Apple found in infringement of University of Wisconsin CPU patent, faces $862M in damages

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stoutie View Post



    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.

    There is a flip side to that kind of thinking...

     

    Hmm, let's see. A California jury found a South Korean company liable for patent violations of a California entity in a California court. I'd love to see what a non-California jury would have concluded. I'm no expert, but I say fight it, Samsung.

     

    Not saying you are necessarily wrong about fighting it. I am no expert either, but hopefully you understand where I am coming from.

  • Reply 62 of 91
    sog35 wrote: »
    So Apple loses on a $800 million suit.  Which will get appealed and probably get settled for less than 10% of that amount.

    Yet the Apple stock is down almost $8 billion in a green market.

    Hate this shit.  Apple needs to go private already.

    Definitely a good lesson to Apple to just pay for a license next time. I find it hard to believe they didn't just do that in the first place, but apparently they didn't. As a result they're $800M poorer (not a big deal I know) and lost $8B in market cap
  • Reply 63 of 91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    LOL.  Wisky won't get even close to $862 million when all is said and done.  They'd be lucky if they get $100 million.

     

    Yet the stock is down $4 billion dollars this morning.  Apple needs to go private to stop all this bullshit.


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    So Apple loses on a $800 million suit.  Which will get appealed and probably get settled for less than 10% of that amount.

     

    Yet the Apple stock is down almost $8 billion in a green market.

     

    Hate this shit.  Apple needs to go private already.


    Let me guess. You want Apple to go private?

  • Reply 64 of 91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     



    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....

     

    ...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.


     

    Watch the news much? Ever read a newspaper?

     

    There have been a couple dozen people the were wrongfully incarcerated for 20+ years awaiting their death penalty sentence to be carried out that have had there verdicts overturned. This is with the automatic appeal for death penalty cases and oft times 6-8 other appeals where the guilty verdict was upheld -- many had reliable eye witnesses. Then a little advance in DNA analysis came along and in many of these cases they were able to test a sample that was too small b before were now able to be collected and tested and proved that it was not the poor soul who had professed innocence for at least a decade+. It also has in number of cases lead to the real perpetrator.

     

    I know we are not talking about murder or some other heinous crime but we are talking about cases where juries were flat out wrong. Fortunately good science has come in for these people and preserved the rest of their lives. In this (and other) patent infringement cases we are asking a jury of typically non-technical types that might actually understand the case to listen to a plaintiffs attorney (who has a huge stake in the outcome) put on a dog and pony show about how a large corporation came in and stole this technology from a university/patent troll that just wants what is fair for all the hard work they did.

     

    I call BS! this is one of many problems with our patent system that allows these thieves to continue to rape and pillage. Buy a patent from Joe Bob PhD for a few hundred cause he knows its not gonna be worth anymore to him, damn good gamble. University attorneys that index their  files so they can profit off the work of grad students and jr profs -- aren't at least the state U's supposed to be there to educate and provide science for the public good (at least of their state).

     

    I hope this gets appealed and overturned quickly cause the stupid judges bore me. On the other hand might be nice to see one of these greedy outfits get all there budget windfall eaten up in legal fees. Maybe they would actually learn something! NAH!

     

    Note: The use of death penalty cases as an example does not in anyway indicate my personal feelings for or against the use of the death penalty.

     

    Except where it comes to patent trolls. /s

  • Reply 65 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post



    So Apple loses on a $800 million suit.  Which will get appealed and probably get settled for less than 10% of that amount.



    Yet the Apple stock is down almost $8 billion in a green market.



    Hate this shit.  Apple needs to go private already.




    Definitely a good lesson to Apple to just pay for a license next time. I find it hard to believe they didn't just do that in the first place, but apparently they didn't. As a result they're $800M poorer (not a big deal I know) and lost $8B in market cap

     

    Based on your expert opinion that this patent will stand? Should Apple also license everything that they get ask for where someone says'hey that was my idea, I been working on a flux capacitor 

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post



    So Apple loses on a $800 million suit.  Which will get appealed and probably get settled for less than 10% of that amount.



