I know, it's why our system is so messed up. They probably sued on the basis of helping to infringe, as in, say for example, they started using vorbis audio, and Apple gets sued and not xiph for distribution of infringement.
In cases like this, just to make a statement, Apple should deliver the 21 million in dimes or even pennies.
That is a new take on getting nickel and dimed to death... I wonder if this has ever happened (or is illegal)? It would sure be funny though! How about 2,100,000,000 $0.01 checks? I guess Greenpeace would be on their case then!
You know. I went to college for EE. Then got ino the music business working in soundtranks, business affairs, music licensing, marketing, promotions and still don't get how can Apple build a machine that allows the installtion of windows when a windows machine can bit do the same, install osx. I mean it's preety simple. If you can do that with our software then why can't msft have a vendor build a machine that allows osx software to
run on it. ???
Apple licensed the right from Microsoft to allow Bootcamp to be installed on Apple Hardware as an option to run Windows on it. Apple doesn't pay an OEM fee because they don't pre-install Windows on their hardware. They paid to certify the hardware and device drivers pass Microsoft's requirements.
My question here is why Apple was involved here. Based on what I've read so far, the technology is part of CPU design and/or core-logic chipsets. I don't think Apple designs that sort of stuff.
I know today, they use Intel's chips.
Didn't IBM and Motorola design the chipsets used on PPC systems?
It would seem to me that those are the companies that should be targeted by the suit. Or did Apple actually design their own cache controllers at one time?
While at Apple I happened to have been involved in the IIci project (and a cheaper IIcx they never shipped) that had an optional plugin cache. (Anybody remember Pacific & Atlantic?) It was a cache that sat downstream from the processor but before primary RAM so it didn't do any snooping for out of order instruction. Even that small cache by todays standards had a huge impact on performance and was cheap.
Apple was also involved with IBM and Motorola in the PowerPC.
Apple also designed a CPU's themselves before they realized it was a much better idea to get those with a track record to partner with them - SO to answer your question, Apple has most definitely been involved in designing this stuff for awhile.
This is not a broad patent...It's extremely specific. Look it up.
Basically they're patenting an automatic "look ahead" fetching of data on the PCI bus...
When a PCI bus master requests data, PCI requires that you perform an "inquire" cycle before the burst. ( hell if I know why ) This patent is for a method that automatically extends the burst beyond the bounds of what is requested so as to "snoop" into what might be the boundaries of the next burst request, thereby allowing the system to precalcuate the inquire cycle and not have to actually perform it ( which is apparently expensive ) .
At least that's how I understood it. But even if I'm wrong about what the exact details mean, it's not borad or general... it's crazy specific, even going so far as naming specific PCI bus signals and CPU states.
The problem is that their technique is the normal way the cache works. You load the cache in the background anytime there is latency in the system. Then you come back to the data after a random amount of time expecting it to be there so the processor doesn't stall while it waits. They are basically just running the DMA logic in parallel with instruction flow so the processor doesn't stall. The same tricks are used to communicate with a GPU or any other device that runs asynchronously.
Just because they apply a commonly used technique to the PCI bus doesn't make it right. Note that they name signals and states, not algorithms. Those signals and states are Intel's and AMD's IP. What they are describing is also very simple. There is nothing revolutionary here.
That is a new take on getting nickel and dimed to death... I wonder if this has ever happened (or is illegal)? It would sure be funny though! How about 2,100,000,000 $0.01 checks? I guess Greenpeace would be on their case then!
I guess it's only legal to pay in pennies if you don't do it maliciously. It might be hard to prove that 2,100,000,000 pennies is all they had on them at the time...
You are forgetting a third option... that the judge is woefully ill-equipped to be making decisions on prior art in the technology arena. Something that is an obvious use of technology (and therefore not patentable) to a computer science major/programmer may appear as if it was a gift of miraculous technology from an alien civilization to a judge with a history major and law degree.
Without saying that this particular verdict is wrong, there is most certainly something wrong in this particular court jurisdiction. It's not necessarily something crooked or underhanded. Maybe just a judge(s) who sees everything that is new, no matter how minor, as unique and therefore patentable.
