Apple Sued Over 'Fast Booting' Patent Linked to LG

[Shop]

I'm really starting to believe that software patents should be thrown out and copyrights should be used instead to protect software from plagiarism. Patenting ideas gives power to those willing to pay for it

<tongue_in_cheek>
What happens when we find out that someone owns the patent on executables?
</>

 

[AriX]

BIOS and EFI are indeed different. There's a reason Apple replace Open Firmware with EFI and not BIOS like most PC manufacturers do. It has far more features (with potential for even more) than BIOS could ever have. I seem to remember reading somewhere that you could run an entire OS off of the EFI if you wanted. It's really nothing like BIOS.

Obviously they are not the same thing. If they were, they would not have different names. But they achieve the same general goal, and Apple's EFI provides a BIOS interface anyway, so the point is moot.

To start windows on a Mac:
1. DONG!...EFI starts
2. (holding down ALT-key)... pick Win HDD
3. BIOS is initialed..
4. Windows booting...

That is correct.

Hmm, that sounds like coming out of hibernation to me... though still not a "new" or "novel" concept...

Not quite. Hibernation restores the contents of RAM from a past point as well, but in hibernation, you are restoring a point where the operating system is fully booted. This patent covers restoring the contents of RAM right before the operating system boots (skipping the stuff that has to go on before the OS can start).

 

[dguisinger]

BIOS and EFI are indeed different. There's a reason Apple replace Open Firmware with EFI and not BIOS like most PC manufacturers do. It has far more features (with potential for even more) than BIOS could ever have. I seem to remember reading somewhere that you could run an entire OS off of the EFI if you wanted. It's really nothing like BIOS.

I think you are the one that has a misunderstanding of what the EFI is and does. The EFI and BIOS perform the same function. EFI is basically a clean slate to the BIOS's 30 years of needing legacy compatibility crap added, and EFI is a much nicer implimentation.

But they perform the same function and are therefore equivilent in a legal discussion.

 

[RobertMartens]

all the fanboys say...

As soon as you use the word fanboy you disqualify yourself from the conversation.

 

[Steve121178]

Microsoft will never be sued for "Fast" anything.

Obviously. They own the source code to their fast Operating Systems.

 

[err404]

How long has Mac OS X used this? i.e. has the patent waited a little too long to sue?

Your thinking of copyright law, not patent law. So long as the patent is valid, they can sue to protect it.
This is just the way the system works. If the patent is valid, Apple will have to pay. If Apple feels that it's not, they can challenge it.
So long as the patent system exists in its current form, it is fair when Apple protects their IP and it is fair when others do the same.

 

[RobertMartens]

I never said I hope/think Apple will win it's suit against Amazon for the term App Store.

I do, it's a great name. But the court decides, not Apple.

 

[oliversl]

Apple should buy bots, and start manufacturing again in the US. LG's retina display and Samsung's A4 are suing Apple? Come on!!!!!!

 

[gnasher729]

Hmm, that sounds like coming out of hibernation to me... though still not a "new" or "novel" concept...

Kind of, but coming out of hibernation isn't booting. This patent is about taking one specific shortcut to get to the state just after booting has finished. Apple does of course take shortcuts (and so does Microsoft most likely), but not the steps described in the patent. For example, Apple's approach doesn't require checking that any configuration has changed in between. The method of this patent just seems very fragile; I wouldn't want to be the one who has to implement it and make it reliable.

As an example, if you read the time from a real-time clock and store it in memory very early in the boot process, then the patented method will fail badly: During a re-boot the clock wouldn't be read again, so the wrong boot time would be reported.

This is where the war on frivolous litigation needs to be fought... LG needs to pay bigtime if they lose, the payout needs to go STRAIGHT to apple shareholders.

LG has nothing to do with this. Read the article: LG sold the patent ages ago.

 

[awesomebase]

Too general

people amaze me, so it's ok for Apple to sue over patents and all the fanboys support it, but when Apple gets sued all the fanboys say that Apple is incapable of intellectual theft, please....

