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

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.

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

I second this motion.

I thought these jokers are from PA and the last time I looked PA was still part of the Union.

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.

Why? They aren't the RIAA, lol!

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.




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.

Who are "they"? X2Y?


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.

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

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!

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.

Would you please email this question to Steve? I'd love to hear his answer.
Thank you.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

Amen!

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.

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.

"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!

Sure it does - everyone knows business is evil!

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.

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.