...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. ???
That is not the same thing by any measure but most importantly MS and Apple?s desktop business models are completely different. Apple makes an OS to sell their own PCs whilst MS makes and OS to sell to PC vendors.
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 the why. They aren?t selling Windows installed in any way so they aren?t an OEM and all Boot Camp does is partition the drive, set up a boot loader and supply a nifty setup and drivers. It?s actually a pretty simple app.
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.
Or, people stole all their IP and they couldn't make any money with their patent, because no one would license it. It may have been easier for others to just say eh, take us to court, hoping the company would just sink into non-existence. Kind of like what MS used to do.
Unless they don?t plan to actually sell of these machines, will simply wait for a C&D letter, and milk the PR stunt for as long as possible. Not a bad idea, people may know your name at the ends of it, but ultimately pointless as I doubt it will convince people to buy your refurbished PCs (main site).
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.
The OJ case was so badly handled by the prosecution that there was no way the Jury could have found him guilty. The fact that a preservative that had no business being on the glove was the key point. It was well with in reasonable doubt that the evidence had been tampered with and so conviction was not possible.
There was a time when processors didn't have caches. The concept of a cache itself would have been patentable, especially technical details of how it would work.
Then they had caches, but they weren't coherent, they were just used to speed up access to commonly used memory.
In the 90s when multi-processing in CPUs became popular (in servers/workstations) cache coherency because a requirement, and so things like bus snooping came into being. That would have been patentable.
Actually, the 68020 (used in the MacII which shipped March 2, 1987) had an instruction cache of 256 bytes and the the 486 processor had a 8 KB cache was integrated directly into the CPU die (terms L1 cache) and came out in 1989--over 20 years ago..
I hope Apple appeals this as the idea of an internal cache is not patentable as the idea is over 20 years oldand the patents would belong to Motorola and Intel if they belonged to anyone.
Unless they don?t plan to actually sell of these machines, will simply wait for a C&D letter, and milk the PR stunt for as long as possible. Not a bad idea, people may know your name at the ends of it, but ultimately pointless as I doubt it will convince people to buy your refurbished PCs (main site).
That sort of activity is illegal under the FTC and would draw more heat than it was worth
In an oversight he now seriously regrets, McRae did not officially register the Macpro trademark.
Oops.
Actually, in a nod to sanity, the first to register rule is modified where prior use can be be demonstrated, viz (and from the same article):
"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."
The difficulty now lies in Apple putting this poor prick out of business due to the fact it isn't registered (the current act received assent roughly ten years after he started business), and that Apple can, as a result, bully its way to the outcome it wants. Hardly good corporate citizenship, is it?
The problem is that their technique is the normal way the cache works.
It's the normal way caches work today. At the time the patent was filed, it was a novel idea. The fact that lots of people started doing it afterward without being sued doesn't matter (unlike trademarks, where they go away if not defended.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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.
Depends on what the suit is over. If it's only about the Intel Macs, then yes. If it also includes PPC Macs, then (as someone else in this thread pointed out) Apple was involved in the chip design and so may have some degree of liability, along with Motorola and IBM. (Does anybody know if OPTi also sued them?)
It's the normal way caches work today. At the time the patent was filed, it was a novel idea. The fact that lots of people started doing it afterward without being sued doesn't matter (unlike trademarks, where they go away if not defended.)
Depends on what the suit is over. If it's only about the Intel Macs, then yes. If it also includes PPC Macs, then (as someone else in this thread pointed out) Apple was involved in the chip design and so may have some degree of liability, along with Motorola and IBM. (Does anybody know if OPTi also sued them?)
I didn't notice anyone else pointing that out, but that makes more sense. Still, OPTi said in 2007 that virtually every Mac sold infringes, and that probably includes a year's worth of Intel Macs too.
That is not the same thing by any measure but most importantly MS and Apple’s desktop business models are completely different. Apple makes an OS to sell their own PCs whilst MS makes and OS to sell to PC vendors.
I don’t understand the why. They aren’t selling Windows installed in any way so they aren’t an OEM and all Boot Camp does is partition the drive, set up a boot loader and supply a nifty setup and drivers. It’s actually a pretty simple app.
you have to pay MS to get your drivers through the Windows Hardware Qualification Labs and get the digital signature.
for the last few years most of my problems with Windows have been third party driver related. HP and Emulex especially
Actually, the 68020 (used in the MacII which shipped March 2, 1987) used the 68020 which had an instruction cache of 256 bytes and the the 486 processor had a 8 KB cache was integrated directly into the CPU die (terms L1 cache) and came out in 1989--over 20 years ago..
