Apple Loses Patent Lawsuit from Opti Inc on "Predictive Snooping"

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
47,165
9,194


Arstechnica reports that Apple has been ordered to pay $19 million to Opti Inc. for patent infringement on a technology called "predictive snooping":
The patent—its full name is "Predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses"—describes a method to more efficiently transfer data among the CPU, memory, and "other devices." The patent was issued to Opti in June of 2002, and the company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in January of 2007
Apple, of course, has been the target of many patent infringement lawsuits. Many lawsuits, however, never come to fruition. The most recent high profile lawsuit comes from Elan who who claims Apple has infringed on their multi-touch technologies. It may be years before we hear the conclusion of that claim.

We tend to avoid reporting on all lawsuit claims, instead holding out for the ones that actually seem to stick.

Article Link: Apple Loses Patent Lawsuit from Opti Inc on "Predictive Snooping"
 

mikeinternet

macrumors 6502a
Nov 1, 2006
629
0
Oaklnad, CA
Doesn't apple copyright just about everything they do?

And if they did copyright this and it was already copywritten by another company would it come down on the copyright office.

How do companies know if something has been done before?
 

polaris20

macrumors 68020
Jul 13, 2008
2,214
184
Has Opti, Inc. actually done anything with their patent, or have they just squated like nearly everyone else who brings a patent lawsuit?
 

Bentov

macrumors regular
Jul 22, 2007
134
6
Nothing new. Good artists copy, great artists steal.
I hope you aren't saying that Microsoft is good or :eek: great... I just d/l a xp powertoy that is supposed to be like expose'. Bitch please, that crap was slow as hell...:mad:
 

dolphin842

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2004
1,168
27
Here's an open, honest question: Is it a good idea to leave the judgement of very technical questions (such as software patents) in the hands of 'layperson' juries? Anyone want to propose a better approach to this?
 

Tastic Bycrom

macrumors regular
Jul 15, 2008
113
0
Kansas City, MO
Doesn't apple copyright just about everything they do?

And if they did copyright this and it was already copywritten by another company would it come down on the copyright office.

How do companies know if something has been done before?
Copyright is separate from patents, but the confusion is common.
Apple does tend to get patents for every little seemingly insignificant concept, and this is precisely the reason why.
They're more interested in protecting themselves from lawsuits than actually preventing others from using the same technology.
 

Bentov

macrumors regular
Jul 22, 2007
134
6
Nope, lay people wouldn't be the peers of a multi-national corporation..which I thought was the purpose of a jury. There should be a group, with no lobbyists or corporate sponsorship, and they decide these things. I think the average person will mostly side with the little guy in these situations.
 

dvkid

macrumors regular
Feb 18, 2006
166
44
I think the average person will mostly side with the little guy in these situations.
You'd be surprised. A lot of lawsuits brought by tiny companies against bigger corporations are gold-digging expeditions.
 

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,519
3,523
PHX, AZ.
Has Opti, Inc. actually done anything with their patent, or have they just squated like nearly everyone else who brings a patent lawsuit?
There's no law requiring you to actually do anything with a patent.
They probably didn't have the funds to bring the idea to market. That doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate claim to an idea that they came up with.
The concept they created was deemed patentable by the USPTO and was properly awarded.

Apple got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
It happens... they will pay and both will all move on.
 

Kar98

macrumors 6502a
Feb 20, 2007
862
198
As a bit of background, Opti started out as a chip developer itself before selling most of its assets to another company called Opti Technologies (no relation) in 2002; after the sale, Opti Inc. was de-listed from NASDAQ due to a business plan that hinged on "pursuing license revenues from companies we believe are infringing Opti's patents."
There's only one, (count him, ONE) employee.
 

Bentov

macrumors regular
Jul 22, 2007
134
6
As a bit of background, Opti started out as a chip developer itself before selling most of its assets to another company called Opti Technologies (no relation) in 2002; after the sale, Opti Inc. was de-listed from NASDAQ due to a business plan that hinged on "pursuing license revenues from companies we believe are infringing Opti's patents."
Why would anyone want to put any of their money in a company such as this...I realize there are more companies like this, but seriously, why?
 

Stately

macrumors 6502a
May 14, 2008
768
0
NYC
Initially antennae go up cause it sounds fishy, but fair is fair, even if it is Apple. There are many who truly create things and because they don't have the financial backing or the manpower or what have you, they can't reach the dreams they have right away. However, I do think that there are those who take ridiculous advantage of the system as usual. They straddle the wrong side of laws fence without falling so to speak, while staying in honest territory long enough to get what they want. Take for instance cybersquatting. Of course technically one could buy up every name and sell them to get rich because the system doesn't limit them, but it really isn't right. When the next guy comes along with little cash trying to start an honest business, then what? They have to think of another name because they don't want to give someone money when they would otherwise only pay a couple bucks. It's not right.
 

Stately

macrumors 6502a
May 14, 2008
768
0
NYC
I have one question . . . What about Palm and the Pre then? It seems to me, that people have the right to infringe on Apples rights, but they can not do so in return. Someone please correct me if I'm missing something here.
 

Durendal

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
287
1
As a bit of background, Opti started out as a chip developer itself before selling most of its assets to another company called Opti Technologies (no relation) in 2002; after the sale, Opti Inc. was de-listed from NASDAQ due to a business plan that hinged on "pursuing license revenues from companies we believe are infringing Opti's patents."
There's only one, (count him, ONE) employee.
In other words, this is just another patent troll ******* who makes their living by patenting everything they can and then suing high-profile targets in the hope of a big fat payout.

The US patent system is in very, very dire need of reform.
 

clevin

macrumors G3
Aug 6, 2006
9,095
1
its not like apple is any smaller patent troll than any other trolls out there after all.
 

mikeinternet

macrumors 6502a
Nov 1, 2006
629
0
Oaklnad, CA
Copyright is separate from patents, but the confusion is common.
Apple does tend to get patents for every little seemingly insignificant concept, and this is precisely the reason why.
They're more interested in protecting themselves from lawsuits than actually preventing others from using the same technology.
Thanks for the info.

But, if Apple's patent went through, how can they be held responsible? How does a company know if something has been done already?
 

jzuena

macrumors 65816
Feb 21, 2007
1,023
52
Doesn't apple copyright just about everything they do?

And if they did copyright this and it was already copywritten by another company would it come down on the copyright office.

How do companies know if something has been done before?
There is a whole legal field of Patent Law and their job is to search for prior patents while helping companies or individuals get new patents on their ideas. This is the field my wife is in.
 

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,629
811
Los Angeles, CA
There's no law requiring you to actually do anything with a patent.
that isn't totally true anymore. the courts are now siding against companies that patent an idea and then don't develop it but use the patent to file against those that developed a highly similar idea. it hinges a lot on how developed the idea was in the original filing. the more vague and general the filing the more likely the court slams them for squatting.

the fact that this 'company' seems to make all his money off patent lawsuits, if true, might help Apple win an appeal.