    Yet the Apple stock is down almost $8 billion in a green market.



    Hate this shit.  Apple needs to go private already.




    Definitely a good lesson to Apple to just pay for a license next time. I find it hard to believe they didn't just do that in the first place, but apparently they didn't. As a result they're $800M poorer (not a big deal I know) and lost $8B in market cap

     

    So you are saying that Apple should pay for a license every time someone shows up with their hand out claiming they are infringing on their patent? I suspect there was a bit more to this than Apple saying 'oh just FO'. They cited the '752 patent and did not seem concerned about it.

     

    I suspect Apple's tech folks reviewed the patent and came to the conclusion that it was not what they had done -- after all Apple had their own design and research docs which would make it a fairly easy job especially when compared to hardware samples an abstract description. Not so easy to reverse engineer a processor especially when it is a custom version of a chip i.e., although they use an ARM license that allows Apple to support the instruction set and some other small pcs. of the architecture. Apple has custom designed it for low power consumption and either disabled or removed functionality they have no need for (e.g., numerous I/O ports). Apple has been able to get their family of Ax chips to perform as good or better at half the clock rate and using much less power (read longer battery life) than competitors designs.

     

    As far as the stock value goes this looks like a great opportunity to buy ;) . Wall Street always reacts weirdly to any and all news about Apple.

  • Reply 66 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

     

    Yet Samsung was required to pay only half of that. Go figure...


     

    it depends on the strength of patents asserted here.  In Samsung's case, most of Apple's patents are now invalidated and, I suspect, when all said and done, Samsung would probably end up paying one 10th of the original award (about $100M plus change).  Unlike Apple's design patents and trade dress claims, WAF's claims are based on technical patents.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post

     



    They need to be like Samsung and keep fighting it through all courts and not pay anything!!


     

    @mwhiteco : do we not remember Apple's futile copyright lawsuit against Microsoft that dragged out for years in the 80's? Apple went all the way to the SCOTUS, but they didn't even want to hear the case.  Apple knows how to play this game.  Apple should just be Apple. 

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stoutie View Post



    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.

     

    @stoutie : isn't that hilarious?  That sounds like Apple's hometown jury finding Samsung liable for infringing Apple's patents -- the patents that are now all but invalidated (or being invalidated), except in Apple's home country.

  • Reply 67 of 91
    Time for Apple to buy the University of Wisconsin.
  • Reply 68 of 91
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post





    Definitely a good lesson to Apple to just pay for a license next time. I find it hard to believe they didn't just do that in the first place, but apparently they didn't. As a result they're $800M poorer (not a big deal I know) and lost $8B in market cap

     

    Why the frack would they pay when ultimately I'm 100% sure this "patent" will be deemed too broad, or invalid (yes, this is often determined way after they've been granted) and either they pay nothing, or they pay a token amount.

     

    So, you think if some shithead says, hay I "invented" podcasting (sic), they should get all the money from podcasts even though putting audio on the net existed before the patent (invalid because of prior art), or it was an trivial extension of existing art.

     

    This god damn case is basically the same thing but using something more abstract like branching. Those kind of things have existed a long long time ago in software, or even hardware form, applying then to a brand new device 20-50 years later shouldn'T grant you any protection at all.  If you have a specific implementation of it that differ substantially from the originals you may have a case, but I doubt very much this is what we have here considering that they haven't seen Apple's branching algo and its implementation (and even if they had seen it, they wouldn't understand it anyway).

  • Reply 69 of 91
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Landcruiser View Post

     



    Boy, somebody is an unhappy camper. You miss the whole point. It's not like Apple is out to cheat WARF. This issue is the patents. WARF claims they had this patent in 1998. Problem is, I (and by "I", I means thousands of college students) was developing predictive branching algorithms in 1980 in college as a Computer Science major. As a engineer at IBM, we were developing them in 1983 and before. Apple is right to question the validity of something that was being actively developed decades before at other universities and businesses. WARF also claims their patent was for "improving power efficiency and overall performance". DUH!!! Who isn't? The problem is not Apple or WARF, it's our broken PTO. 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 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.


