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

[cmwade77]

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

How is this being a patent troll? They did the R&D on the chip, don't they deserver to make that money back along with a profit?

Now in all reality, the amount we are talking about would never deter Apple from doing the same thing again, so we need to make sure that the dollar amounts equate to at least a full year of income (not profits) for the company.

 

[cmwade77]

Aren't institutions of higher education meant to do research to propogate information in a free society? Universities aren't businesses (at least not in the manufacturing/production sense). Was the university going to be using their patents to develop products? If this proves to be successful, this might start a trend in university suing over patents/research papers...

No, they aren't, they are run as businesses, there is no such thing as a nonprofit university in the United States anymore.

 

[Fenez]

Why would them being a university have any relevance to whether they should be paid? If some guy in his kitchen came up with the idea it wouldn't make a difference... I don't understand what the hangup is with some here having a problem with it being a university other than semantics.

 

[firewood]

I had no idea a University would stoop to the level of patent troll.

The University is not a troll. They produce an important product. That product is educated students. The research from professors helps bring in royalties (patent license fees) to help pay for educating those students. Often part of that education is PhD and post doc research based on the universities prior research (the stuff they happened to patent previously.) Without university research (funded by prior university research), a lot of stuff we know and depend on might never have been discovered.

That fact that state legislatures then steal this money for other pork barrel projects is a matter of theft from the university, not the university being a troll.

 

[TommyA6]

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.

Nothing hugely ambiguous about their patent. Other companies have been paying to licence it for years, and for much less than $850 million Apple could end up paying.

 

[Keirasplace]

How is this being a patent troll? They did the R&D on the chip, don't they deserver to make that money back along with a profit?

Now in all reality, the amount we are talking about would never deter Apple from doing the same thing again, so we need to make sure that the dollar amounts equate to at least a full year of income (not profits) for the company.

No they didnT... You think they did research on a chip 15 years before its use! Seriously!
And now, they're entitled to a huge amount of profit from what's just a tiny part of this chip they have nothing to do with developping with this ridiculously broad patent claim... Good grief.
You make no sense at all. This will be squashed, you can bank on it.

 

[Keirasplace]

Nothing hugely ambiguous about their patent. Other companies have been paying to licence it for years, and for much less than $850 million Apple could end up paying.

Often people pay because its cheaper than litigating, not because the patent is unassailable.
Just like the podcast "patent", which has or is close to being squashed (and that people have also paid the "holder").
Apple though has the money to litigate and they will until its declared void or they pay peanuts.
Apple is thinking long term on this, they're not paying this so called patent holder 50 years for nothing.

 

[Keirasplace]

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.

Right... You do know that often companies pay trolls rather than litigate. Well, Apple will litigate until they squeeze the life out of this crap. That's what Intel should have done too.

 

[Keirasplace]

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.

You have to prove that the patent is valid first, especially with those vague patents with very broad "implementations". The fact that this kind of work had been done in hardware and software decade earlier means this thing should not have been granted in the first place.

But, the patent office often grants ton of these kinds of patents that then needs to be litigated to death to be thrown out; like the podcast patent! It shouldn't be that way, but it is that way.

There is not way Apple will even a minute fraction of this, or anything really.

 

[prasand]

I don't know, even reading info on this... I feel another cash grab cause it's apple situation. I am probably wrong but it just feels dodgy.

Kal.

I halfway expected from you something like: *uses x-ray vision to see through this bull----*

 

[smoledman]

I bet Apple appeals, loses ends up having to pay $250 million. They decide to pay half in cash and the other half in iPads, Macs and iPhones!

 

[kdarling]

There have been several references/citations to this patent by Apple. How come they've managed to avoid license fees for so long when they've clearly shown some interest in it?

There's no need for license fees until the IP is actually used in a product. The A7 didn't come out until September 2013.

According to the lawsuit, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) approached Apple about licensing, but was told Apple does not accept licensing proposals.

Because Apple refused to even talk, WARF filed suit in January 2014, just a few months after the A7 came out.

As a side note, the fact that Apple's patents referenced the WARF patent, will cost Apple more in back royalties... and could prove willfulness... since it proves Apple was aware of the patent all along.

