Weren't company's using this type of stuff in the 80's? Win for the patent trolls.
I don't consider this a troll action at all, especially being that it was invented at UW Madison and this same technology has been argued about in court for almost a decade. If UW sells a patent to a group as an investment they have every right to contest its use. Not that I'm claiming the technology has been improperly used by Apple, but the fact that Apple has been trying to invalidate the patent (twice so far unsuccessfully) isn't meaningless.
Well as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The idea of skinning a cat may have been around for a long time. But if you come up with a new, unique, and novel way to skin a cat you can patent it and prevent others from infringing on your cat skinning patent. Make them come up with their own method.
Just because "this type of stuff" has been around for a long time doesn't mean someone can't come up with a perfectly patentable new method for executing on the idea. One problem with so many patents these days is that they are for the idea, not the execution on the idea, which leads to overly broad patents and all these ridiculous patent lawsuits.
If the university's patent is for a unique and novel new way to implement the predictive circuit idea, the patent is likely valid.
Well, the patent is running out soon, so they better take their god damn money and run I suppose.
If you make something a bit more detailed, it can still be way too broad or obvious; this patent should not have been granted.
You do know a podcast patent was also granted and even "validated" (sic) in court...
Despite the thing being completely invalid by all measure of prior art.
Getting a patent crushed in court is not an easy task.
That's why there should be more due dilligence done by the patent office.
But, seemingly, they don't staff them enough, give them enough time to do the proper research and
they have a lot of difficulties assessing abstract concepts.
An Algorythm could be patentable if it's truly novel;
but that's not even what that crud patent is; they seemingly have no notion of prior art or obviousness in assessing these kind of things.
the patent office is embarassing and those jury trials of patents even more embarassing.
The home/friendly court jury trials of patents, which is a hallmark of trolls, should be banned.
This is not a "jury of my peers" type thing... So, there's no reason why these things should occur in the plaintiffs back yard.
The trials should be in location where no one can gain anything, and there should be a random generator that assigns trials to those courts.
Those courts should be manned with highly technical staffs which can provide unbiased expertise on the case (instead of the expertise coming from hired gun experts).
Well, the patent is running out soon, so they better take their god damn money and run I suppose.
If you make something a bit more detailed, it can still be way too broad or obvious; this patent should not have been granted.
You do know a podcast patent was also granted and even "validated" (sic) in court...
Despite the thing being completely invalid by all measure of prior art.
Getting a patent crushed in court is not an easy task.
That's why there should be more due dilligence done by the patent office.
But, seemingly, they don't staff them enough, give them enough time to do the proper research and
they have a lot of difficulties assessing abstract concepts.
An Algorythm could be patentable if it's truly novel;
but that's not even what that crud patent is; they seemingly have no notion of prior art or obviousness in assessing these kind of things.
the patent office is embarassing and those jury trials of patents even more embarassing.
The home/friendly court jury trials of patents, which is a hallmark of trolls, should be banned.
This is not a "jury of my peers" type thing... So, there's no reason why these things should occur in the plaintiffs back yard.
The trials should be in location where no one can gain anything, and there should be a random generator that assigns trials to those courts.
Those courts should be manned with highly technical staffs which can provide unbiased expertise on the case (instead of the expertise coming from hired gun experts).
Did you apply all of that same logic to the Apple v Samsung case?
Did you apply all of that same logic to the Apple v Samsung case?
I apply it to any case: so. I'm tired of this kind of crap patents and crap trials.
So, you can pack your smugness and ship it out.
Next time, argue the point instead of trying to devine my intentions.
BTW, If what I said applied, any bad patent would never be granted and there would be no such trial, Samsung vs Apple or otherwise,
since patents would actually mean something and nobody would dare infringe them or they'd pay the price.
If the patent (now vetted by the more stringent process), did get to trial in an unbiased court, its chance of being overtuned would be very minimal and likely there would be little chance of appeal too.
So, stronger patents, less legal costs, quicker turnaround for good patents to be defended... Everybody wins.
Actually this patent is about predicting load/store pairs that may access the same address in an out-of-order core and then speculatively executing them (so not branch prediction). So it wasn't being used in the 80's.
