Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What does that have to do with anything? Or because one person stole something, it's ok if you do too?

If they really did willingly and knowingly do this, then I'm glad they got caught and called on it.

Sigh, I was pointing out that it wasn't just Apple. Since that was the point of the comment I was replying to.
 
"Apple will be paying a little more than half of the requested amount..."

You don't know that. No one knows that. Just look at what's happened over the years to the judgement Apple won against Samsung. It'll be years before they pay anything, if they have to pay anything at all.
(They could win an appeal.)
 
If it is true that Apple was not aware of the patent, this illustrates the big issue with the current laws. The law is meant to protect ideas from being stolen, but if the idea is independently arrived at, it shows that the idea was not novel to begin with.

What you wrote is as illogical as saying that because some doctors are men, all men are doctors.
 
I don't get it this is not how patents are supposed to work. How does a university hold a patent. Surely a patent is to protect an idea when creating something. I think patents should only be granted once a working product is shown. If you invent something and don't sell it you are not helping competition. Sure licence the thing to apple if you wanna try it that way (apple will probably say no and suck up costs later) but i think if you patent something and don't make it you might as well be a patent troll, university or company it's an abuse of the intended purpose of a patent. It's supposed to prevent copying in the marketplace with competing products not to make lawyers rich.
 
Apple must be quite used to appealing.

So is my mother. She stews Bramley apples, and is a'pealing apples a'plenty at this time of year. Crumble galore.

I don't know the details of the case to say whether Apple was wrong or how much, but I know that it must suck to be them though. They get sued almost every day.

Their law firm on the other hand, are like...
cbb605194541e3197a10a5414730e0ce5bc16ddc6933f53fe79c9b9e19b2495b.jpg
 
I don't know the details of the case to say whether Apple was wrong or how much, but I know that it must suck to be them though. They get sued almost every day.

Their law firm on the other hand, are like...
cbb605194541e3197a10a5414730e0ce5bc16ddc6933f53fe79c9b9e19b2495b.jpg
If they're getting sued almost every day they must be just disregarding other people's patents.
 
Apple continues its tradition of breaking the law and infringing on others' rights.
Not necessarily. The judge found Apple "had not willfully infringed", so it could have been just a case of simultaneous (parallel) development, or even just a lack of researching 'prior development' by others, on Apple's part. UW obviously holds the patent, so Apple will have to pay eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
Bet the school itself sees NOTHING of this money.
School gets 80%. WARF gets 20%

whats the point of having a patient but not actively using it or licensing it?
They actively license a lot of their patents. Through 2013 they had 160 active patents, ranking them 6th behind Univ. of California, MIT, Tsinghua University (China), Stanford, and Univ. of Texas (hook 'em horns). University research is big business. Why shouldn't they benefit from the work?
 
"The jury has yet to determine whether Apple willfully infringed on the patent."

You don't understand patent law. First they determine if Apple infringed the patent. That is what happened today, they were found guilty. Then they decide if Apple infringed "willfully" which is aspect of the law which leads to triple damages. It doesn't consider guilt, only the size of the penalty once found guilty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrimeMatrix
Not necessarily. The judge found Apple "had not willfully infringed", so it could have been just a case of simultaneous (parallel) development, or even just a lack of researching 'prior development' by others, on Apple's part. UW obviously holds the patent, so Apple will have to pay eventually.

That's not actually as you say. Willful infringement just means they were particularly egregious about it. With patents companies will try to claim they were not aware but it's generally intellectually dishonest. They will purposely go out of their way to avoid officially checking for patents they might infringe so as to avoid triple damages, but the ignorance of the patent by companies with a large, experienced engineering staff is highly improbable. Having said that they still need to have evidence to convict.

Companies like Apple generally think it's to their advantage to ignore patents and roll the dice in the legal system, because overall it costs them less than doing patent due diligence.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.