It's really the fault of the US Patent Office. They hand out patents like candy, including to Apple, because they don't have the time/expertise to sort out of they are legit or not. They just expect that the courts will sort it out if there is ever a lawsuit filed. But if the patent office can't figure out if something is patentable, how on Earth is a judge going to figure it out?
I think this is why Apple (and many other companies) file so many patents. Not because they ever intend to sue, but so they can use them as a defense against lawsuits based on other questionable patents..."my questionable patent cancels your questionable patent". That way an ill-informed, non-tech educated judge can't as easily dismiss your counter-claims, prior art, and invalid patent arguements.
I'd like to see the appeals record for judgements coming out of this court. How many get overturned in higher courts?
Does anyone know if this was jury or judge?
I have a feeling that this Judge is a bozo that either doesn't understand stuff and makes rulings on tech he has no business making or give the jury instructions so off the wall that there is no way for them to do anything but give it to the sew-er .
I live in Texas myself and cannot imagine any other reason for people to go to Marshall to file these suits except for the fact that this Judge has a rep of giving the Patent holder what they want. I wish just once he would grow some and invalidate one of the more blatantly bogus patents that people take to him for relief.
Maybe this patent has some merit, but as soon as he gets involved in it he taints the entire matter with his bias (intentional or not, based on ignorance or not).
The point is not how old the patent is. It shouldn't have been granted in the first place. The patent describes the normal use of the processor cache. It describes reading data in the processor cache out-of-sync with execution. That is how a microprocessor cache is designed to work. It has machine code instructions to directly allow you to do this because that is the way it is supposed to work. This is prior art, because the technique is owned by the company that created the microprocessor. It is like Ford making a car then someone patenting the method of turning the ignition key and then suing Ford. This patent does not make any sense. Not to mention that they are a patent troll as someone else mentioned because they don't make anything. What are we going to see next? A method to add two numbers together using microprocessor instructions?
Any case in Marshall, TX should already send up a red flag, but they won so there is nothing else to do but consider their patent legit. The amount they won is pretty small for Apple. Probably cost them that much in lawyer fees for the case. \
You can't appeal unless there has been a final judgement in something. This is the final judgement. Accordingly, now Apple can appeal and it has a bit of time to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
If it is complete BS then I'm sure Apple would have appealed which I'm surprised they haven't thoughthearticle makes no mention of. Apple is no slouch in the legal department- ask Psystar and iPodlounge and anyone else who uses an apple or ipod in their name.
simple google search shows that the inventors of this patent have similar patents going back to the 1990's so it sounds legit
The part I really don't get is why Apple is liable. It's Intel's chips, probably wired to the specs Intel laid forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple licensed the right from Microsoft to allow Bootcamp to be installed on Apple Hardware as an option to run Windows on it. Apple doesn't pay an OEM fee because they don't pre-install Windows on their hardware. They paid to certify the hardware and device drivers pass Microsoft's requirements.
I don't understand what Microsoft has to do with bootloader licensing. Where did you get all this?
I don't know if Apple necessarily has to pay driver certification fees, I thought the chip makers did that and supplied Apple with drivers.
I guess it's no surprise that OPTi couldn't make money making chips, because their chips were crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
simple google search shows that the inventors of this patent have similar patents going back to the 1990's so it sounds legit
The part I really don't get is why Apple is liable. It's Intel's chips, probably wired to the specs Intel laid forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple licensed the right from Microsoft to allow Bootcamp to be installed on Apple Hardware as an option to run Windows on it. Apple doesn't pay an OEM fee because they don't pre-install Windows on their hardware. They paid to certify the hardware and device drivers pass Microsoft's requirements.
I don't understand what Microsoft has to do with bootloader licensing. Where did you get all this?
I don't know if Apple necessarily has to pay driver certification fees, I thought the chip makers did that and supplied Apple with drivers.
I have a simple question... How in the world did OPTi find out that Apple was violating one of their patents? Does Apple really offer up on their developer website this level of detail??
You know. I went to college for EE. Then got ino the music business working in soundtranks, business affairs, music licensing, marketing, promotions and still don't get how can Apple build a machine that allows the installtion of windows when a windows machine can bit do the same, install osx. I mean it's preety simple. If you can do that with our software then why can't msft have a vendor build a machine that allows osx software to
run on it. ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Because Apple will not let them. Ask Phystar. Plus Microsoft does not build computers, they write software.
