And you are assuming they are innocent. Those of us assuming guilt have a jury verdict on our side. You, meanwhile, have nothing but fanboi-ism.
Oh, by the way:
>Apple...cited the property in its own patent filings. Further, the lawsuit claims Apple refused WARF's requests to license the IP.
That is a very difficult double-whammy to explain away. It shows Apple knew it was infringing but proceeded anyway. It also shows Apple refused to pay once they knew about the infringement.
But yes, go ahead and explain how the jury who saw all the evidence, and these two very damning facts are all worthy of being discarded in favor of you saying that somehow *we* are the ones who are "assuming" things with our statements.
Apple obviously didn't cite it to draw attention to willful infringement - that would be silly. Apple's position was that the WARF patent itself was invalidated as obvious under prior art (Hesson and Steely), which is also why they declined to license. The court has disagreed.
but branch prediction has been around long before 1998; of course this may be a new version of it.
In any case, the research that produced whatever it is was most likely paid for by your tax dollars---it stinks that government purchased research isn't free to the public, but that went away long ago.
Come to think of it, there is a good chance that all or almost all of WARF's income comes from tax payer funding, and this is of course true at most all universities, research institutes and at least part of some companies (military contractors for sure).
I see the legion of puppets have rolled in to post...eager to defend the biggest world in the company... from any possible disparagement... from all possible source...from each unpleasant factual reality.
@CriagAppleW- I find it interesting that you haven't commented on the patent technology itself. If feels like you are no better than an Apple fanboy ignoring the facts (or lack of) in this article.
FYI Branch prediction dates way back into the 1950's and while I am no expert it would be interesting to hear about what is so special about this patent that it warrants almost $1 Billion for basically 3 years of Apple's sales. It would also be interesting to understand how patents work when Apple license Arm's architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_predictor
Hmm, let's see. A Wisconsin jury found a California company liable for patent violations of a Wisconsin entity in a Wisconsin court. I'd love to see what a non-Wisconsin jury would have concluded. I'm no expert, but I say fight it, Apple.
Did you ask yourself the same question when a Californian jury found a Korean company guilty in a Californian court? Why on earth could a Wisconsin jury not be unbiased?
You've been spinning that since you got here. Care to enter into a discussion about the specifics of this patent case, or are you just here to troll about the "cult members" and "puppets"?
This guy has called Steve Jobs a joke and a clown, has been shitting on Apple since they stopped supporting flash, uses words like "worship", "cult", and "blind" as every 2nd word in his repertoire, and has stated that he "hates" Apple more than he likes it - in 2010 - yet today, posts how much he "loves" Apple, but "liking it less and less everyday"- so your usual, bottom of the barrel troll using every tired meme in the book.
Don't get your hopes up.
Some of his other brilliant gems:
Quote:
I'm going to frame this and put it on my wall. It makes me laugh.
You might as well throw down your pants and expose what you don't have...and don't know.
Come back to us with an interactive piece done in HTML5 that appears on a national web site--like I've done. Or, better.... I'll lighten your load---find ONE truly elite example that compares to MILLIONS of flash examples on CNN, ESPN, Smithsonian, NY Times.
Jane you (completely) ignorant slut.
So how did that flash thing work out?
Quote:
And if you haven't already heard about the mass of customers returning their ipads--you soon will. Half the web won't cut it with a tablet. I've bought over 10 apple computers...but I am questioning my ongoing loyalty.
I say it's time to "Think Different."
If I was you, I'd probably shrivel up and die in a hole from embarrassment. But no, you continue to flaunt your abject stupidity.
I had to post before the inevitable Mac cult members showed up to predictably defend Apple and attack the other party...in this case the university.
How dare the University merely not donate it's research and technology to Apple. The gall of anyone to think they shouldn't cede all their ideas, material possessions and soul to the Apple mother ship.
I love Apple...own almost all the major products they've ever shipped since 1985. But I love them less all the time. And I'm really fed up with the always-on 24/7 Apple apologists, including the sold out "journalists" and blogosphere types.
Can you tell me what WARF has done with those patents that have benefited society, you, anyone? At least Apple and other tech companies create products from which many can [/COLOR]benefit. And do you honestly think WARF would have sued Apples for millions if Apple wasn't so successful? No, they wouldn't. They see the money and want some of it.
The usual fallacious garbage, an university will do fundamental research but will rarely be the one implementing their findings into products to make money, yet there you are basically bashing the innovator in favor of the parasite making money over the invention and refusing to pay a license over it : brilliant. They sued Intel over the same patent 7 years ago, and obviously they will go after the people making money over their inventions/patents if they refuse to pay a licensing fee: that is how it works yet you are feigning to see outrage.
Otherwise Apple's design/software "patents" are the living proof that the USPO is broken.
Intel settled with Wisconsin over this exact same patent. Apple very likely infringes it, since it's been said that the A7 (and subsequent processors) have more in common with Intel desktop processors than they do with ARM mobile processors. This looks like one of those cases where engineers come up with a similar solution and end up infringing a previous patent.
