Apple Loses A7/A8 Patent Lawsuit, Could Owe University of Wisconsin Up to $862 Million

[CalWizrd]

About as moronic as you completely ignoring the context of the poster's quote. The obviousness of the quote should not have been lost on you. Wizards are usually pretty smart.

The moronic concept I was commenting on was the incessant complaining about how Apple charges too much, and consumers are forced to pay more than they want.

Apple does not make life saving drugs, or food staples, etc. If you don't like the prices they charge, then don't buy their products. Simple concept. If enough people followed this route you would see some price adjustments.

 

[Steve01234]

you know sometimes different parties, given a problem to solve, will all come to the same solution. while others may work, there is often a single best solution. this happens all the time in software and it may be nothing more than UW getting a patent and apple came up with the same solution on its own.

if it were up to me most patent would be thrown out as the antiquated system it is which no longer protects the small inventor, only corps with lawyers who engage in IP warfare.

 

[chiefsilverback]

I had no idea a University would stoop to the level of patent troll. Way to set an example for students.

My understanding of a patent troll is a person or company who looks to buy patents in order to profit from them. This is very different from the person who actually invented the thing saying "hang on, I designed that, what do you think you're doing using it without my permission".

 

[TommyA6]

patent troll? reallyyyyy?

fanatism is a funny thing to watch...


------------------

Anyways, apple can just use the samsung money and still have their $50B (If I remember correctly) in the bank.

$200 billion actually
But yeah. Pretty simple. Apple stole intellectual property and should pay the fine.
People calling universities patent trolls are just clueless or drunk on Apple cool aid.
Research results (whether it's microprocessors, chemistry, biotechnology, medicine etc.) done at universities end up being used in all sorts of modern products. (Including iPhones).

 

[kdarling]

What a moronic sentiment. They will make you pay more? I assume there's a guy standing behind you pointing a gun at your head telling you that you have to buy some Apple products?

I think you're applying his "make you" to the wrong thing.

His comment was not about making people buy Apple products, it's about making people pay more IF they want to buy Apple products.

So what did the University want? No one to ever use their research and findings to better the world?

Of course. WARF likes to license their patents. From their licensing FAQ:

"WARF's licensing process is designed to achieve two goals: to bring additional "margin of excellence" research funding to UW–Madison and to put the inventions of UW–Madison faculty to work for the maximum benefit of society. WARF shares in the development risk by requiring a reasonable license fee and a royalty that is received only after a product or process is being sold or otherwise used. "

WARF is apparently known for licensing, and fairly rarely going to court. (Maybe once a year.)

Judging from the amount of the award, I'm guessing that WARF informed Apple about this particular patent, asked them to license it, and Apple decided to take a chance on using a trial to avoid it. Roll of the dice.

Call them engineers, pay everyone involved in the research a generous $150k years salary?

Better than that. WARF pays 20% of royalties to the inventors. They have full-time researchers as well.

Also, for those who were wondering : WARF is a fully self-supporting separate entity from the University, so no, students and staff do not have to assign their inventions to WARF. It's voluntary.

 

[lederermc]

It's hard to believe that this patent was upheld as valid.

 

[davidramsay]

Maybe I am being stupid ( allowed by age) but the A series processors are made by a UK based Cambridge company - ARM, thus the problem is not Apples but ARM's. However, branch prediction has been in use for how many years? I have been involved with computing since 1975, I am certain IBM, Intel and many other chip design/manufacturers have used this feature.

Are we to assume that all technological innovation commonly in use is a source of revenue for anyone who cares to patent it?

IMHO opinion all patents should cease to be enforceable after 5 years.

 

[kdarling]

So was the Apple Samsung amount based on what Apple could have made or what Samsung made?

I'd like to expand on my previous response to you, where I explained that the most basic patent infringement award is a "reasonable royalty"... which would likely be the base method used to calculate the award in this case.

If Apple had themselves licensed any part of their CPUs to others, then that fee would be taken into account as well. It would help show the value of the WARF patent.

--

As for the Apple-Samsung trial, it depends on what kind of patent was infringed:

1) Utility patents = can retrieve royalties or lost profits, whichever is higher.

For some Samsung devices, the jury gave Apple 100% of their claimed lost profits. For others, they gave 50% of the requested royalties.

2) Design patents = can retrieve royalties or lost profits, or some or all of the infringer's profits.

For these, the jury gave Apple 40% of Samsung's profits.

--

A problem was that the jury (who obviously failed to read or follow their instructions), not only gave Apple's lost profits, but ALSO gave Apple 40% of Samsung's profits, on some devices which only infringed utility patents.