     

    Research institutes, such as WARF, do research and license the technology to other companies.  If the patented technology is useless, no company will license it and WARF will go on do more researches and patent more technologies.  The responsibility of WARF is to come up with possible useful patents and in turn other companies will pay to license the usage.  This is how research institutes benefit the society.  

    WARF will not sue Apple if Apple agreed to some type of licensing.  If Intel agreed to out of court settlement, I believe Apple will follow the same, unless of course, the jury or the court finds the patent to be invalid.

  • Reply 70 of 91
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    foggyhill wrote: »
    Why the frack would they pay when ultimately I'm 100% sure this "patent" will be deemed too broad, or invalid (yes, this is often determined way after they've been granted) and either they pay nothing, or they pay a token amount.

    So, you think if some shithead says, hay I "invented" podcasting (sic), they should get all the money from podcasts even though putting audio on the net existed before the patent (invalid because of prior art), or it was an trivial extension of existing art.
    Apple already challenged the validity of the patent in an Inter Partes Review filing with the USPTO but lacked sufficient proof to have it re-examined. At least they were successful at getting the court to turn down the admissibility of that denial in the next phase of Apple's patent infringement case, damages, currently underway
  • Reply 71 of 91
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ipen View Post

     

     

    Research institutes, such as WARF, do research and license the technology to other companies.  If the patented technology is useless, no company will license it and WARF will go on do more researches and patent more technologies.  The responsibility of WARF is to come up with possible useful patents and in turn other companies will pay to license the usage.  This is how research institutes benefit the society.  

    WARF will not sue Apple if Apple agreed to some type of licensing.  If Intel agreed to out of court settlement, I believe Apple will follow the same, unless of course, the jury or the court finds the patent to be invalid.


     

    Intel surely didn't agree to 800M...  Sometimes they agree to settlements because its cheaper than going through court for 5 years and wracking 10M in legal fees. We don't know what the hell Intel paid; I'd expect its well under 50M or they would have gone to court.

  • Reply 72 of 91
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,353member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

     

     

    Let me guess. You want Apple to go private?


    Please ask him how he thinks Apple can do it, we haven't heard it enough times.

  • Reply 73 of 91
    stoutie wrote: »
    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.

    Hmm, let's see. A California jury found a Korean company liable for patent violations of a California entity in a California court. I'd love to see what a non-California jury would have concluded. I'm no expert, but I say fight it, Samsung.
  • Reply 74 of 91

    The IP in question, U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752 for a "Table based data speculation circuit for parallel processing computer," was granted to a University of Wisconsin team led by Dr. Gurindar Sohi in 1998. According to WARF and original patent claims, the '752 patent focuses on improving power efficiency and overall performance in modern computer processor designs by utilizing "data speculation" circuit, also known as a branch predictor.

     

    This sentence, about the circuit in question being a branch predictor, is not true.  A branch predictor predicts branches.  This is a predictor that determines when to issue loads out of order.  It's only become useful more recently than branch prediction, because you need a large instruction window to really benefit.  That's why no one was infringing it until recently.

     

    As to how WARF knew they were infringing... I'm guessing they ran microbenchmarks that indicating probable infringement before suing.  And during the trial, Apple had to show their RTL and exactly what they implemented, so the question became whether Apple's implementation was close enough to count as infringing rather than what exactly they did.

  • Reply 75 of 91
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tedkord View Post





    Hmm, let's see. A California jury found a Korean company liable for patent violations of a California entity in a California court. I'd love to see what a non-California jury would have concluded. I'm no expert, but I say fight it, Samsung.

     

    They already did, time you get on top of the news.

    They fight everything, even when they blatantly steal.

    So, no shit sherlock they'll fight.

    When you steal this much you need a top notch legal team, their must be world class by now.

    They also stole from TSMC, badly it seams; they'll fight that too.... 

     

    So, what is your point exactly?

    Crapping on Apple. Got that, clear as day.

