The only people that believe Apple is the sole designer of anything they build are those that have no business or industry experience.
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
The only people that believe Apple is the sole designer of anything they build are those that have no business or industry experience.
I know, I have mentioned about using ARM designs, and such like and always been shot down in flames when ultra loyal delusional fans here state to me the FACT that Apple designs their own chips from scratch.
I think it's probably easy in some scenarios.
Like in chip design, what would be the chances of designing tracks and pathways/layouts on a chip and just happen to accidentally do it in a way that someone else did.
As opposed to (almost) cutting and pasting in tracks/layouts that have been done before?
When faced with the same problem people that live thousands of kilometres away from each other often will come up with the same solution. This happens all the time.
I thought about this, but its such an unethical thing to do, unprofessional, and you know you will be sued so why do it?
I thought many patent infringes is just on simple things that can be considered common sense like patenting swiping left to open screen, or a center home button. In your case, its obviously stealing.
If we were talking about things like wheels, a pully a block of wood then perhaps.
When we are talking of millions of tracks laid out in specific patterns on a silicon chip, then not in a million years would you ever lay things out in the exact same way as someone else.
Pe
Perhaps the chances of someone seeing how you chip is tracked out internally might be seen as incredibly rare?
Perhaps the chances of someone seeing how you chip is tracked out internally might be seen as incredibly rare?
You don't know what was or wasn't played out in a specific way.
And by the way this happens with very complicated things too. Actually the more complicated it is there are fewer ways to solve it.
Alfred Russel Wallace conceived of the theory of evolution by natural selection totally independently of Darwin. Yet he hardly ever gets any of the credit for the theory. It’s true that Darwin came up with the idea first, but he then sat on it for many years fearing the consequences of putting it out into the world. It was only when Wallace wrote to Darwin explaining his own ideas on the subject that Darwin realised that he’d better get into print soon.
Is anyone annoyed that a university would be allowed to do this? Especially one one that gets tax payer money and has no plans to use said technology for making actual products. Do they plan to pay this money out to the students who came up with this?
For more insights see kdarling's earlier post in this thread.
I dont think an educational institution which recieves tax payer money through loans or grants or non-profit status should be allowed to collect a penny. There needs to be a more clear fee structure where the students get paid. The bar is so low for creating patents. The students still end up having to pay more and more money for their education. The cost of education grows far faster than inflation.
So what you have is a situation where tax payers (Apple) funded research then the tax payer (Apple) had to pay a second time to use said research....
Then the patent has existed for so long and other people paid, but people should just be paying in perp everytime... I dont know seems like one lump sum of money for said patent should be enough per company. Now they are coming back with their hands out again for over taxpayer funded research...
Last edited:
If the people who worked on this actually get the money you claim, than I'm happy for them. Though I'm still disgusted by the amount the attorneys get.
I fail to see why so many would care where the patent comes from as a problem. Why would it make a difference
if the University has some grants or funding? Why would a University or any entity take the time to invest and do R&D on anything if there wasn't going to be monetary gain? Seems like what they have come up with is something that mobile computing and computing in general needs or wants. Other companies are using the technology and after some prodding are paying to use it.
if the University has some grants or funding? Why would a University or any entity take the time to invest and do R&D on anything if there wasn't going to be monetary gain? Seems like what they have come up with is something that mobile computing and computing in general needs or wants. Other companies are using the technology and after some prodding are paying to use it.
Don't hide your Bias.
You mean don't use your reasonable part of the brain. That's rather hard to do.
There is the possibility of invalidating the patent because it was obvious. If you have a patent for something, and I develop the same thing independently without much effort, then obviously your patent wasn't _that_ nonobvious in the first place. So a patent can be attacked that way.
The other possibility is to find that what Apple was doing wasn't actually exactly what is covered by the patent. A few years ago there was a camera related patent that Apple supposedly was infringing on, and the patent said "to achieve this, you do A, B and C" but Apple's iPhone, to achieve the same thing, did A, B and D.
Paying $800/phone because of the allegedly non-profit WARF and UWS who gets tax payer money to fund much of the research. WARF isnt exclusively funding the research or education of UWS students. The students are taking in various forms of aid and as well. UWS participates in government programs to help students pay for school.... But things they create on the tax payer dime is now not even public domain?
Last edited:
Exactly. Frivolously searching for funds for their crap.
Oh course, if they are in violation, then I do indeed hope for justice.