Boston University Sues Apple Over Gallium Nitride Thin Film Patent

name99 said:

That specificity is what makes me wonder about the likelihood of this being relevant. The quote above refers to manufacturing via MBE (molecular beam epitaxy). MBE is the method of choice for research labs, because it gives you maximum control, but it is not the method of choice for mass manufacturing because it doesn't scale well to large volumes.
Manufacturers would prefer to use MOCVD (metal-organic chemical vapor deposition) which can prepare in parallel a large number of wafers in a single chamber. MOCVD is not a slight variant on MBE, it is a very different type of technology.
If MOCVD CAN be used for manufacturing GaN substrate (and my five minutes of googling indicate it can) that would be the preferred route for volume manufacture.

I'd also be curious as to what the law is for the equivalent of frivolous patent suits. If you have good reason to believe that manufacturers DON'T use your patent, but rather than examining their plants to learn this, you figure, "what the heck, let's just throw out a lawsuit anyway" do you get punished by the court?

Click to expand...

Thank you for showing that many of the patents that are held by universities are good, but often not useful in real world development. Thus although the process being used, or more specifically the final product, appears to have been originally developed from this process, it doesn't mean that the product is using this process. An expensive process for making things better doesn't mean it is going to translate directly to production. The production engineers are a clever bunch, and once they know that something is possible, can come up with unique ways to produce the same (or structurally similar) product. It is very likely they don't use the same process since they have optimized it, or made it work with the equipment that they already have or can buy off the self.

That being said, it is very hard for the patent holder to know how they are producing these products, they should, it is often guarded as a trade secret so that their competitors can't do it. Thus for them, the only way they can find out if it is being abused is by suing them. I agree with the suit in this case, but it's kinda a shame to have to do it this way.

gnasher729 said:

The university says: We have a patent, and Apple is infringing. To you, that indicates it is a legitimate claim. Apple will obviously reply "no, we are not". That would then be clear evidence that they are talking ********.

Click to expand...

To me fair it is it is not a crappent like Apple likes to sue with but what I would call a valid patent.
Apple likes to use crappents like pinch to Zoom, slide to unlock, black slab ect. Things that should never of been granted a patented in the first place.

This is what I would call a valid patent.

Actually guys... if BU is right on their patent ownership claim, then Apple is the correct party to be sued.

Yeah they dont make the screen but they designed it. Samsung/other suppliers make these parts based on Apple's specifications...

So yeah... just because they didn't physically make the product, that doesn't mean they're off the hook.

I wonder if this process was discovered under a research grant from the government? Sounds just like the way things go - the government pays for the research, expecting to get some return, and the researcher promptly takes out a patent and screws people.