Sigh, I was pointing out that it wasn't just Apple. Since that was the point of the comment I was replying to.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Ordered to Pay University of Wisconsin $234 Million in A7/A8 Patent Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sigh, I was pointing out that it wasn't just Apple. Since that was the point of the comment I was replying to.
This is an interesting read as well -> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...le-to-avoid-infringing-software-patents.shtml
"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.)
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.)
I was hoping they'd have to pay the original amount, it would make me feel better.
Oddly enough, patent law is not about your feelings.
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.
So is my mother. She stews Bramley apples, and is a'pealing apples a'plenty at this time of year. Crumble galore.
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.
Funny, I don't recall being able to purchase a CPU manufactured by the University of Wisconsin....
Need to change to a use it or lose it law.
Need to change to a use it or lose it law.
Last edited:
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...
If they're getting sued almost every day they must be just disregarding other people's patents.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...
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.
The judge has already decided that "Apple had not willfully infringed on WARF's patent", thus the lower damages award.
And no Discover Card discount, ye hear?Hopefully the University of Wisconsin accepts Apple Pay.- Joe
And hopefully Apple is using Discover Card to pay for it to get 10% rebate up to $10,000.Hopefully the University of Wisconsin accepts Apple Pay.
- Joe
Maybe they planned to license it. Maybe Apple should have asked before infringing on it.
School gets 80%. WARF gets 20%
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?
Indeed, like Intel. They've admitted wrongdoing or been convicted in 4 jurisdictions: US, Japan, Europe and South Korea.
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.
1) No.
2) Number 2 would kill the ability for individuals and smaller companies to ever get a patent, and completely kill off R&D firms as a business.
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.