You're generalizing an awful lot about Apple "fanboys". First off, Apple doesn't just "sue" anybody... if you wonder why they have a high rate of success, its because they take a lot of time and consideration in terms of who they target. I would say that, to an average consumer, probably 75% of Apple's suits seem reasonable and have the intention of protecting something considered "legitimate".
Many of the lawsuits that Apple has been targeted for, on the other hand, are based on vaguely-worded, poorly supported patents such as what is mentioned above. Nobody -- regardless of whether Apple is on the receiving end of this -- would, in their right mind support these types of frivolous lawsuits that are clearly intended to make a buck at the expense of innovation.
So, it isn't that "fanboys" come to the defense of Apple (categorically there are 9 times as many on the PC/Windows side btw) anytime there is a lawsuit, it is the "type" of lawsuit that matters more. Anybody is rightly defensive of companies that are sued by patent-trolls.
Companies like Nokia, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. have also been on the receiving end of frivolous lawsuits and they deserve just as much support as Apple or any other company that falls victim to this type of epic injustice.
IP should be protected for businesses to be able to profit and hire and contribute to the economy... that is worth protecting until a better system comes along.
Companies like this deserve the scorn that they get; they stifle innovation at every turn and expose themselves for what they really are; morons incapable of generating income through genuine innovation.

 

[dlowings]

This is where the war on frivolous litigation needs to be fought... LG needs to pay bigtime if they lose, the payout needs to go STRAIGHT to apple shareholders.

 

[Nyalotha]

Your thinking of copyright law, not patent law. So long as the patent is valid, they can sue to protect it.
This is just the way the system works. If the patent is valid, Apple will have to pay. If Apple feels that it's not, they can challenge it.
So long as the patent system exists in its current form, it is fair when Apple protects their IP and it is fair when others do the same.

Ah, I was thinking a little less 'its been so long everyone should be able to do it' and more 'Mac/Windows have been using it so long wtf is wrong with you and why are you just holding onto this patent'

 

[Flynnstone]

I think the claim is very weak. The other companies thought too. Why has it changed hands so often.

Every computer (microcontroller or microprocessor) does some kind of "POST". Almost every ... has a Basic Input Output System of some sort.
And any micro with nonvolatile memory "knows" something about its prior state.
And a lot of this has been happening prior to the patent.
The claim is too vague.

 

[dguisinger]

Kind of, but coming out of hibernation isn't booting. This patent is about taking one specific shortcut to get to the state just after booting has finished. Apple does of course take shortcuts (and so does Microsoft most likely), but not the steps described in the patent. For example, Apple's approach doesn't require checking that any configuration has changed in between. The method of this patent just seems very fragile; I wouldn't want to be the one who has to implement it and make it reliable.

As an example, if you read the time from a real-time clock and store it in memory very early in the boot process, then the patented method will fail badly: During a re-boot the clock wouldn't be read again, so the wrong boot time would be reported.

Well, you could always re-read the clock after initializing contents from memory which is my understanding what they suggested doing. It would still greatly speed things up, it sounds more like something that occurs in an embedded system however... that an image of memory for an initialized state can be stored and loaded into ram.

I would however say that a computer coming out of hibernation does indeed boot at the BIOS/EFI level. The OS boot loader handles the hibernation restore differently yes, but at the technical level it is very much like the first stages of a hibernation recovery.

Remember hibernation to disk is different than suspending with memory still active; I am refering to when a computers battery is about to die, contents are often flushed to disk and the machine itself is shut down.

 

[imwoblin]

Apple legal must have a bigger budget than it's R&D department....

 

[walterg74]

Somebody should really step in here and stop all this madness.. It's simply ridiculous what is permitted tobe pattented...

Next thing you know we'll get sued for making a cake, as someone will have pattented:

1 - Break the eggs and put them in a bowl
2 - Stir those eggs
3 - check to make sure they're done
4 - add flour.....

 

[ComputersaysNo]

Somebody should really step in here and stop all this madness.. It's simply ridiculous what is permitted tobe pattented...