I hope Apple appeals this as the idea of an internal cache is not patentable as the idea is over 20 years oldand the patents would belong to Motorola and Intel if they belonged to anyone.
The concept of caches in general is not necessarily in dispute. It's the method employed to implement the cache. Can you tell me in full certainty that the specific mechanism used to implement the cache in OPTi's patent, including their purported innovation of predictive snooping, were present in the 68020 and i486 cache implementations?
Anyway, aren't we talking about I/O caches on the PCI bus? In most practical implementations of the PCI bus in the time-frame in question, such implementations would have been external to the CPU itself. So prior art discussing on-die CPU instruction caches are not necessarily applicable.
Patent suits are often filed in the Eastern District of Texas for favorable rulings.
A microscopic section of the country containing a brain-dead populace plays favorites with companies that exist for no other reason than to fleece real companies over patent squabbles. Talk about injustice in the supreme.
The Eastern District of Texas needs to become a new above ground nuclear test site.
Anyway, aren't we talking about I/O caches on the PCI bus? In most practical implementations of the PCI bus in the time-frame in question, such implementations would have been external to the CPU itself. So prior art discussing on-die CPU instruction caches are not necessarily applicable.
Unfortunately, the link to the original article (from a few years ago) no longer works. The AppleInsider report from then uses the phrase "Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses." The actual patent may be found here.
According to the patent, it is describing a specific mechanism of managing PCI burst-mode transfers that allows more efficient data transfers. It doesn't seem overly broad to me. If nobody was doing this before OPTi filed the patent (in August, 2000) then I would tend to agree with the judge, as much as I don't want to.
Although this technique may be commonplace and standard today, that doesn't mean anything if it was not used by anybody else back in August 2000.
Comments
...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. ???
That is not the same thing by any measure but most importantly MS and Apple?s desktop business models are completely different. Apple makes an OS to sell their own PCs whilst MS makes and OS to sell to PC vendors.
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 the why. They aren?t selling Windows installed in any way so they aren?t an OEM and all Boot Camp does is partition the drive, set up a boot loader and supply a nifty setup and drivers. It?s actually a pretty simple app.
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.
Or, people stole all their IP and they couldn't make any money with their patent, because no one would license it. It may have been easier for others to just say eh, take us to court, hoping the company would just sink into non-existence. Kind of like what MS used to do.
Or, you could be right. That's why we research.
Speaking of which . . .
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.ph...aded_with_mac/
LOL
Holy moly. That is dumb.
Holy moly. That is dumb.
Unless they don?t plan to actually sell of these machines, will simply wait for a C&D letter, and milk the PR stunt for as long as possible. Not a bad idea, people may know your name at the ends of it, but ultimately pointless as I doubt it will convince people to buy your refurbished PCs (main site).
That was me. You owe me a whole lotta money. Can someone give me the address for that Texas court?
It's the one with the really long line outside.
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/figh...ad20070927.pdf
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.
The OJ case was so badly handled by the prosecution that there was no way the Jury could have found him guilty. The fact that a preservative that had no business being on the glove was the key point. It was well with in reasonable doubt that the evidence had been tampered with and so conviction was not possible.
it's the only way to be sure.
There was a time when processors didn't have caches. The concept of a cache itself would have been patentable, especially technical details of how it would work.
Then they had caches, but they weren't coherent, they were just used to speed up access to commonly used memory.
In the 90s when multi-processing in CPUs became popular (in servers/workstations) cache coherency because a requirement, and so things like bus snooping came into being. That would have been patentable.
Actually, the 68020 (used in the MacII which shipped March 2, 1987) had an instruction cache of 256 bytes and the the 486 processor had a 8 KB cache was integrated directly into the CPU die (terms L1 cache) and came out in 1989--over 20 years ago..
I hope Apple appeals this as the idea of an internal cache is not patentable as the idea is over 20 years oldand the patents would belong to Motorola and Intel if they belonged to anyone.
Unless they don?t plan to actually sell of these machines, will simply wait for a C&D letter, and milk the PR stunt for as long as possible. Not a bad idea, people may know your name at the ends of it, but ultimately pointless as I doubt it will convince people to buy your refurbished PCs (main site).
That sort of activity is illegal under the FTC and would draw more heat than it was worth
In an oversight he now seriously regrets, McRae did not officially register the Macpro trademark.
Oops.
