Apple ordered to pay $838M for infringing Caltech Wi-Fi patents

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33

    But what really strikes me about this is:  We have this major propaganda campaign going on accusing China of stealing U.S. IP -- yet it appears that most of the theft occurs by western companies against western companies.   In his case, while Apple was an obvious bystander Broadcomm is convicted of doing exactly what so many are outraged that China is supposedly doing.   So where is the outrage?
    You really need to spend some time understanding how Chinese companies ‘steal’ before comparing what they do to this case against Broadcom and Apple. To get you started, look at this—the Chinese companies don’t even try to make their work look original, they’re copying on purpose:

    https://jalopnik.com/the-ten-greatest-chinese-knockoff-cars-ever-made-1694449178

    The only propaganda influence going on here is the group of people (who undoubtedly have political motives) trying to pass China off as reasonable.
    dedgeckoronnrazorpitjbdragonJFC_PA
  • Reply 22 of 33
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,620member
    sflocal said:
    I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

    Unless Broadcom made the chips to Apple's designs and specifications. Then if the chips infringe, both would be liable.
  • Reply 23 of 33
    DAalseth said:
    sflocal said:
    I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

    Unless Broadcom made the chips to Apple's designs and specifications. Then if the chips infringe, both would be liable.
    Whether the chips were made to Apple's designs and specs is immaterial.  It's not a determining factor in whether or not Apple can be sued for infringement.
    dedgeckochemengin1muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 24 of 33
    peteopeteo Posts: 393member
    sflocal said:
    I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

    Yeah makes absolutely no sense. Are they going to start suing owners of the devices with these chips too?

    Edit: Wow I didn't know that you could sue end users. This is just plane nuts! https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/patent-infringement-lawsuits-against-sof-08530/
    https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1799&context=facpubs
    edited January 2020 GeorgeBMacjbdragon
  • Reply 25 of 33
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,558member
    "As a non-profit institution of higher education, Caltech is committed to protecting its intellectual property in furtherance of its mission to expand human knowledge and benefit society through research integrated with education."

    --
    The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) is a private doctorate-granting research university in Pasadena, California. Known for its strength in natural science and engineering, Caltech is often ranked as one of the world's top-ten universities.

    Which is it? Is it a non-profit institution or a for-profit private research university? Looking at their website, the US government funds a lot of their research which means it's funded by taxpayer money. This doesn't matter as much anymore because research institutions funded by DOE (Dept of Energy) can now hold patents but like drugs developed by NIH then given away for free to pharmaceuticals who then patent them, they are all funded by taxpayer money. It would be nice if taxpayers received some of this money instead of stock holders or university coffers. I also wonder whether all of the students who worked on the IP Caltech is suing over ever get any of the residuals.

    If it's non-profit, I wonder how much tax they will have to pay if they ever see this money from Apple and Broadcom. Do any companies pay tax on the winnings? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 33
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,620member
    DAalseth said:
    sflocal said:
    I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

    Unless Broadcom made the chips to Apple's designs and specifications. Then if the chips infringe, both would be liable.
    Whether the chips were made to Apple's designs and specs is immaterial.  It's not a determining factor in whether or not Apple can be sued for infringement.
    Sure it does. If Apple’s designs infringed they are liable. If I tell you to rob a bank and you do it, we’re both implicated in bank robbery. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 33
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,810member
    georgie01 said:

    But what really strikes me about this is:  We have this major propaganda campaign going on accusing China of stealing U.S. IP -- yet it appears that most of the theft occurs by western companies against western companies.   In his case, while Apple was an obvious bystander Broadcomm is convicted of doing exactly what so many are outraged that China is supposedly doing.   So where is the outrage?
    You really need to spend some time understanding how Chinese companies ‘steal’ before comparing what they do to this case against Broadcom and Apple. To get you started, look at this—the Chinese companies don’t even try to make their work look original, they’re copying on purpose:

    https://jalopnik.com/the-ten-greatest-chinese-knockoff-cars-ever-made-1694449178

    The only propaganda influence going on here is the group of people (who undoubtedly have political motives) trying to pass China off as reasonable.

    You mean like Microsoft, Google and Samsung?   That kind of copying?

  • Reply 28 of 33
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,810member
    rob53 said:
    "As a non-profit institution of higher education, Caltech is committed to protecting its intellectual property in furtherance of its mission to expand human knowledge and benefit society through research integrated with education."

