or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Boston University patent suit over Apple's iPhone 5 could net $75M
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Boston University patent suit over Apple's iPhone 5 could net $75M - Page 2

post #41 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post


You seriously think anything at Foxconn production-wise happens without Apple's express clearance? Dream on. The color of the protective gloves the workers wear most likely had to be cleared by Tim Cook first.

As for your other questions, yes, that's exactly what companies are supposed to do. That's why they have legal research teams on their payroll. Though its highly unlikely they'll find all patents which their product may infringe upon. In most cases, the company who's patents are in question will go to the infringing company, and ask for a licensing fee. I say "most companies" because Apple NEVER licenses anything, whether they are actively using said patent or not. They are quite simply that greedy kid in class that hogs all the good toys and doesn't share. BU most likely did this, and Apple gave them the business version of "go piss up a rope," and hence we have a lawsuit.

Do I feel bad for Apple? Not in the slightest, because expensive litigation is exactly what a company that patents a wedge shape deserves. Furthermore, I'm astonished at any post that directs ill will at BU for doing exactly what Apple would do and has done over and over again in recent years in regards to protecting their patents. This is the business environment Apple chose to live in and has done it's best to foster for many years through similar patent litigation. Why should anyone be up in arms about that now simply because what they hath wrought has come back to bite them?
Snort, snort, guffaw...
You forgot the /S or ¡
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post


You seriously think anything at Foxconn production-wise happens without Apple's express clearance? Dream on. The color of the protective gloves the workers wear most likely had to be cleared by Tim Cook first.

As for your other questions, yes, that's exactly what companies are supposed to do. That's why they have legal research teams on their payroll. Though its highly unlikely they'll find all patents which their product may infringe upon. In most cases, the company who's patents are in question will go to the infringing company, and ask for a licensing fee. I say "most companies" because Apple NEVER licenses anything, whether they are actively using said patent or not. They are quite simply that greedy kid in class that hogs all the good toys and doesn't share. BU most likely did this, and Apple gave them the business version of "go piss up a rope," and hence we have a lawsuit.

Do I feel bad for Apple? Not in the slightest, because expensive litigation is exactly what a company that patents a wedge shape deserves. Furthermore, I'm astonished at any post that directs ill will at BU for doing exactly what Apple would do and has done over and over again in recent years in regards to protecting their patents. This is the business environment Apple chose to live in and has done it's best to foster for many years through similar patent litigation. Why should anyone be up in arms about that now simply because what they hath wrought has come back to bite them?

They have not been found guilty yet and they have won more often than they have lost. This is an inconvenience, or a cost of doing business. Nothing more.
post #43 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Buyers are legally required to insure that all legal license for use of the item is covered and if not to set up appropriate deals

 

So, Mr. Buyer, did you do such due diligence when you bought your iDevice or MBA?? What say ye now?

post #44 of 52
You didn't mention that BU wants an iPhone BAN. Your xenophobic readers are really going to have to work hard to blame Samsung for this. Doesn't BU know that Apple invented the smartphone from scratch? There is no Palm, HP, Motorola, Samsung, Blackberry, Nokia, etc. in this dojo.
post #45 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


It's not the same thing. Just like the lawsuit against Ford by the guy that invented intermittent windshield wipers. Ford probably contracted out the production of the windshield wipers assembly for use in their cars. Why should the manufacturer be responsible for the patent search?

Actually the guy went directly to Ford and Chevrolet, they decided not to pay him for his patent and used it anyway. Ford and Chevrolet had first hand knowledge of the device so using third party to manufacture the device means squat.

post #46 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


Do you really think Apple is using 'off the shelf' parts?

CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD, controller chips, audio chips... Yes they do use off the shelf parts. The difference is how they implement them. Apple designs their own system boards, batteries, and so forth but most of the other stuff is off the shelf.

post #47 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

NICE.  That is the most succinct way I've ever seen someone illustrate the problem with requiring making a product.

 

Intellectual Property rights are as fundamental to our country as real property rights.  We don't tell land owners what to do with their property.  Intellectual property owners should be free to do whatever the hell they want with their property.  That's why this country was founded on property rights.  The government guarantees the ownership and the individual exploits the right.  It has worked quite well for more than 200 years and it continues to work just fine.

.

TO ALL YOU PATENT HATERS: GO LIVE IN SOME OTHER COUNTRY.  

I do and I still hate your patent laws because they may affect me as the end user.

 

If I can't get the products I want because your patent system stops people from building things because your patent is vague and ultimately not worth the paper it's printed on and all you do is stop innovation then I have every right to be annoyed with your patent system.

 

Most patent systems actually require a working prototype to be valid for a patent but in America they have patented ideas which in reality there is no such thing as a new idea.

 

Man, I'd love to see God sue plane manufacturers because they use the laws of aerodynamics to get themselves in the air, or using the same idea as the octopus' propulsion system for jet engines, or using radar from bats to see other planes in the sky... Most of "man's" ideas come from nature anyway so the idea of a patent system is ridiculous from that perspective.

post #48 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

Actually the guy went directly to Ford and Chevrolet, they decided not to pay him for his patent and used it anyway. Ford and Chevrolet had first hand knowledge of the device so using third party to manufacture the device means squat.

And do you think that the manufacturer was told that by Ford and then took on the risk of being sued themselves?
post #49 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


Do you really think Apple is using 'off the shelf' parts?

Some parts are, some parts aren't.

post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD, controller chips, audio chips... Yes they do use off the shelf parts. The difference is how they implement them. Apple designs their own system boards, batteries, and so forth but most of the other stuff is off the shelf.

The ARM chips that Apple uses are Apple's designs.

post #51 of 52

I re-read the patent and several other sites and this patent is for a production method, not for any actual semiconductor. It also talks about this process being used in the creation of low-cost blue lasers. The patent does describe how a physical device would be created but I wonder if BU ever created any amount of these devices or if they ever intended on licensing the process to anyone when it was first patented. Since Apple manufactures very few parts (what parts does Apple actually manufacture? Anyone know?), their suppliers are the ones using this technique.

 

The interesting part of this lawsuit is the fact BU produced a research paper in October 2012, highlighting the cost of patent trolling. That same month they started filing lawsuits over the technology used to make LEDs. The article I read this statement in inferred the patent covered LEDs. The only LEDs I can think of in an iPhone 5 would be the moisture detection lamps. If BU never filed a lawsuit over their patents until October 2012, I wonder if a judge will throw this suit out for failure to protect their patents.  

post #52 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I have a problem with this case that has nothing to do with patent trolling (they're real) or whether it's valid, or whether it's being infringed.

 

My problem is that academic patents like this were almost certainly developed using grant money from the federal government, or based directly on research that was funded by the government -- i.e., with public funds. I don't think that patents should be allowed if the patent is closely based on work funded by public money.

To your point and something that ver few people know about. If anyone who accepts Fed Government Money for research and such are required by law to list the US government as a patent holder. It does not mean that it become public domain but it does mean the government shares in the profits from a case like this. Most Universities fail to list the government on the patents. This is also true to private sectors. There are lots of Bio-medical company which got funding from the government and never listed them on their patents. If you go to anyone of the US Research Lab website they have loads of technologies and patents they will freely license to you base on the government funded research. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Boston University patent suit over Apple's iPhone 5 could net $75M