Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just shut up and pay up Apple, that kinda money is done the back of Tim's sofa's!

But alas I suspect Apple would rather spend double the damage amount on lawyers endlessly appealing the case.
It's all about "Case Precedence". Give an inch, they take a mile.
 
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.
A university takes in state and federal tax payer money to fund much of their operations. Secondly they get more notoriety if they publish more research which attracts more government funds and makes more students want to go to their institution... If UWS dont want to be involved in taking government money, then they should do their research separately as a business. Should a non profit even be allowed to apply for a patent?

They dont even pay student athletes who generate billions for universities directly and indirectly. Yet somehow researchers who do research that may not ever make a dime off the research should be allowed to cash in even as their research and education was funded by the tax payers. Secondly, doing research is not the same as being able to create a product and a viable business around the research. You go to school for the education unless you work there.

Im not one way on this but I think there something to be said for tax payers paying multiple times for the same thing. We paid for the research why shouldnt we get to benefit from it without having to pay again through patent wars from institutions who had no intention of making a viable product out of it. They assumed no risk of actually doing business and making a product that is sellable.
 
Last edited:
This is not true. At most Universities, students can and often are listed on the patent filings and are often a part of any deals in which the patents are used. For example, the University of Wisconsin distributes as follows:

First $100,000 of Income per license (Laboratory Share distributions)
20% to Inventor(s)
70% to Research Program of Inventor(s) through a quarterly Laboratory Share Distribution
10% included in the WARF gift to campus​
Income over $100,000 per license (Department Share distributions)*
20% to Inventor(s)
15% to Department/ Center through an annual Department Share Distribution
65% included in the WARF gift to campus​

According to the patent in question, there are four listed inventors. I am not sure how much the patent attorney and legal fees are associated with this process, but let's just assume they take half of the settlement. That is $117 million to the attorneys and $117 million to the school. Of the $117 million to the school, each inventor will receive their share of 20% of the payout. That is $23.4 million between the four of them.

My suspicion is that the lead inventor will take the most, followed by the supporting inventors. Let's spitball and say the lead inventor gets half of the payout while the other three get 16.6% each. This means they each receive the following:

Andreas I. Moshovos (assumed lead, listed first): $11.7 million
Scott E. Breach: $3.9 million
Terani N. Vijaykumar: $3.9 million
Gurindar S. Sohi: $3.9 million
This is also not to mention the funds that will go to the department to pay for graduate student stipends, laboratory and research upgrades, tenured faculty, recruiting, etc. This is a big boon for UW, it's professors, students, and staff.

Also, this does not take into account ongoing royalties. If Apple wants to license the patent, they'll have to pay for it.
Oh, come on. U of W?? We know 95% of any payment is going to beer.
 
A university takes in state and federal tax payer money to fund much of their operations. Secondly they get more notoriety if they publish more research which attracts more government funds and makes more students want to go to their institution... If UWS dont want to be involved in taking government money, then they should do their research separately as a business. Should a non profit even be allowed to apply for a patent?

They dont even pay student athletes who generate billions for universities directly and indirectly. Yet somehow researchers who do research that may not ever make a dime off the research should be allowed to cash in even as their research and education was funded by the tax payers. Secondly, doing research is not the same as being able to create a product and a viable business around the research. You go to school for the education unless you work there.

Im not one way on this but I think there something to be said for tax payers paying multiple times for the same thing. We paid for the research why shouldnt we get to benefit from it without having to pay again through patent wars from institutions who had no intention of making a viable product out of it. They assumed no risk of actually doing business and making a product that is sellable.

That's more of a personal commentary, not agreeing with anything is fine. This is a case of what the law says you can and can't do...maybe a change in he law would be a good thing. As the way it stands now with all things being considered it seems Apple has infringed on their patent, which gives them the lawful right to protect it. The courts only are in place to uphold the law. I don't like many many laws and think they should be changed but......I follow them. Not liking the law is OK, not following it is not.
 
42 hours of profit only.... wow and then people defend apple for sticking with 16gb on 2015...
 
No. Scott Walker and the Republican legislature will appropriate the money and give it to their donors as 'tax breaks' for nothing.

Oh how the ignorance can fly around here. "tax breaks for nothing"

When government "TAKES" less from you, they are not giving you anything. They are taking LESS.

When the government gives someone a "tax credit" (primarily for lower income), they are giving someone money (usually from higher income). This is how Demoncrats give their voters money, cell phones, health care, etc. All for votes. Of course it is disguised in political speeches that most of the lower income can't, don't, or don't care to understand. They just want their free crap.

So giving stuff away for "nothing" is a Demoncrat way of buying votes, not a republican thing.

The facts are that they wealthiest 1% pay more taxes than the lower 95%. An unbelievable statistic that shatters anyones obnoxious statements that the wealthiest should pay more or don't pay enough.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/tax-burden-top-1-now-exceeds-bottom-95
 
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?

I'm not saying that they don't license their patents, but however has this patent ever been licensed
before?
 
No. Scott Walker and the Republican legislature will appropriate the money and give it to their donors as 'tax breaks' for nothing.
Quite the contrary. Wisconsin taxpayers have been getting raped by the UW system for too many years. UW is financially irresponsible.
 
A university takes in state and federal tax payer money to fund much of their operations. Secondly they get more notoriety if they publish more research which attracts more government funds and makes more students want to go to their institution... If UWS dont want to be involved in taking government money, then they should do their research separately as a business. Should a non profit even be allowed to apply for a patent?

They dont even pay student athletes who generate billions for universities directly and indirectly. Yet somehow researchers who do research that may not ever make a dime off the research should be allowed to cash in even as their research and education was funded by the tax payers. Secondly, doing research is not the same as being able to create a product and a viable business around the research. You go to school for the education unless you work there.