Giving the infringer's profits as damages for utility patents... an award reserved for design patents only... is not legal, and that's why half the awards had to be later thrown out by Judge Koh, and decided in another trial.

 

[MasterRyu2011]

I had no idea a University would stoop to the level of patent troll. Way to set an example for students.

Really? More like way to show students that it's right to fight for what's rightfully yours. If students see that fruits of your labor can be taken advantage of by others, then they would see no incentive to try to be creators and inventors --- which are probably in line with a university's ultimate goals.

 

[hapten]

I think you're applying his "make you" to the wrong thing.

His comment was not about making people buy Apple products, it's about making people pay more IF they want to buy Apple products.



Of course. WARF likes to license their patents. From their licensing FAQ:

"WARF's licensing process is designed to achieve two goals: to bring additional "margin of excellence" research funding to UW–Madison and to put the inventions of UW–Madison faculty to work for the maximum benefit of society. WARF shares in the development risk by requiring a reasonable license fee and a royalty that is received only after a product or process is being sold or otherwise used. "

WARF is apparently known for licensing, and fairly rarely going to court. (Maybe once a year.)

Judging from the amount of the award, I'm guessing that WARF informed Apple about this particular patent, asked them to license it, and Apple decided to take a chance on using a trial to avoid it. Roll of the dice.



Better than that. WARF pays 20% of royalties to the inventors. They have full-time researchers as well.

Also, for those who were wondering : WARF is a fully self-supporting separate entity from the University, so no, students and staff do not have to assign their inventions to WARF. It's voluntary.

I agree completely except to correct that it's not voluntary. All IP done at the university has to go through WARF. They have the ability to pass on the IP, in which the inventors can file themselves. But inventors cannot file on their own UNLESS WARF passes on it. It's win-win with little to complain about. The University is really lucky to have an IP transfer office like WARF.

 

[kdarling]

I agree completely except to correct that it's not voluntary. All IP done at the university has to go through WARF. They have the ability to pass on the IP, in which the inventors can file themselves. But inventors cannot file on their own UNLESS WARF passes on it. It's win-win with little to complain about. The University is really lucky to have an IP transfer office like WARF.

Thank you for pointing that out. Right, if someone used University funds or equipment or paid time to create an invention, then that would apply.

"The UW is unique among U.S. universities in that it does not claim ownership rights in the intellectual property generated by its faculty, staff, or students, except when required by funding agreements. UW inventors do, however, have an obligation to disclose all inventions created while carrying out university duties, using any university funding, or using university premises, supplies, or equipment. " - WARF

 

[nviz22]

Apple could just appeal, put together a stronger case in a Circuit Court and have a better outcome for themselves.

 

[macduke]

Don't videos all go up to the cloud anyway? Not saying you're wrong but people are freaking out about Live Photos and 4K video and there are settings to optimize photo and video storage.

Yeah, it works to an extent. The thing that I've noticed that sucks the most about iCloud and 4K content is that you can't zoom in on it like you can right after you shoot it. A small point, but perhaps not to some people. I really like being able to take stills from the footage as each frame is around 8mp. Also the buffering can sometimes take a lot and people with smaller data plans can't always access their photos or videos without using it up. The stupid loading circle I have to wait for while flipping through images isn't ideal. I've got a 200GB account. I wish there was an option to keep photos back to a certain point stored locally. Like maybe 6 months?

I'm always surprised how many people are absolutely certain they know what most people think.

I should have clarified, but thought it was obvious given my comment about how many people among family, friends and coworkers have this issue. My original comment is the top comment on this news story, and the highest number of upvotes I've ever received for a single comment on MacRumors. That would lend credibility to the claim that I know what most people think in this particular situation, would it not?

12 GB???? Not even that. My 16 GB iPhone 6s Plus only had 9.9 GB on day one!

Wow, that sucks. Are you going to exchange it for a 64GB version?

So the reasoning is, "they have money so they should be giving it away - to us!". Right?

Nope, but Apple excels at designing experiences. Part of a good experience is making good default choices. The default storage size should be higher. The part price difference is minimal. I'm not entitled to more space, but they are not being competitive and I want my stock in AAPL to continue to do well. From what I've seen from a fairly large sample size of average users (even people with Ph. D's as I work at a university) they don't think that they are a "high end" user so 16GB will be fine. Then they end up using the device as intended and quickly run out of space. Install a few apps, maybe a game or two, take photos and shoot a few videos and you're done. You're out. You get a warning box that repeatedly tells you your phone is out of space. They wonder how this happened and I have to offload their files for them because many don't even use computers any more. Now I have these same people starting to tell me they want a phone with expandable storage because their "already expensive compared to Android base model iPhone" isn't good enough and they can't justify another $100 on top of it. Others really like their Apple device but are still mad at the company and are past their return window so they're stuck. These are just normal people, unlike 90% of the people who typically comment here. So IMO, it's not worth the bad will that Apple is getting from customers and potential future losses vs. spending slightly more to spring for the 32GB model.