Apple should just take a license like Intel did, though I'm not sure Wisconsin deserves almost a billion dollars for a single patent on something as ridiculously complex as a processor.
The article says they knew about the prior work and cited it so it clearly is not a case of parallel invention. But you are right, Apple should just take out a license.
Quote:
It was argued that Apple willfully infringed on the '752 patent, as it cited the property in its own patent filings. Further, the lawsuit claims Apple refused WARF's requests to license the IP.
I don't know the minute details of the patent, but from the look of it, it's a legitimate piece of intellectual property. It's also quite possible that Apple infringed the patent without knowing it. In that case, this is how business works. If they've infringed, they may just pay the bill and the university research gets a great boost in the arm. However I'd expect Apple will counter and appeal as protocol to make sure the suit has been fully vetted.
Apple cited the patent in their own patents. They can't claim that they were unaware of it.
They did attempt to have the patent invalidated but failed. From that point onwards they should have paid up.
The irony about this patent is that Intel donated $90,000 to the research in the first place, and then got sued anyway. Their defence, accepted by the courts was they believed that they had rights to use the IP in their Core2Duo processor. The courts decided that their infringement was not wilful. It is difficult to see how Apple will not be found guilty of wilfully breaking the law.
How do WARF know that Apple uses this particular implementation of branch prediction an not one that they doesn't have a patent on? Branch predictions are nothing new, they've been around in all out-of-order processors for decades, and Apple hasn't as far as I know disclosed any particulars in the microarchitecture implementation of their processors.
"a ruling that could potentially lead to a damages payout of $862.4 million."
Nobody has awarded damages yet. The $862.4 is a bogus number thrown out there by the plaintiff claiming X amount of iPhones x Y amunt of $ for each device sold. If and when this actually gets to a judgement phase and if the appeals hold up, the actual dollar amount will likely be much lower.
I would think Wisconsin's governor would rather a wealthy corporation like Apple own this intellectual property than let it be squandered by a socialist state institution. On the other hand, now he can cut the university budget even more and have it be funded entirely by Apple's damage award. Disclaimer: my comment is designed to be snarky and may be divorced from my actual political views.
Never a middle ground with Americans and the state is there? Without socialist state institutions (what the rest of the world calls government institutions -- socialism is more about redistribution) there would be no iPhone.
The funny thing is its US institutions who have created much of this but rather than be proud of it, modern Americans despise anything funded from the public purse. War excepted.
Never a middle ground with Americans and the state is there? Without socialist state institutions (what the rest of the world calls government institutions -- socialism is more about redistribution) there would be no iPhone.
The funny thing is its US institutions who have created much of this but rather than be proud of it, modern Americans despise anything funded from the public purse. War excepted.
What? You can't use common sense arguments like that! What are you thinking?
I think according to the article they have sued other big name corporations. The sued Intel and the suit was settled out of court.
Apple's problems aren't over though. WARF is going after the newest chips used on the latest gen product as well. So the total dollar amount could go up drastically unless this is all settled out of court with signed non disclosure agreements
Quote:
Last month, WARF launched a second lawsuit against Apple, this time targeting the company's newest chips, the A9 and A9X, used in the just-released iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, as well as the iPad Pro.
Comments
You are assuming Apple is actually guilty.
And you are assuming they are innocent. Those of us assuming guilt have a jury verdict on our side. You, meanwhile, have nothing but fanboi-ism.
Oh, by the way:
>Apple...cited the property in its own patent filings. Further, the lawsuit claims Apple refused WARF's requests to license the IP.
That is a very difficult double-whammy to explain away. It shows Apple knew it was infringing but proceeded anyway. It also shows Apple refused to pay once they knew about the infringement.
But yes, go ahead and explain how the jury who saw all the evidence, and these two very damning facts are all worthy of being discarded in favor of you saying that somehow *we* are the ones who are "assuming" things with our statements.
Apple obviously didn't cite it to draw attention to willful infringement - that would be silly. Apple's position was that the WARF patent itself was invalidated as obvious under prior art (Hesson and Steely), which is also why they declined to license. The court has disagreed.
but branch prediction has been around long before 1998; of course this may be a new version of it.
In any case, the research that produced whatever it is was most likely paid for by your tax dollars---it stinks that government purchased research isn't free to the public, but that went away long ago.
Come to think of it, there is a good chance that all or almost all of WARF's income comes from tax payer funding, and this is of course true at most all universities, research institutes and at least part of some companies (military contractors for sure).
I see the legion of puppets have rolled in to post...eager to defend the biggest world in the company... from any possible disparagement... from all possible source...from each unpleasant factual reality.
@CriagAppleW- I find it interesting that you haven't commented on the patent technology itself. If feels like you are no better than an Apple fanboy ignoring the facts (or lack of) in this article.