If it exists in software (or a broader algo that does something similar exists), it exists. A "special" application to hardware, this situation, makes no difference. That's where obviousness comes in. It's an obvious extension of something that already existed.
If it exists in software (or a broader algo that does something similar exists), it exists. A "special" application to hardware, this situation, makes no difference. That's where obviousness comes in. It's an obvious extension of something that already existed.
You won't get rid of quibbling over things like that without moving these cases to binding arbitration and limiting appeals past that point. I don't have the patience to read most of these things for more than ten minutes or so unless they are uniquely interesting. Lawyers and paralegals on each side will dump potentially thousands of hours into it. This is also one where intel settled. They probably have a reasonable case if they're pursuing Apple. They know Apple has an enormous amount of legal resources, so they wouldn't pursue this on a weak case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrey
Can Apple appeal this? I hope they do. Didn't they say
This was a nonprofit patent? So much for that!
And if Apple has to pay, can they use ?Pay?
There is no such thing as a non-profit patent. The patent may be owned by a not for profit entity. Non-profit entities still charge for services. They just have to reinvest any budget surplus back into the business entity itself. They cannot actually distribute remaining funds to private owners or shareholders, because those don't exist in the same sense for a non-profit entity. The university can charge a licensing fee, which as someone else mentioned may fund further research. This would be an example of a private funding source. There are also private grants and government grants.
It isn't mentioned anywhere how this specific research was funded. It isn't appropriate to assume, and it isn't appropriate to question whether they have the right to monetize patents. Apple will probably challenge the patent itself. They do that whenever they are accused of infringement with a high potential liability, because a lot of money is at stake. It's not like many claims make it this far though.
Apple will probably challenge the patent itself. They do that whenever they are accused of infringement with a high potential liability, because a lot of money is at stake. It's not like many claims make it this far though.
Thing is that Apple has tried to invalidate the patent twice already and both times failed. I think in this case the main motivation for pushing hard down this route is likely because, beyond the high potential liability, they've had for years a likelihood of losing rather than not losing this case.
Comments
Weren't company's using this type of stuff in the 80's? Win for the patent trolls.
I don't consider this a troll action at all, especially being that it was invented at UW Madison and this same technology has been argued about in court for almost a decade. If UW sells a patent to a group as an investment they have every right to contest its use. Not that I'm claiming the technology has been improperly used by Apple, but the fact that Apple has been trying to invalidate the patent (twice so far unsuccessfully) isn't meaningless.
Well as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The idea of skinning a cat may have been around for a long time. But if you come up with a new, unique, and novel way to skin a cat you can patent it and prevent others from infringing on your cat skinning patent. Make them come up with their own method.
Just because "this type of stuff" has been around for a long time doesn't mean someone can't come up with a perfectly patentable new method for executing on the idea. One problem with so many patents these days is that they are for the idea, not the execution on the idea, which leads to overly broad patents and all these ridiculous patent lawsuits.
If the university's patent is for a unique and novel new way to implement the predictive circuit idea, the patent is likely valid.
Well, the patent is running out soon, so they better take their god damn money and run I suppose.
If you make something a bit more detailed, it can still be way too broad or obvious; this patent should not have been granted.
You do know a podcast patent was also granted and even "validated" (sic) in court...
Despite the thing being completely invalid by all measure of prior art.
Getting a patent crushed in court is not an easy task.
That's why there should be more due dilligence done by the patent office.
But, seemingly, they don't staff them enough, give them enough time to do the proper research and
they have a lot of difficulties assessing abstract concepts.
An Algorythm could be patentable if it's truly novel;
but that's not even what that crud patent is; they seemingly have no notion of prior art or obviousness in assessing these kind of things.
the patent office is embarassing and those jury trials of patents even more embarassing.
The home/friendly court jury trials of patents, which is a hallmark of trolls, should be banned.
This is not a "jury of my peers" type thing... So, there's no reason why these things should occur in the plaintiffs back yard.
The trials should be in location where no one can gain anything, and there should be a random generator that assigns trials to those courts.
Those courts should be manned with highly technical staffs which can provide unbiased expertise on the case (instead of the expertise coming from hired gun experts).
