- Last Active
rob53 said:TheCrazyOnes said:Can someone explain how a patent suit even begins? I’m assuming apple has some patent for their chip, and the opposing company also has their own which conflicts.Is there a problem in how our system is issuing patents? Are they not validated ahead of time to avoid infringement?
Here's what the first patent says:
A multiprocessing system comprising: multiple processors mounted on a single die; and multiple operating systems residing in a memory connected to said multiple processors, wherein each of said multiple processors executes an operating system of said multiple operating systems, and two or more of said multiple processors are capable of simultaneously executing two or more operating systems of said multiple operating systems.
Every single computer does this and has done this practically since computers were developed. This patent was developed in the Silicon Valley of CA. HP was and is a computer company but I have to wonder why they sold this particular patent when it could be a part of every other patent HP ever created. Patents almost always refer to other patents so I have to wonder if HP felt this patent was out of date and no longer viable in any product, being superseded by other patents.
edit: One more thing. Apple has been making computerized devices since the 1980s and if HP had thought Apple was infringing on this patent HP would have sued Apple. If they did, Apple would have changed how they designed computers to not infringe this patent and Sonrai would have no reason to sue Apple.
Your first post. Would you mind telling us what your old name was? If this is actually the first time you've visited AI, welcome.
The invention has to be patentable, useful, novel (unique), and non-obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. To most who deal with patents (inventors, assignees and attorneys, and internet denizens, for instance) inventions are all obvious once you see exactly how it's done right there in black and white. Not so much beforehand. Hence the mistaken notion that patents are granted on "general ideas".
Further, you will find nothing in any patent regulations that requires an inventor to follow a granted patent with self-funded and directed manufacturing. If I spend years and all my money on an invention, if I can't actually manufacture it, is the invention then supposed to be free for everyone else to profit from? Sorry, no; you'll get your chance in 20 years, or you can license it. If I invent an anti-gravity platform and get it patented (assuming you can prove it works) but it takes billions of dollars to make it commercially, why should I be prevented from selling it to Elon Musk, who obviously throws billions at any idea that strikes his hyperactive whimsy nerve? I invented it, own it and can build it, sell it and defend it, Musk can own it, build it, sell it. and defend it, just like me, once the check clears, obviously.
Every single time "patent troll" is bandied about in this arena, it should be accompanied by a statement that a patent is just a form of property, and for a limited time you can sit on it, build it, sell it, or even buy other inventions and do the same thing with them. Most buyers then want to license the property they now own, and sometimes they have to bring suit to motivate someone. If as a defendant you feel the requested license is for an invalid patent, like Apple always does, you litigate. Otherwise you license it and move on. Benefits and drawbacks to each method.
Let's step outside the Applesphere for a minute. We're a small biotech group and have patented a bunch of things but for the most part we don't manufacture them. Instead we license / assign them to multi-national corporations, which then manufacture them. No litigation, no big guys using the invention without a license, no Troll appellations. Just business. This is how it usually works. It seems as if many posters here think every patent goes to court, and feel it's all so unfair. Most patents ARE NOT litigated, so there are few "non-technical juries" making judgements, Eastern District of Texas excluded. Bunch of Gohmerts in 10 gallon hats from the bench on down.
For the last time:
If an inventor invents something and patents it, he/she has a limited monopoly on its commercialization. If I buy it from the inventor, I take on the same limited monopoly rights. If I can commercialize it right away, that's my right. If it takes me 19.9 years, or if I fail to commercialize it. it's still my property until the patent expires. It's still never YOURS to use until it's in the public domain.
A patent is a piece of property like a house or car. I can't take it just because you've had it for a while or I just want it a lot.
You can challenge the legitimacy of the patent or some or all of its claims. This is how patents works around the world, it's an agreed upon system.
As for lawyers, Apple's and WILANs lawyers get paid whether they win or lose. There is no secret cabal of IP attorneys.
byronl said:the cia has been evil af for a century now
9secondkox2 said:Just come out with the pro grade iMac already. Sheesh.iPhone and iPhone pro coming out at the same time doesn’t hurt anything. Past years have shown that even SE models cause an up sell to the pro machine.Nothing wrong with that a sale is a sale and the pro machines have more profit margin.The thought behind waiting only makes sense for appearing to not stagnate. We already know Apple doesn’t stagnate. They develop until it’s ready d add ndi then launch. But much of this seems a bit forced.Production issues? For what? The screen? Apple doesn’t manufacture that. Shouldn’t be an issue unless it’s 5.5-6k and the data connections require further engineering.The SoC? Done.The enclosure? Literally C&C a piece of aluminum Snd anodize it.Supply chain issues I can understand. Production?If true, hopefully it means that the pro machine is more than just a bigger iMac with a spec bump.Otherwise it doesn’t make sense.
Supply chain issues ARE production issues.
lkrupp said:GeorgeBMac said:So why would any company who cares about human rights operate in India?.... Oh yeh, sales and profit.In other news, India's Modi has frozen the financial accounts of Mother Teresa's Sisters of Charity because India's far right Hindu's don't like that they provide food, shelter, hospice care and education to India's countless destitute and homeless adults and children. They claim the Sisters are converting them to Christianity -- even though Mother Teresa had always been 100% clear that they are religious agnostics: they don't care what religion you are (if any) if you are an abandoned child, homeless & destitute or dying alone and that they only teach Christianity to those who are interested and request the teaching.The result is that Modi and his far right Hindu's are blocking the Sisters from providing much needed food, shelter, hospice care and education to India's destitute and abandoned children.
And by the way, Foxconn workers are NOT Apple employees no matter what your convoluted thinking tells you.
I had 12 years of Catholic education, and we went from putting dimes in little envelopes every week to "save pagan babies" to making substantial contributions to Mother Teresa' organization. My brother-in-law is Indian, and his opinion is that the problems of India are too massive for any program whether private or governmental to have a measurable effect. He said that "compassion fatigue" is endemic there. This doesn't excuse Foxconn abuses, and while I do not ascribe the same level of complicity to Apple, Tim Cook should pick up the phone and threaten some folks at Foxconn-India. Do the right thing, Tim.