It's also interesting to note that historically MS has had similar restrictions in the EULAs regarding how their software could be used. For example, I haven't read any recent MS EULAs, but in the past you were not allowed to install the "Home" edition of the OS in a virtual environment such as Virtual PC. If you wanted to do that, you had to buy the Pro version. I believe currently they also restrict any Windows XP OEM licensees to installing it only on netbooks. If I want to buy a high-end HP desktop with XP, I can't because that's the way MS wants it.
Apple exercises those exact same rights in the EULAs, it's just that nobody cares if MS does it because, well, it's Windows. But because Apple creates something desirable, people all of a sudden think Apple's rights should be more restricted (that whole "entitlement" mentality that seems run amok these days).
In an oversight he now seriously regrets, McRae did not officially register the Macpro trademark.
Oops.
I don?t know how AU works but in the US I don?t prior art works with trademarks which are, in themselves, ?a symbol, word, or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product.? I just grabbed that from the OAD2 as i?m too lazy to look up US law right now.
Quote:
"Macpro Computers has provided sound evidence which indicates the use of the "MACPRO" trade mark through the launch of its computer goods in April 1983," IP Australia wrote in justifying its decision to rule in McRae's favour.
"As this is before the priority date of [Apple's] mark, this constitutes prior public use in Australia of the mark as a trade mark."
If Apple is completely ignoring him instead of simply paying the guy a nominal fee to change his name (assuming that the guy is reasonable about a price) then I say bad on Apple. Overall, I find it odd that he would never trademark his company?s name yet want to fight for so badly.
Overall, I find it odd that he would never trademark his company?s name yet want to fight for so badly.
Yes i agree with you. there has to be more to the story. must make a point "the age" newspaper is kind of / sort of alternative to MURDOCH newspapers (~70%) of Australian media.
the way i see the moral of the story is -- if i have an idea so smart that my head would explode if knew what it was i must patent/trademark/copyright and anything that i might have missed to protect my IP.
Comments
I know, it's why our system is so messed up. They probably sued on the basis of helping to infringe, as in, say for example, they started using vorbis audio, and Apple gets sued and not xiph for distribution of infringement.
In cases like this, just to make a statement, Apple should deliver the 21 million in dimes or even pennies.
That is a new take on getting nickel and dimed to death... I wonder if this has ever happened (or is illegal)? It would sure be funny though! How about 2,100,000,000 $0.01 checks? I guess Greenpeace would be on their case then!
You know. I went to college for EE. Then got ino the music business working in soundtranks, business affairs, music licensing, marketing, promotions and still don't get how can Apple build a machine that allows the installtion of windows when a windows machine can bit do the same, install osx. I mean it's preety simple. If you can do that with our software then why can't msft have a vendor build a machine that allows osx software to
run on it. ???
Apple licensed the right from Microsoft to allow Bootcamp to be installed on Apple Hardware as an option to run Windows on it. Apple doesn't pay an OEM fee because they don't pre-install Windows on their hardware. They paid to certify the hardware and device drivers pass Microsoft's requirements.
My question here is why Apple was involved here. Based on what I've read so far, the technology is part of CPU design and/or core-logic chipsets. I don't think Apple designs that sort of stuff.
I know today, they use Intel's chips.
Didn't IBM and Motorola design the chipsets used on PPC systems?
It would seem to me that those are the companies that should be targeted by the suit. Or did Apple actually design their own cache controllers at one time?
While at Apple I happened to have been involved in the IIci project (and a cheaper IIcx they never shipped) that had an optional plugin cache. (Anybody remember Pacific & Atlantic?) It was a cache that sat downstream from the processor but before primary RAM so it didn't do any snooping for out of order instruction. Even that small cache by todays standards had a huge impact on performance and was cheap.
Apple was also involved with IBM and Motorola in the PowerPC.
Apple also designed a CPU's themselves before they realized it was a much better idea to get those with a track record to partner with them - SO to answer your question, Apple has most definitely been involved in designing this stuff for awhile.
This is not a broad patent...It's extremely specific. Look it up.
Basically they're patenting an automatic "look ahead" fetching of data on the PCI bus...