Well, the patent is running out soon, so they better take their god damn money and run I suppose.
If you make something a bit more detailed, it can still be way too broad or obvious; this patent should not have been granted.
You do know a podcast patent was also granted and even "validated" (sic) in court...
Despite the thing being completely invalid by all measure of prior art.
Getting a patent crushed in court is not an easy task.
That's why there should be more due dilligence done by the patent office.
But, seemingly, they don't staff them enough, give them enough time to do the proper research and
they have a lot of difficulties assessing abstract concepts.
An Algorythm could be patentable if it's truly novel;
but that's not even what that crud patent is; they seemingly have no notion of prior art or obviousness in assessing these kind of things.
the patent office is embarassing and those jury trials of patents even more embarassing.
The home/friendly court jury trials of patents, which is a hallmark of trolls, should be banned.
This is not a "jury of my peers" type thing... So, there's no reason why these things should occur in the plaintiffs back yard.
The trials should be in location where no one can gain anything, and there should be a random generator that assigns trials to those courts.
Those courts should be manned with highly technical staffs which can provide unbiased expertise on the case (instead of the expertise coming from hired gun experts).
Did you apply all of that same logic to the Apple v Samsung case?
@techlover....excellent point.
And if that logic were applied in Apple Samsung case, the only loser would be Samsung..assuming all the criteria were followed set up in the post.
Did you apply all of that same logic to the Apple v Samsung case?
I apply it to any case: so. I'm tired of this kind of crap patents and crap trials.
So, you can pack your smugness and ship it out.
Next time, argue the point instead of trying to devine my intentions.
BTW, If what I said applied, any bad patent would never be granted and there would be no such trial, Samsung vs Apple or otherwise,
since patents would actually mean something and nobody would dare infringe them or they'd pay the price.
If the patent (now vetted by the more stringent process), did get to trial in an unbiased court, its chance of being overtuned would be very minimal and likely there would be little chance of appeal too.
So, stronger patents, less legal costs, quicker turnaround for good patents to be defended... Everybody wins.
Next time, argue the point and stop deflecting.
---
Actually this patent is about predicting load/store pairs that may access the same address in an out-of-order core and then speculatively executing them (so not branch prediction). So it wasn't being used in the 80's.
If it exists in software (or a broader algo that does something similar exists), it exists. A "special" application to hardware, this situation, makes no difference. That's where obviousness comes in. It's an obvious extension of something that already existed.
If it exists in software (or a broader algo that does something similar exists), it exists. A "special" application to hardware, this situation, makes no difference. That's where obviousness comes in. It's an obvious extension of something that already existed.
You won't get rid of quibbling over things like that without moving these cases to binding arbitration and limiting appeals past that point. I don't have the patience to read most of these things for more than ten minutes or so unless they are uniquely interesting. Lawyers and paralegals on each side will dump potentially thousands of hours into it. This is also one where intel settled. They probably have a reasonable case if they're pursuing Apple. They know Apple has an enormous amount of legal resources, so they wouldn't pursue this on a weak case.
Quote:
Can Apple appeal this? I hope they do. Didn't they say
This was a nonprofit patent? So much for that!
And if Apple has to pay, can they use ?Pay?
There is no such thing as a non-profit patent. The patent may be owned by a not for profit entity. Non-profit entities still charge for services. They just have to reinvest any budget surplus back into the business entity itself. They cannot actually distribute remaining funds to private owners or shareholders, because those don't exist in the same sense for a non-profit entity. The university can charge a licensing fee, which as someone else mentioned may fund further research. This would be an example of a private funding source. There are also private grants and government grants.
It isn't mentioned anywhere how this specific research was funded. It isn't appropriate to assume, and it isn't appropriate to question whether they have the right to monetize patents. Apple will probably challenge the patent itself. They do that whenever they are accused of infringement with a high potential liability, because a lot of money is at stake. It's not like many claims make it this far though.
Thing is that Apple has tried to invalidate the patent twice already and both times failed. I think in this case the main motivation for pushing hard down this route is likely because, beyond the high potential liability, they've had for years a likelihood of losing rather than not losing this case.