--
What is a bit surprising, is that Apple hasn't gotten a third party to request a patent review by the USPTO. Those seem to be more fruitful these days than relying on a jury or judge to decide validity. The latter tend to accept patents as-is.

 

[pubwvj]

Government funded (our tax dollars) research should not be granted patents. It should be in the public domain.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

You have to prove that the patent is valid first, especially with those vague patents with very broad "implementations". The fact that this kind of work had been done in hardware and software decade earlier means this thing should not have been granted in the first place.

But, the patent office often grants ton of these kinds of patents that then needs to be litigated to death to be thrown out; like the podcast patent! It shouldn't be that way, but it is that way.

There is not way Apple will even a minute fraction of this, or anything really.

What was vague about the patent?

It lists circuits, memory registers, and really low level language operations (LOAD and STORE) to improve efficiency.

And while not privy to the case (won't be released till all done I imagine)....all of this stuff is provable in debug/memory tools. If apple's process is strikingly similar...there is the issue. UoW did not pick these numbers at random. Nor did Apple. this is at CPU level where physicals on the die do matter. You don't get much randomness here.

Its not you fired up minecraft on MOnday and it used memory blocks abc and Tuesday when fired up again it uses xyz because another app is using abc.

 

[TommyA6]

Often people pay because its cheaper than litigating, not because the patent is unassailable.
Just like the podcast "patent", which has or is close to being squashed (and that people have also paid the "holder").
Apple though has the money to litigate and they will until its declared void or they pay peanuts.
Apple is thinking long term on this, they're not paying this so called patent holder 50 years for nothing.

The patent probably expires in 2018 (it was filed in 1998), so I don't know what you're talking about.
Also, nice of you for encouraging stealing intellectual property.
Oh it's Apple being sued... Must be a patent troll

PS

We've seen how Apple's deep pockets helped them get that $1 billion from Samsung...

 

[hiddenmarkov]

Government funded (our tax dollars) research should not be granted patents. It should be in the public domain.

This can depend on how much the grants gave and what money was covered by private funding really. The grant money may have only covered support aspects but not the actual research. IE...it paid the heating and electricity for the building this was done in for a year or so...but not the research costs directly. Or paid for admin and support staff, etc. but not actual researchers salaries.

We can assume they got paid from the University regardless if this project took off or not from private funds...as well you can't bank on grant money so the wise choice is to have persistent costs covered by persistent money, ie. student tuition (private funding).

UoW gets a mix of funds obviously. This gets complicated really as to who "owns" what. I for example work for a government entity that runs revenue generating facilities. With other facilities that do not make money and get government funds (tax dollars). Each money stays in its confines generally. But we get little crossovers here and there.

My salary comes from the revenue generating side. But I support the government funded side IT wise. In this GS side makes out having IT support...but its not paid for out of their budget. Its from the revenue generating side.

Implications of this can vary. When dictates come down for GS side only...I say does not apply to me and move on for example. In short...I am like a pseudo version of Schrodinger's cat. I am government employee but kind of not as I don't full under the umbrella of GS. Well that and sometimes I can emphasize being the cat stuck in a box and not sure if a good thing or bad thing. But that's on really bad days lol.

 

[lowendlinux]

This can depend on how much the grants gave and what money was covered by private funding really. The grant money may have only covered support aspects but not the actual research. IE...it paid the heating and electricity for the building this was done in for a year or so...but not the research costs directly. Or paid for admin and support staff, etc. but not actual researchers salaries.

We can assume they got paid from the University regardless if this project took off or not from private funds...as well you can't bank on grant money so the wise choice is to have persistent costs covered by persistent money, ie. student tuition (private funding).

UoW gets a mix of funds obviously. This gets complicated really as to who "owns" what. I for example work for a government entity that runs revenue generating facilities. With other facilities that do not make money and get government funds (tax dollars). Each money stays in its confines generally. But we get little crossovers here and there.

My salary comes from the revenue generating side. But I support the government funded side IT wise. In this GS side makes out having IT support...but its not paid for out of their budget. Its from the revenue generating side.