So, someone is cheapskate or uninformed enough to buy something that they don't know how to deal with - and you help them. OK, kudos to you, shows your kindness. But… good luck. My first line would be "hey, why in hell did you buy this with these previsible problems? And now I have to be your lifeline? Go return it and get something else." Even more so if I had already told them to NOT BUY THAT.

Sounds harsh, but that is what I learnt after a couple of decades dealing with other's problems with their Windows computers - while I had been telling everyone on earshot to get a Mac, or even Linux lately. Just-not-another-Windows. Oh, finally you got the cheapest HP and want help. Fsck you.

No offense, but that's not how you deal with people in the real world. I can't tell my boss or coworkers to go "fsck" herself as you so eloquently put it, or my mom and grandma, or my best friends. These are just normal people. When I tell them to get more, they think "we'll you're a tech guy so you would say that." Sure, after these problems they now get the message. But still it's an issue I have to deal with a lot. Especially since I did a lot of evangelizing on Apple's behalf. And Apple shouldn't put a 4K camera into a 16GB device, which as someone pointed out above ships with 9.9GB available. Mere minutes of video! Lame.

Hey, I got this fancy Mercedes and guess what? Turns out I have to keep pouring gas in it! AND IT IS NOT FREE!
I find it hard to feel sympathy for someone who didn't factor usage/maintenance costs in a buy. A fool and his money, yadda yadda.

And anyway it's not like I have EVER recorded more than a few minutes in my phone. About 10 once in a concert, and I was annoying enough already to others - and to myself. 22 minutes? Really? Get a camera, and/or a life.

I take it you don't have kids. Lots of videos happening. As for your Mercedes analogy, that sounds like a straw man argument. If that argument were valid then the iPhone would have replaceable storage and my original complaint would be complaining about the price of Micro SD cards.

A more apt analogy (fitting within the guidelines of your comparison) would be if Mercedes made only one car. They all have the same features and functionality. But one comes with a 3 gallon tank, one with a 12 gallon tank, and one with a 24 gallon tank. But because of the way the car is engineered, the usable space of each tank is only 2 gallons, 11 gallons and 23 gallons. And every time you run out, you have to fill up directly from an even bigger car. Yeah, a car with a 2 gallon tank would be pretty annoying. But otherwise it looks like a beautiful Mercedes with all the bells and whistles. Wouldn't a 2 gallon tank kind of ruin the whole experience? Well you might say people shouldn't be dumb and just buy the more expensive models…and yet Mercedes (Apple) still sells them. The Mercedes base model (iPhone 6s 16GB $649) starts at $39,000. The next level up is 15.5% more expensive at $45,000 (iPhone 6s 64GB $749). Meanwhile people can buy a Chevy (Android) for half the price with twice the fuel tank. Sure, it's not as nice at all, but it gets them around town without constantly running out of gas. That's the core of the problem here. Apple needs a usable base model with storage that matches the high end features. The 6s is a hell of a phone and I love mine, but 16GB really hampers it and lessens the fantastic Apple experience. Does where I'm coming from make sense?

It's also not about people being fools because they aren't as educated as you and I about technology. Apple must design experiences that just work. That includes hardware design. The original iPhone came in 16GB capacity and couldn't even take video and had a 2mp camera. The 6s will be on sale through much of 2016, nine years later. It's completely ridiculous, and only the most ridiculous Apple fans would argue otherwise. Even I have been called a fanboy more times than I can count. But on the forums everything is black and white, either I'm an Apple hater or a raving fanatic. In the real world I'm practical. And as I told a guy above you, I think most people agree when you look at the upvotes on my original comment. Never before have I received that many. I couldn't believe it when I logged in this afternoon and saw so many notifications at the top!

 

[Psyfuzz]

I had no idea a University would stoop to the level of patent troll. Way to set an example for students.

There's $852 million on the table, nothing warranting that potential payout can be deemed as low level and requiring 'stooping'.

If somebody stole your tech and you could gain near $900 million in reparations you'd be lining up lawyers instantly - don't try and act like you'd do anything different. But anything to frame Apple as the victims in stealing somebody else's tech right?