Next thing you know we'll get sued for making a cake, as someone will have pattented:

1 - Break the eggs and put them in a bowl
2 - Stir those eggs
3 - check to make sure they're done
4 - add flour.....

Dude, there is a patent for that: http://www.technologyblogged.com/technology-news/disney-interactive-cake-patent-makes-us-go-mmm

 

[gnasher729]

Well, you could always re-read the clock after initializing contents from memory which is my understanding what they suggested doing. It would still greatly speed things up, it sounds more like something that occurs in an embedded system however... that an image of memory for an initialized state can be stored and loaded into ram.

You could always work around any problem, but I tend to avoid that kind of rubbish by designing something that works reliably in the first place. I can come up with half a dozen "what if's" in five minutes that break it. Reality probably comes up with even more. It's the kind of approach that looks like a good idea but gets you into an awful mess when you try to get it to work.

And the things that really take time, like network, especially WiFi, 3G, GPS, Bluetooth, they can't be handled like that. You need to know their state at that time.

I understand your point, but at least look at/address the specific issue at hand before you make a broad statement like that: Is this a valid patent claim, or should it be?

Is Apple infringing on the patent, or not? Like in the Lodsys case: Lodsys has a patent, but the developers Lodsys is suing are not actually doing what the patent claims say.

 

[dscuber9000]

I don't get why people take patent lawsuits so personally. A bunch of people getting paid a lot of money by X Company think they have a case against Random Y Company that would result in X Company making even more money. It's not the Jr. High drama the Internet makes it out to be...

 

[Therbo]

To start windows on a Mac:
1. DONG!...EFI starts
2. (holding down ALT-key)... pick Win HDD
3. BIOS is initialed..
4. Windows booting...

Actually, all it does is start a BIOS compatibility layer, there is actually no BIOS.

EFI and BIOS are different, EFI however is made as a replacement (but Apple seem to be the only PC manufacture that uses newer technology).

BIOS just initiates the hardware, and then checks a boot order and boots into a hard drive (or any other storage), and executes the boot loader.

A EFI initiates the hardware too, but it does this with full access to system recourses, it then does a quick scan to see what bootable media is inserted, and it also list all the bootable partitions available to it, and boots directly into them, meaning there is no need for a bootloader.

 

[KingCrimson]

Leave the best alone. Apple's winning. Stop trying to be a leech.

So it's ok for Apple to steal other people's ideas as long as you keep getting shiny toys.

 

[TsunamiTheClown]

Forget the fast boot. The 'Power Button' ~ooooooh~ , that's where the money is!

 

[Adey]

Bad news everybody. I've just patented the act of suing somebody for patent infringement. So... if anyone else sues anyone else... I'll sue them!!

And then sue myself. For suing them.

Ad infinitum.

 

[dguisinger]

You could always work around any problem, but I tend to avoid that kind of rubbish by designing something that works reliably in the first place. I can come up with half a dozen "what if's" in five minutes that break it. Reality probably comes up with even more. It's the kind of approach that looks like a good idea but gets you into an awful mess when you try to get it to work.

And the things that really take time, like network, especially WiFi, 3G, GPS, Bluetooth, they can't be handled like that. You need to know their state at that time.

Hmm, I guess I'll disagree with you there.
As a software developer, I don't see this as anything less than the existing concept used with NIB files on a mac or XAML files on Windows...

You can use the initialization or loaded events to override stuff archived in those files. Device drivers also use an event architecture, there is no reason to assume you couldn't do the same with device drivers; in fact to support Hibernation I would be 99.9999% sure they do cover initialization in that manner (its been a few years since I've written Windows drivers)

Any programmer who knows what he or she is doing would have no trouble at all writing software that works within those rules.

 

[Dr McKay]

Not necessarily. Mac's could be construed as an abbreviation for Macintoshes, which would be a proper use of the apostrophe, as it serves as the placeholder for the missing intoshe.

Wouldn't Mac's mean "Mac is"