Actually, in a nod to sanity, the first to register rule is modified where prior use can be be demonstrated, viz (and from the same article):
"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."
The difficulty now lies in Apple putting this poor prick out of business due to the fact it isn't registered (the current act received assent roughly ten years after he started business), and that Apple can, as a result, bully its way to the outcome it wants. Hardly good corporate citizenship, is it?
The problem is that their technique is the normal way the cache works.
It's the normal way caches work today. At the time the patent was filed, it was a novel idea. The fact that lots of people started doing it afterward without being sued doesn't matter (unlike trademarks, where they go away if not defended.)
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.
Depends on what the suit is over. If it's only about the Intel Macs, then yes. If it also includes PPC Macs, then (as someone else in this thread pointed out) Apple was involved in the chip design and so may have some degree of liability, along with Motorola and IBM. (Does anybody know if OPTi also sued them?)
It's the normal way caches work today. At the time the patent was filed, it was a novel idea. The fact that lots of people started doing it afterward without being sued doesn't matter (unlike trademarks, where they go away if not defended.)
Depends on what the suit is over. If it's only about the Intel Macs, then yes. If it also includes PPC Macs, then (as someone else in this thread pointed out) Apple was involved in the chip design and so may have some degree of liability, along with Motorola and IBM. (Does anybody know if OPTi also sued them?)
I didn't notice anyone else pointing that out, but that makes more sense. Still, OPTi said in 2007 that virtually every Mac sold infringes, and that probably includes a year's worth of Intel Macs too.
That is not the same thing by any measure but most importantly MS and Apple’s desktop business models are completely different. Apple makes an OS to sell their own PCs whilst MS makes and OS to sell to PC vendors.
I don’t understand the why. They aren’t selling Windows installed in any way so they aren’t an OEM and all Boot Camp does is partition the drive, set up a boot loader and supply a nifty setup and drivers. It’s actually a pretty simple app.
you have to pay MS to get your drivers through the Windows Hardware Qualification Labs and get the digital signature.
for the last few years most of my problems with Windows have been third party driver related. HP and Emulex especially
you have to pay MS to get your drivers through the Windows Hardware Qualification Labs and get the digital signature.
for the last few years most of my problems with Windows have been third party driver related. HP and Emulex especially
True, but that is a separate issue that was being discussed.
Heh I was just trying to find a workaround for an HP LJ 1012 for Win7 x86_64.
Holy moly. That is dumb.
They've stopped offering it due to their concerns about violating Apple's IP rights. Looks like they smartened up.
Actually, the 68020 (used in the MacII which shipped March 2, 1987) used the 68020 which had an instruction cache of 256 bytes and the the 486 processor had a 8 KB cache was integrated directly into the CPU die (terms L1 cache) and came out in 1989--over 20 years ago..
I hope Apple appeals this as the idea of an internal cache is not patentable as the idea is over 20 years oldand the patents would belong to Motorola and Intel if they belonged to anyone.
The concept of caches in general is not necessarily in dispute. It's the method employed to implement the cache. Can you tell me in full certainty that the specific mechanism used to implement the cache in OPTi's patent, including their purported innovation of predictive snooping, were present in the 68020 and i486 cache implementations?
Anyway, aren't we talking about I/O caches on the PCI bus? In most practical implementations of the PCI bus in the time-frame in question, such implementations would have been external to the CPU itself. So prior art discussing on-die CPU instruction caches are not necessarily applicable.
Patent suits are often filed in the Eastern District of Texas for favorable rulings.
A microscopic section of the country containing a brain-dead populace plays favorites with companies that exist for no other reason than to fleece real companies over patent squabbles. Talk about injustice in the supreme.
The Eastern District of Texas needs to become a new above ground nuclear test site.
Anyway, aren't we talking about I/O caches on the PCI bus? In most practical implementations of the PCI bus in the time-frame in question, such implementations would have been external to the CPU itself. So prior art discussing on-die CPU instruction caches are not necessarily applicable.
Unfortunately, the link to the original article (from a few years ago) no longer works. The AppleInsider report from then uses the phrase "Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses." The actual patent may be found here.
According to the patent, it is describing a specific mechanism of managing PCI burst-mode transfers that allows more efficient data transfers. It doesn't seem overly broad to me. If nobody was doing this before OPTi filed the patent (in August, 2000) then I would tend to agree with the judge, as much as I don't want to.
Although this technique may be commonplace and standard today, that doesn't mean anything if it was not used by anybody else back in August 2000.