FYI Branch prediction dates way back into the 1950's and while I am no expert it would be interesting to hear about what is so special about this patent that it warrants almost $1 Billion for basically 3 years of Apple's sales. It would also be interesting to understand how patents work when Apple license Arm's architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_predictor
Hmm, let's see. A Wisconsin jury found a California company liable for patent violations of a Wisconsin entity in a Wisconsin court. I'd love to see what a non-Wisconsin jury would have concluded. I'm no expert, but I say fight it, Apple.
Did you ask yourself the same question when a Californian jury found a Korean company guilty in a Californian court? Why on earth could a Wisconsin jury not be unbiased?
You've been spinning that since you got here. Care to enter into a discussion about the specifics of this patent case, or are you just here to troll about the "cult members" and "puppets"?
This guy has called Steve Jobs a joke and a clown, has been shitting on Apple since they stopped supporting flash, uses words like "worship", "cult", and "blind" as every 2nd word in his repertoire, and has stated that he "hates" Apple more than he likes it - in 2010 - yet today, posts how much he "loves" Apple, but "liking it less and less everyday"- so your usual, bottom of the barrel troll using every tired meme in the book.
Don't get your hopes up.
Some of his other brilliant gems:
You might as well throw down your pants and expose what you don't have...and don't know.
Come back to us with an interactive piece done in HTML5 that appears on a national web site--like I've done. Or, better.... I'll lighten your load---find ONE truly elite example that compares to MILLIONS of flash examples on CNN, ESPN, Smithsonian, NY Times.
Jane you (completely) ignorant slut.
So how did that flash thing work out?
I say it's time to "Think Different."
If I was you, I'd probably shrivel up and die in a hole from embarrassment. But no, you continue to flaunt your abject stupidity.
I had to post before the inevitable Mac cult members showed up to predictably defend Apple and attack the other party...in this case the university.
How dare the University merely not donate it's research and technology to Apple. The gall of anyone to think they shouldn't cede all their ideas, material possessions and soul to the Apple mother ship.
I love Apple...own almost all the major products they've ever shipped since 1985. But I love them less all the time. And I'm really fed up with the always-on 24/7 Apple apologists, including the sold out "journalists" and blogosphere types.
That would work for the guy without a LEG to stand on because he doesn't understand how Apple uses ARM
That would work for the guy without a LEG to stand on because he doesn't understand how Apple uses ARM
Brilliant!
Otherwise Apple's design/software "patents" are the living proof that the USPO is broken.
Welcome to the Block List, Mr concern troll.
Intel settled with Wisconsin over this exact same patent. Apple very likely infringes it, since it's been said that the A7 (and subsequent processors) have more in common with Intel desktop processors than they do with ARM mobile processors. This looks like one of those cases where engineers come up with a similar solution and end up infringing a previous patent.
Apple should just take a license like Intel did, though I'm not sure Wisconsin deserves almost a billion dollars for a single patent on something as ridiculously complex as a processor.
The article says they knew about the prior work and cited it so it clearly is not a case of parallel invention. But you are right, Apple should just take out a license.
I don't know the minute details of the patent, but from the look of it, it's a legitimate piece of intellectual property. It's also quite possible that Apple infringed the patent without knowing it. In that case, this is how business works. If they've infringed, they may just pay the bill and the university research gets a great boost in the arm. However I'd expect Apple will counter and appeal as protocol to make sure the suit has been fully vetted.
Apple cited the patent in their own patents. They can't claim that they were unaware of it.
They did attempt to have the patent invalidated but failed. From that point onwards they should have paid up.
The irony about this patent is that Intel donated $90,000 to the research in the first place, and then got sued anyway. Their defence, accepted by the courts was they believed that they had rights to use the IP in their Core2Duo processor. The courts decided that their infringement was not wilful. It is difficult to see how Apple will not be found guilty of wilfully breaking the law.
ROFL
That was probably too eloquent ...
Nobody has awarded damages yet. The $862.4 is a bogus number thrown out there by the plaintiff claiming X amount of iPhones x Y amunt of $ for each device sold. If and when this actually gets to a judgement phase and if the appeals hold up, the actual dollar amount will likely be much lower.
Never a middle ground with Americans and the state is there? Without socialist state institutions (what the rest of the world calls government institutions -- socialism is more about redistribution) there would be no iPhone.
The funny thing is its US institutions who have created much of this but rather than be proud of it, modern Americans despise anything funded from the public purse. War excepted.
What? You can't use common sense arguments like that! What are you thinking?
I think according to the article they have sued other big name corporations. The sued Intel and the suit was settled out of court.
Apple's problems aren't over though. WARF is going after the newest chips used on the latest gen product as well. So the total dollar amount could go up drastically unless this is all settled out of court with signed non disclosure agreements
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-loses-patent-lawsuit-univ-wisconsin-faces-hefty-023011471--finance.html
Personally....I think the whole patent system needs to be revamped.
Meh.
As they say, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
Apple sues. Apple gets sued. It goes both ways.
It's all part of the game these days.
Maybe it's time to rethink the patent system.