 

[gonzalo12345]

Isn't WARF the same people that also sued Intel for the Core 2 Duo processors in 2008 for the same patent?
They also sued Sony for the PS2 for the same issue.
WARF is probably going to go after other phone manufactures that have multi-core processors.

 

[iOSFangirl6001]

They have $200 billion in cash, I'm sure they'll be fine, lol.

You do realize had you even read through the comments that 800 million could still increase from things like interest or additional penalties or rulings?


Also not like this is the only suit against Apple and don't forget government pressure over wanting more in taxes. That 200 billion won't stay 200 Billion

Also rather they have 200 million 200 billion or 200 trillion is irrelevant

Once you get into the hundred millions no one can or should think of that as "pocket change"

Take away nearly 5% of my money and I wouldn't be fine. I'd live, but be upset.

Lol exactly!

 

[aliensporebomb]

I eagerly await the cheesehead / packers edition iOS devices. Not.

 

[Keirasplace]

There's $852 million on the table, nothing warranting that potential payout can be deemed as low level and requiring 'stooping'.

If somebody stole your tech and you could gain near $900 million in reparations you'd be lining up lawyers instantly - don't try and act like you'd do anything different. But anything to frame Apple as the victims in stealing somebody else's tech right?

This will litigated and squashed this is a bs ridiculous broad patent that fails prior art and obviousness.

This kind of thing has existed since the god damn 1960s. The patent office needs to close down because lets face it, when dealing with non concrete patents, they don't have a clue.

This so called trial even fails in proving it actually applies to apple except inthe broadest bs way Because apple certainly difn't detail its own implementation to a non tech hometown braindead jury.

So, hell yeah this is patent trolling just like those that "invented" the podcast.

 

[rcappo]

Give WARF one year to release a processor or demonstrate that they are going to use it to compete in this market, and that people want to buy their product using this technology if they truly did invent it, (and Apple didn't steal it or hired people who just recreated it). Otherwise, let the marketplace decide whoever can sell the most wins.

Maybe if it was a small inventor who did publish their findings, and went through the patent process, that they should get a small percentage of every sale.

 

[danny_w]

Well Apple must think it applies to them since they tried to get the parent dismissed (and failed I might add). If Intel and others have paid up the so should Apple.

This will litigated and squashed this is a bs ridiculous broad patent that fails prior art and obviousness.

This kind of thing has existed since the god damn 1960s. The patent office needs to close down because lets face it, when dealing with non concrete patents, they don't have a clue.

This so called trial even fails in proving it actually applies to apple except inthe broadest bs way Because apple certainly difn't detail its own implementation to a non tech hometown braindead jury.

So, hell yeah this is patent trolling just like those that "invented" the podcast.

 

[danny_w]

Give WARF one year to release a processor or demonstrate that they are going to use it to compete in this market, and that people want to buy their product using this technology if they truly did invent it, (and Apple didn't steal it or hired people who just recreated it). Otherwise, let the marketplace decide whoever can sell the most wins.

Maybe if it was a small inventor who did publish their findings, and went through the patent process, that they should get a small percentage of every sale.

You obviously don't know much about patents. Nowhere is it required that you actually produce the product. The inventor of the microprocessor never made one but Intel has to pay royalties anyway.

 

[Cole Slaw]

This thread proves Apple fanboys are absolutely unreal.
Good God man, this is not your mother we're talking about here, it's a company with more money than it knows what to do with, a company that doesn't pay it's fair share of taxes and that sues if a product is a rectangle with rounded edges.

 

[jimbobb24]

Hey - now I know why Apple needed to gimp the new iMac SSD and release a 16 Gb iPhone. All the money they will save!

 

[jimbobb24]

$200 billion actually
But yeah. Pretty simple. Apple stole intellectual property and should pay the fine.
People calling universities patent trolls are just clueless or drunk on Apple cool aid.
Research results (whether it's microprocessors, chemistry, biotechnology, medicine etc.) done at universities end up being used in all sorts of modern products. (Including iPhones).

People calling universities patent trolls are totally justified - because the modern patent troll is someone with a largely ambigious general patent that then finds a way to profit by sueing companies - not by thing or contributing toi their being made. Lots of Univeristies make awesome advances and defend those. This is just some patent lawyer at WI sitting around looking for ways to turn general bland patents into millions of dollars = patent troll.

 

[mackinmike]

when apple infringes on a patent, it's ok.. but when someone infringes on apple's patent, it's not ok. we live in a weird world.