pankajdoharey wrote: »
Apple is totally screwed, but it seems Universities have now become Patent Trolls.
What a shame, There are other universities like Berkeley or MIT who have generously given away there technical innovation as Education Licenses.
Wisconsin cannot even match the caliber of MIT or Berkeley,
yet they are profiting from work done in there campus which should just profit everyone in the Industry.
bkkcanuck wrote: »
Apple has already shot themselves in the foot with this one since they called for a review of the patent and it was upheld. Unfortunately the way patents are these days it opens the door to abuse, and I have no doubt that Apple developed this without reference or knowledge of the patent they apparently infringed on -- but that is no defense under current law (going back 100s of years). It is a short-term monetary hit which is not that large of a hit in reality for them. They might have another payment if appeals do not overturn it due to the upcoming processors.... but if I read it right this patent expires in December 26, 2016.... just over a year away...... so it can only really affect them going forward for just over another year.
radarthekat wrote: »
You are assuming that Apple asking for the patent to be reviewed is equivalent to Apple admitting to have used the patented technology. That's patently false. It's simply smart to Perdue all avenues.
You then suggest that Apple developed their chips without awareness of the WARF patent. I guess you missed the previous reporting that showed that Apple applied for its own patents in this area, in which it referenced this very patent as prior art. That negates any suggestion Apple was not aware of this patent.
The evidence suggests that the most likely case is that Apple developed its method believing that it differentiated its design sufficiently to avoid infringement. If one were to make any speculation regarding what's really going on here,the most logical speculation would be what some other have already stated; that the technology was not appropriately comprehended by The jury, who sided with WARF on an assumption of guilt based in the very fact of a lawsuit being filed. It happens. Apple needs to appeal and ask for a trial in front of a patent judge and not a jury.
It is clearly stated in the article that the patent revenue is spent on future research. So there is a return to the society. And it is definitely not a patent troll, the university is actively doing research in the field of chip design. That this leads sometimes to an innovation that can be patented is quite normal.
Not to mention that Wisconsin is dealing with some pretty sizable funding cuts from the government there.
It is no accident that the major areas of tech company growth areas tends to take place around the top universities for tech (east and west coast).... so Wisconsin University getting more money to further research is a good thing.
I'm for letting the process play out, but the "willful" part is certainly going to be contested.
If you look at the team that Apple got when they purchased P. A. Semi, it included a couple of DEC Alpha architects, one who retired at Apple and the other who left for AMD in 2012, who would have had significant design experience with branch prediction prior to the patent(s) in question. Each would have the technical expertise to understand the patent(s) in question, and while it is possible it is willful, it is more likely that they believed that their solution was not an infringement.
There isn't any penalty that I am aware of for fighting a patent nor attempting to invalidate it, although the losing side may be required to pay all legal costs.
Microsoft make CPUs? I know that Intel settled with them and did not go to court.
When Samsung asked for a review they always got it so what did Apple do wrong or perhaps they should ask for the review anonymously?
Trying a patent in front of a jury is completely absurd and I think it's done for the headlines that come out of it because the results are almost always ridiculous.
How is a University a "patent troll"? They own the patent have every right to derive income from it. MIT and Berkeley do NOT give away their patents they as you point out have licenses which they of course charge a fee for. Intel has a licensing agreement with WARF so its not like they are opposed to that sort of arrangement. Problem is that Apple thought they didn't need to pay for it and they gambled and lost.
Didn't I read about this here last week?
That was the jury decision itself. Today's development is that the judge accepted the jury's award, rather than reducing it (as judges sometimes do).