    --
    The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) is a private doctorate-granting research university in Pasadena, California. Known for its strength in natural science and engineering, Caltech is often ranked as one of the world's top-ten universities.

    Which is it? Is it a non-profit institution or a for-profit private research university? Looking at their website, the US government funds a lot of their research which means it's funded by taxpayer money. This doesn't matter as much anymore because research institutions funded by DOE (Dept of Energy) can now hold patents but like drugs developed by NIH then given away for free to pharmaceuticals who then patent them, they are all funded by taxpayer money. It would be nice if taxpayers received some of this money instead of stock holders or university coffers. I also wonder whether all of the students who worked on the IP Caltech is suing over ever get any of the residuals.

    If it's non-profit, I wonder how much tax they will have to pay if they ever see this money from Apple and Broadcom. Do any companies pay tax on the winnings? 

    In truth, "Non-Profit" is mostly just an accounting term that determines how profits are treated.  Realizing that "profit" is really just the difference between revenue and expenses, and every organization ultimately needs more revenue than expenses if it wants to stay viable, then how is it treated?   Is it rolled into assets or into retained earnings?

    Another difference is that they tend to go tax free -- and for that they promise to put their focus on doing things that serve society.  But, increasingly that is being abused.

    The bottom line:   Whether for-profit or Non-profit they still need to turn a profit and frequently that's their main concern -- often their only concern.
    rob53JFC_PA
  • Reply 29 of 33
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    georgie01 said:

    But what really strikes me about this is:  We have this major propaganda campaign going on accusing China of stealing U.S. IP -- yet it appears that most of the theft occurs by western companies against western companies.   In his case, while Apple was an obvious bystander Broadcomm is convicted of doing exactly what so many are outraged that China is supposedly doing.   So where is the outrage?
    You really need to spend some time understanding how Chinese companies ‘steal’ before comparing what they do to this case against Broadcom and Apple. To get you started, look at this—the Chinese companies don’t even try to make their work look original, they’re copying on purpose:

    https://jalopnik.com/the-ten-greatest-chinese-knockoff-cars-ever-made-1694449178

    The only propaganda influence going on here is the group of people (who undoubtedly have political motives) trying to pass China off as reasonable.
    Bah mere coincidences. Show us some real proof. My Dongfeng Crazy Soldier is nothing like an H1. :D  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 33
    DAalseth said:
    DAalseth said:
    sflocal said:
    I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

    Unless Broadcom made the chips to Apple's designs and specifications. Then if the chips infringe, both would be liable.
    Whether the chips were made to Apple's designs and specs is immaterial.  It's not a determining factor in whether or not Apple can be sued for infringement.
    Sure it does. If Apple’s designs infringed they are liable. If I tell you to rob a bank and you do it, we’re both implicated in bank robbery. 
    No it doesn't.  Ample evidence has been provided throughout this thread demonstrating that the only requirement for the inclusion of Apple is use of the offending technology.  Specificity to Apple's requirements is not a condition of CIT's ability to sue Apple.  If you own a patent and I make a product that infringes on that patent.  You can sue me, my customer who uses my product in their consumer widget, and end users who buy the widget.  Anyone along the chain of distribution can be sued.  There is no requirement like the one you introduced.  It is simply an incorrect assumption.  To be fair, it's a logical assumption but incorrect nonetheless.   
    gatorguychemengin1
  • Reply 31 of 33
    If Apple has to pay, then they could sue Qualcomm for supplying the infringing chips and get their fine money back. Unless there's a no-fault cause in there somewhere.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 33
    A lot of comments here. I don't understand the court decision so would be enlightening to either get a comment from an AI reader formally trained in law to explain or alternatively AI can run it down and update the article.  As to the far east, copying just isn't considered a mortal sin as it is in the west. Being able to reverse engineer and copy accurately are viewed as attributes.
  • Reply 33 of 33
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,583member
    k2kw said:
    Why charge tuition when one can sue infringers instead?
    Maybe tuition is so hi because Tech companies like Apple are always stealing IP.   Hopefully this reduces their tuition but I doubt it.
    Typical Sanders voter thinking. Tuition is high because of a supply and demand problem. Government grants and loans made without evaluating the ability to repay have driven demand through the roof while supply remains limited. That is why tuition is high.  It’s not because of the global corporate bogeyman.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.