trample those rights with impunity.

(And, since you bring it up, a flat tax, especially a national sales tax, is close to the most regressive -- i.e., unfair tax -- possible.)

Not gonna bite about the endless shallow comparisons between the Republicrats and Demicans, however....

1) I'm concerned about mega anything, whether it's corps or govs or unions or civil services. Individuals always get trampled in the footsteps of leviathans.

2) and FWIW - I've always opposed the "fair tax" (i.e., national sales tax) because it's not only regressive, but because it'll lead to unprecedented cheating. One can avoid nearly all state sales taxes now and tripling or quadrupling it would only exponentially increase the inducement.

Also it would give vertically-integrated businesses huge advantages over ones which operate by stringing together several levels of value-adds with resells in-between.

The simple fix to the Flat Tax regression problem is to exempt the first X dollars to not hit the poor and then phasing it out in stages over the next X dollars to give a smaller bite to the lower middle-class and a somewhat smaller one to the middle class.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Patent infringement suit targets Apple over use of Intel CPUs