  • Reply 76 of 91
    foggyhill wrote: »
    They already did, time you get on top of the news.
    They fight everything, even when they blatantly steal.
    So, no shit sherlock they'll fight.
    When you steal this much you need a top notch legal team, their must be world class by now.
    They also stole from TSMC, badly it seams; they'll fight that too.... 

    So, what is your point exactly?
    Crapping on Apple. Got that, clear as day.

    My point is that Apple is the same as Samsung, and that folks like you are hypocrites.

    And yes, Samsung did fight. And what have we seen siding this whole mess? Nearly every patent that Apple sued over had been invalidated greatly weakened in scope. Some, due to Apple stealing then in the first place.
  • Reply 77 of 91
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    tooltalk wrote: »
    it depends on the strength of patents asserted here.  In Samsung's case, most of Apple's patents are now invalidated and, I suspect, when all said and done, Samsung would probably end up paying one 10th of the original award (about $100M plus change).
    That might be all they should pay based on the apparent invalidity of the patent claims Apple asserted, but the chances are decent that Sammy will be forced to pay up in full within the next week anyway. Once paid they won't get it back either even if the patents are tossed out. Such is the law.
  • Reply 78 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

     

    Intel surely didn't agree to 800M...  Sometimes they agree to settlements because its cheaper than going through court for 5 years and wracking 10M in legal fees. We don't know what the hell Intel paid; I'd expect its well under 50M or they would have gone to court.


     

    Intel did go to court.

     

    The court found them guilty of infringing the patent. The court did accept that the infringement wasn't wilful (given that Intel had contributed $90,000 to the research in the first place and assumed that they therefore had rights to the IP). According to the Register, WARF were pursuing Intel for "standard" charges. I have no idea how such figures are calculated, nor do I know how much they settled out of court for. I would imagine that Intel now pay a licence for the chips that followed the Core2Duo.

     

    Apple are in a very different situation. It is difficult to see how they will not be found guilty of wilfully infringing the patent. They could be faced with a fine 3 times higher, and that is before factoring in the A9 case.

     

    I expect to see Apple settle out of court very soon. They have failed in their attempts to invalidate the patent and $2..478bn is a lot of money in anyone's books.

     

     

    ******** edit *********

     

    Apparently, WARF are not pursuing Apple for sales before the case was lodged and the base figure is therefore closer to $400m not $800m

     

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/14/us-apple-wisconsin-patent-idUKKCN0S82LE20151014

  • Reply 79 of 91
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hungover View Post

     

     

    Intel did go to court.

     

    The court found them guilty of infringing the patent. The court did accept that the infringement wasn't wilful (given that Intel had contributed $90,000 to the research in the first place and assumed that they therefore had rights to the IP). According to the Register, WARF were pursuing Intel for "standard" charges. I have no idea how such figures are calculated, nor do I know how much they settled out of court for. I would imagine that Intel now pay a licence for the chips that followed the Core2Duo.

     

    Apple are in a very different situation. It is difficult to see how they will not be found guilty of wilfully infringing the patent. They could be faced with a fine 3 times higher, and that is before factoring in the A9 case.

     

    I expect to see Apple settle out of court very soon. They have failed in their attempts to invalidate the patent and $2..478bn is a lot of money in anyone's books.

     

     

    ******** edit *********

     

    Apparently, WARF are not pursuing Apple for sales before the case was lodged and the base figure is therefore closer to $400m not $800m

     

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/14/us-apple-wisconsin-patent-idUKKCN0S82LE20151014


     

    They will lititgate this patent until it is destroyed.

    winning in idiot home court is what patents trolls do.

    So, not sure why you think that means anything.

    This is the very essence of a nuisance patent.

     

    The very fact you think this potential award makes sense makes you a massively biased person.

     

    And yes, unlike you and the jury, I know what this patent is and that it is as valid as toilet paper.

     

    Basically, another person who defends a "podcast" like patent.

    Apple should lobby congress hard to reform the patent office.

  • Reply 80 of 91
    landcruiser:

    WARF uses the money to support more technology IP from the university. This helps technology leave the science lab. See: Bayh Dole Act of 1980 an Warf's involvement in its passage.
Sign In or Register to comment.