When a PCI bus master requests data, PCI requires that you perform an "inquire" cycle before the burst. ( hell if I know why ) This patent is for a method that automatically extends the burst beyond the bounds of what is requested so as to "snoop" into what might be the boundaries of the next burst request, thereby allowing the system to precalcuate the inquire cycle and not have to actually perform it ( which is apparently expensive ) .
At least that's how I understood it. But even if I'm wrong about what the exact details mean, it's not borad or general... it's crazy specific, even going so far as naming specific PCI bus signals and CPU states.
The problem is that their technique is the normal way the cache works. You load the cache in the background anytime there is latency in the system. Then you come back to the data after a random amount of time expecting it to be there so the processor doesn't stall while it waits. They are basically just running the DMA logic in parallel with instruction flow so the processor doesn't stall. The same tricks are used to communicate with a GPU or any other device that runs asynchronously.
Just because they apply a commonly used technique to the PCI bus doesn't make it right. Note that they name signals and states, not algorithms. Those signals and states are Intel's and AMD's IP. What they are describing is also very simple. There is nothing revolutionary here.
Hopefully we see reform soon.
That is a new take on getting nickel and dimed to death... I wonder if this has ever happened (or is illegal)? It would sure be funny though! How about 2,100,000,000 $0.01 checks? I guess Greenpeace would be on their case then!
I guess it's only legal to pay in pennies if you don't do it maliciously. It might be hard to prove that 2,100,000,000 pennies is all they had on them at the time...
http://cashmoneylife.com/2007/08/16/...-legal-tender/
You are forgetting a third option... that the judge is woefully ill-equipped to be making decisions on prior art in the technology arena. Something that is an obvious use of technology (and therefore not patentable) to a computer science major/programmer may appear as if it was a gift of miraculous technology from an alien civilization to a judge with a history major and law degree.
Without saying that this particular verdict is wrong, there is most certainly something wrong in this particular court jurisdiction. It's not necessarily something crooked or underhanded. Maybe just a judge(s) who sees everything that is new, no matter how minor, as unique and therefore patentable.
It's really the fault of the US Patent Office. They hand out patents like candy, including to Apple, because they don't have the time/expertise to sort out of they are legit or not. They just expect that the courts will sort it out if there is ever a lawsuit filed. But if the patent office can't figure out if something is patentable, how on Earth is a judge going to figure it out?
I think this is why Apple (and many other companies) file so many patents. Not because they ever intend to sue, but so they can use them as a defense against lawsuits based on other questionable patents..."my questionable patent cancels your questionable patent". That way an ill-informed, non-tech educated judge can't as easily dismiss your counter-claims, prior art, and invalid patent arguements.
I'd like to see the appeals record for judgements coming out of this court. How many get overturned in higher courts?
Does anyone know if this was jury or judge?
I have a feeling that this Judge is a bozo that either doesn't understand stuff and makes rulings on tech he has no business making or give the jury instructions so off the wall that there is no way for them to do anything but give it to the sew-er
I live in Texas myself and cannot imagine any other reason for people to go to Marshall to file these suits except for the fact that this Judge has a rep of giving the Patent holder what they want. I wish just once he would grow some and invalidate one of the more blatantly bogus patents that people take to him for relief.
Maybe this patent has some merit, but as soon as he gets involved in it he taints the entire matter with his bias (intentional or not, based on ignorance or not).
OPTi reportedly dropped all of its original manufacturing and sales businesses in 2003 to concentrate on lawsuits.
This says it all... their entire business model is now based on suing anyone who uses their patent.
Regardless of the legality of the suit, this makes them bottom feeding lecherous scum.
The point is not how old the patent is. It shouldn't have been granted in the first place. The patent describes the normal use of the processor cache. It describes reading data in the processor cache out-of-sync with execution. That is how a microprocessor cache is designed to work. It has machine code instructions to directly allow you to do this because that is the way it is supposed to work. This is prior art, because the technique is owned by the company that created the microprocessor. It is like Ford making a car then someone patenting the method of turning the ignition key and then suing Ford. This patent does not make any sense. Not to mention that they are a patent troll as someone else mentioned because they don't make anything. What are we going to see next? A method to add two numbers together using microprocessor instructions?
Any case in Marshall, TX should already send up a red flag, but they won so there is nothing else to do but consider their patent legit. The amount they won is pretty small for Apple. Probably cost them that much in lawyer fees for the case.