Implications of this can vary. When dictates come down for GS side only...I say does not apply to me and move on for example. In short...I am like a pseudo version of Schrodinger's cat. I am government employee but kind of not as I don't full under the umbrella of GS. Well that and sometimes I can emphasize being the cat stuck in a box and not sure if a good thing or bad thing. But that's on really bad days lol.

It's great being a NAF employee

 

[mijail]

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.

You know how most people think they are "over average", even though that's impossible, right? Same thing about not being "high end".
"You pay for things either with money or with time - or with both if you are unlucky or too cheap. So, choose your poison.". That's what I tell anyone who asks for my advice.

Then they end up using the device as intended and quickly run out of space.

As intended… by someone who didn't really check what s/he is buying and how s/he will use it. Mhm.

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.

I don't have the statistics, so I guess only Apple knows how these things evolve. But since having 32 GB will only delay the problem, instead of getting rid of it, I fail to see how that really helps in the long run - if anything, it hides the problem for a longer time.
The user NEEDS to have an strategy to empty the phone's memory: iCloud/DropBox/Facebook/whateverOnAStick + beefy internet, or connection to the computer. Full stop.

No offense, but that's not how you deal with people in the real world.

I wonder then in what world I have been living for the last 10 years.

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.

If your boss is paying you to do that, well hell, of course you have to do what you're paid to do, no?
All the rest? Sure as hell I tell them. Clearly enough, too. Less problems for me, AND FOR THEM, at the very least in the mid- and long-run. I can't support everyone even if I wanted to; I need them to help me support them. If they get too complicated, I explain it and drop them. I can't do more. Sorry.

Note that what I am doing is EDUCATING them all. I can't give fishes indefinitely, but I can (try to) teach fishing, AND teach why sources of cheap fish are risky.

Just so you get an idea: my parents got the cheapest android phones. I gave up on trying to help each of them and bought them an iPad. I do my best to support them on the iPad; they can do whatever sh*t they want in their phones. At least I managed to make them get their phones in a nearby shop where staff will help them with whatever simple problems they have.

I routinely remind them that they shouldn't do anything security-related with their phones, for that, go to the iPad.

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."

So, they don't follow your advice. Bad for them. Why did they even ask you then?
I do explain WHAT are the problems that they WILL find if they don't follow my advice. That way, when it happens, they already know where they stand, and what will happen if they still seek my help.

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.

Lame is someone who paid to record more than "mere minutes of video" in a device with a 4K camera with less than 16 GB of storage. No, not lame. Loser is the word.

I take it you don't have kids. Lots of videos happening.

No, I don't have them. And yet, I got a 32 GB device. Because I imagined what could happen if I *ever* wanted to record long videos while having lots of music and lots of apps.

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.

And you know what? If you are sure that you are going to only use that beautiful car in very short trips, it'd be perfect: enough fuel + not carrying around all the extra weight of the big, full tank (which means greater fuel economy) + more space saved (larger trunk? smaller shape? whatever). How many people or companies only use a car in short trips in the city?

Wouldn't a 2 gallon tank kind of ruin the whole experience?

If your "experience" counted on using more than 2 gallons in a trip, then, yes. Duh.

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?

No, to me, no.
I can only boil down your argument to "people buy the cheapest without knowing what they are getting into, poor them, Apple needs to save them from themselves". I don't really see how can that work.

In fact, in a way, you could say that Apple is already saving them from getting an un-updateable Android.

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.

Why thanks!

Even I have been called a fanboy more times than I can count.

Well, sure you don't seem to have a problem qualifying other people either.

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!

Hey, congrats! Keep up the good work!
/s

 

[unplugme71]

also by the way intel bought a patent from WARF a couple of years back from the research group i was in and i did see a share of the money as well, years and years after the fact.


that's not how WARF rolls. the inventors will get a large share and the university will take the rest. the money definitely goes toward running the university. it is a public university so you're not going to see any private jets.

ok, so public jets? lol

 

[macduke]

I don't have the statistics, so I guess only Apple knows how these things evolve. But since having 32 GB will only delay the problem, instead of getting rid of it, I fail to see how that really helps in the long run - if anything, it hides the problem for a longer time.
The user NEEDS to have an strategy to empty the phone's memory: iCloud/DropBox/Facebook/whateverOnAStick + beefy internet, or connection to the computer. Full stop.