Im not one way on this but I think there something to be said for tax payers paying multiple times for the same thing. We paid for the research why shouldnt we get to benefit from it without having to pay again through patent wars from institutions who had no intention of making a viable product out of it. They assumed no risk of actually doing business and making a product that is sellable.
Fortunately for us, that's not how it works. Normally you have informative quotes. There's so much wrong in this particular quote, I'm inclined to believe someone is impersonating you. You said, "We paid for the research why shouldnt we get to benefit from it?" What benefit do you get when multi-billion companies can just "borrow" the patent from us (the tax payer), use it to their benefit, and grow their profit? If your scenario was valid, we would still be paying multiple times with no benefit to the tax payer. Suffice it to say, that's not how it works.

Several earlier posts in this thread give a better, more accurate picture of university research. You should check them out. Even better, you could do a little research yourself. You're better than this post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Incog79
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?

The students who designed it were probably working for the university on paid research grants, and many of them are likely getting a free education as well. When I went to graduate school I had to pay, but between research grants and paid teaching.. I was debt free when I finished the degree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Incog79
The presiding judge ruled Apple had not willfully infringed on WARF's patent, so the damages award will stay at $234 million.
I admit I don't really know how patent law works, but how can you accidentally infringe on a patent? I thought they were supposed to be specific designs that one could only make by copying them.
 
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.

People have come up with the concept of evolution, and also invented calculus separately. Look up Alfred Russell Wallace/Darwin, and Newton and Leibniz.
 
I admit I don't really know how patent law works, but how can you accidentally infringe on a patent? I thought they were supposed to be specific designs that one could only make by copying them.

As you know, patent infringement does not require copying to be involved. All it requires is that someone patented a method before you came up with it yourself.

In theory, this should not happen often, because an invention is supposed to be non-obvious, among other criteria. But that depends a lot on the skill of the examiner to determine. The check and balance is that when bad patents are let through, they can be invalidated later on when challenged.

In reality, it happens a lot with software patents, since developers all around the world often end up inventing similar methods of solving a problem... without ever knowing that some company somewhere had the time and money to patent it. It's why many countries don't allow them.

This patent is about hardware, but it's still possible that someone who's spent a lot of time working on the problem, could independently came up with the same solution, especially when exposed to other solutions published in the years since the original patent was granted.

Doesn't matter, though. Unless the patent is invalidated, independent invention is not a defense. Many of the utility patents that Samsung infringed were like that. No code copying involved, just accidental internal similarities.

--

However, they're no longer accidental once the infringer is informed of a patent. There are several ways that can happen:

The old traditional way is that the infringed invention had a patent number marked on it.

A more common way these days is that the patent holder notices and informs the infringer, sometimes via a lawsuit out of the blue.

In this case, they were not only contacted to license the patent, but Apple themselves had cited the patent in almost three dozen of their own patents over the past eight years.
 
Oh how the ignorance can fly around here. "tax breaks for nothing"

When government "TAKES" less from you, they are not giving you anything. They are taking LESS.

When the government gives someone a "tax credit" (primarily for lower income), they are giving someone money (usually from higher income). This is how Demoncrats give their voters money, cell phones, health care, etc. All for votes. Of course it is disguised in political speeches that most of the lower income can't, don't, or don't care to understand. They just want their free crap.

So giving stuff away for "nothing" is a Demoncrat way of buying votes, not a republican thing
.

The facts are that they wealthiest 1% pay more taxes than the lower 95%. An unbelievable statistic that shatters anyones obnoxious statements that the wealthiest should pay more or don't pay enough.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/tax-burden-top-1-now-exceeds-bottom-95

sort of like tax breaks for big business then?

btw if the wealthiest 1% is unhappy paying such a high percentage of the taxes they should pay higher salaries and share the tax burden. your % only shows how nonsensical the wealth distribution has become.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DaveN
Raises interesting questions about other CPU manufacturers like Qualcomm, Samsung and nVidia. Surely they must be using this technology in their CPUs too. Are they already paying to use it? If not, the precedent is set now. Keep watching that letter box guys...
 
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 have no idea how it will all shake out in the end. My post was just an estimate using the publicly available information regarding patent licensing at UW. For their sake, I hope they get a lot more and can retire (or, retire in Cupertino and work for Apple) :).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost187
The students who designed it were probably working for the university on paid research grants, and many of them are likely getting a free education as well. When I went to graduate school I had to pay, but between research grants and paid teaching.. I was debt free when I finished the degree.

The two main inventors are top professors at the university. The other couple of inventors were probably grad students.They assigned the patent to WARF, from which they'll get a nice royalty.

A note about WARF:

WARF is not part of the University of Wisconsin per se, although it has very strong ties. It is self-sufficient and does not use University funds. Quite the opposite, in fact.

WARF was founded in 1925 by one of Wisconsin's professors who had invented a process to irradiate food to increase Vitamin D. (He's the reason we have Vitamin D milk, and why rickets disappeared as a common disease. Huge patent.)

Instead of keeping the vitamin D license money to himself, he, along with other teacher alumni, set up WARF (the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) to fund research and to handle university patents. The profits are funneled back into more research and also to make large grants to his home University. Basically, it's an ongoing alumni endowment and R&D machine, set up as a non-profit entity. Pretty neat, really.

A note about the award:

Apparently the jury gave WARF about $1.60 per CPU, about half of the $2.74 WARF had asked for.

However, Apple's lawyers claimed that Intel had only paid WARF about $0.07 per unit in their 2009 settlement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Incog79
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.