PS: A jury found OJ innocent.
If it is complete BS then I'm sure Apple would have appealed which I'm surprised they haven't thoughthearticle makes no mention of. Apple is no slouch in the legal department- ask Psystar and iPodlounge and anyone else who uses an apple or ipod in their name.
simple google search shows that the inventors of this patent have similar patents going back to the 1990's so it sounds legit
The part I really don't get is why Apple is liable. It's Intel's chips, probably wired to the specs Intel laid forth.
Apple licensed the right from Microsoft to allow Bootcamp to be installed on Apple Hardware as an option to run Windows on it. Apple doesn't pay an OEM fee because they don't pre-install Windows on their hardware. They paid to certify the hardware and device drivers pass Microsoft's requirements.
I don't understand what Microsoft has to do with bootloader licensing. Where did you get all this?
I don't know if Apple necessarily has to pay driver certification fees, I thought the chip makers did that and supplied Apple with drivers.
simple google search shows that the inventors of this patent have similar patents going back to the 1990's so it sounds legit
The part I really don't get is why Apple is liable. It's Intel's chips, probably wired to the specs Intel laid forth.
Apple licensed the right from Microsoft to allow Bootcamp to be installed on Apple Hardware as an option to run Windows on it. Apple doesn't pay an OEM fee because they don't pre-install Windows on their hardware. They paid to certify the hardware and device drivers pass Microsoft's requirements.
I don't understand what Microsoft has to do with bootloader licensing. Where did you get all this?
I don't know if Apple necessarily has to pay driver certification fees, I thought the chip makers did that and supplied Apple with drivers.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...1203-k7nr.html
You know. I went to college for EE. Then got ino the music business working in soundtranks, business affairs, music licensing, marketing, promotions and still don't get how can Apple build a machine that allows the installtion of windows when a windows machine can bit do the same, install osx. I mean it's preety simple. If you can do that with our software then why can't msft have a vendor build a machine that allows osx software to
run on it. ???
Because Apple will not let them. Ask Phystar. Plus Microsoft does not build computers, they write software.
It's also interesting to note that historically MS has had similar restrictions in the EULAs regarding how their software could be used. For example, I haven't read any recent MS EULAs, but in the past you were not allowed to install the "Home" edition of the OS in a virtual environment such as Virtual PC. If you wanted to do that, you had to buy the Pro version. I believe currently they also restrict any Windows XP OEM licensees to installing it only on netbooks. If I want to buy a high-end HP desktop with XP, I can't because that's the way MS wants it.
Apple exercises those exact same rights in the EULAs, it's just that nobody cares if MS does it because, well, it's Windows. But because Apple creates something desirable, people all of a sudden think Apple's rights should be more restricted (that whole "entitlement" mentality that seems run amok these days).
Came across this piece of news. Apple bullying small business.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...1203-k7nr.html
In an oversight he now seriously regrets, McRae did not officially register the Macpro trademark.
Oops.
Came across this piece of news. Apple bullying small business.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...1203-k7nr.html
In an oversight he now seriously regrets, McRae did not officially register the Macpro trademark.
Oops.
I don?t know how AU works but in the US I don?t prior art works with trademarks which are, in themselves, ?a symbol, word, or words legally registered or established by use as representing a company or product.? I just grabbed that from the OAD2 as i?m too lazy to look up US law right now.
"Macpro Computers has provided sound evidence which indicates the use of the "MACPRO" trade mark through the launch of its computer goods in April 1983," IP Australia wrote in justifying its decision to rule in McRae's favour.
"As this is before the priority date of [Apple's] mark, this constitutes prior public use in Australia of the mark as a trade mark."
If Apple is completely ignoring him instead of simply paying the guy a nominal fee to change his name (assuming that the guy is reasonable about a price) then I say bad on Apple. Overall, I find it odd that he would never trademark his company?s name yet want to fight for so badly.
Overall, I find it odd that he would never trademark his company?s name yet want to fight for so badly.
Yes i agree with you. there has to be more to the story. must make a point "the age" newspaper is kind of / sort of alternative to
the way i see the moral of the story is -- if i have an idea so smart that my head would explode if knew what it was i must patent/trademark/copyright and anything that i might have missed to protect my IP.
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.ph...aded_with_mac/
LOL