The internet isn't magically going to get faster with larger data plans on these devices. That's a problem much bigger than Apple. iCloud photos already exists, but then again it's not ideal because of the mobile internet situation we're in. But you know what Apple can do? Put out a 32GB base model. In most of the experiences that I've come across, people just need between 20-24GB to prevent constantly running out of space. If they want to use 4K video then 32GB is a minimum, and possibly not even enough. But it's a lot more usable than half that. I'm trying to focus on things that Apple can actually do to address the problem now, in late 2015, not in some pie-in-the-sky utopian 5G unlimited internet future society.

Lame is someone who paid to record more than "mere minutes of video" in a device with a 4K camera with less than 16 GB of storage. No, not lame. Loser is the word.

Apple should not sell a device with features that are unusable due to such limited space. Full stop.

No, I don't have them. And yet, I got a 32 GB device. Because I imagined what could happen if I *ever* wanted to record long videos while having lots of music and lots of apps.

So you're on a 5s or earlier? No wonder you have no problems running out of space. Your videos and photos are a third of the size of 4K and Live Photos.

And you know what? If you are sure that you are going to only use that beautiful car in very short trips, it'd be perfect: enough fuel + not carrying around all the extra weight of the big, full tank (which means greater fuel economy) + more space saved (larger trunk? smaller shape? whatever). How many people or companies only use a car in short trips in the city?

Again, you're taking the car analogy in a direction that is incomparable. While there is a benefit to a car with a smaller tank, as you have mentioned, there is no benefit to a phone with a smaller NAND. There are no power savings, no weight savings. Only $100 cheaper.

If your "experience" counted on using more than 2 gallons in a trip, then, yes. Duh.

4K Video, Live Photos, high-end games. All things the 6s is touted as being great for. That's the experience people expect. It's splashed all over their site. A car with 60 miles of range is useless. Just look at sales of electric cars. It wasn't until their ranges increased substantially that sales started to tick upward. Your zeal is so strong that you're actually arguing for a car with a 2 gallon fuel tank. Just think about that for a minute. Yikes man. You're gone.

I can only boil down your argument to "people buy the cheapest without knowing what they are getting into, poor them, Apple needs to save them from themselves". I don't really see how can that work.

Apple saves people from themselves all the time. What's the point of the App Store and the limited customization that they've had for years? By selling a device with all of these fancy features, but can't fully take advantage of them without the constant annoyance of needing to clear up space, Apple builds bad will with customers. That bad will jeopardizes future sales. It's not an immediate thing, but one of those things that could chip away slowly over time. I just don't think it's worth saving a few bucks now to frustrate and lose customers later. That's the crux of my argument, if you want to boil it down.

Hey, congrats! Keep up the good work!
/s

You too! You seem to be a likable guy, telling people to go "fsck" themselves and all, so it shouldn't be a problem.
/s

 

[Tayobi]

Aren't institutions of higher education meant to do research to propogate information in a free society? Universities aren't businesses (at least not in the manufacturing/production sense). Was the university going to be using their patents to develop products? If this proves to be successful, this might start a trend in university suing over patents/research papers...

That doesn't mean Apple could just use the technology without asking, i.e. stealing.
A charity could be collecting donations to help the poor but it doesn't mean anyone can just break into its building and steal its cash.

 

[AFEPPL]

This is what happens when apple start suing people, its a wake up call to people

What goes around, comes around...

 

[uknowimright]

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

pretty sure you're the troll (just not a patent one)

 

[lazard]

Government funded (our tax dollars) research should not be granted patents. It should be in the public domain.

Since the 1980 enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government has allowed universities and other nonprofit organizations to patent and retain title to inventions created from research funded by the government. Universities, in turn, must:

• offer to license the rights to innovations to industry
• use any remaining income, minus the costs of technology management expenses, for scientific research or education
• share any future income from the patent with the inventor
• provide the federal government a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to the invention.

 

[ScepticMatt]

So is Apple the only company using branch prediction in their CPU's?

No, but others like Intel have made a deal.