Apple Sued Over 'Fast Booting' Patent Linked to LG

[AidenShaw]

All Intel Apples have a BIOS

Macs absolutely do have POST. And they also have BIOS (they use EFI primarily, but there is also a 100% BIOS-compatible mode - how do you think people boot their Macs into Windows?).

Apple's BIOS is called UEFI.

The patent language is simply establishing that a "basic input output system" is involved, and subsequent references to "basic input output system" in the patent will be referred to by the acronym BIOS.

UEFI is a "basic input output system", therefore it could be covered by the patent.

The power-on boot environment on IOS devices is also a "basic input output system".

Apply the same reasoning to POST....

 

[d0minick]

I love to read these threads to reassure how sane I am.

When Apple sues, even a kid, the masses roar and say Apple deserves every penny.

When someone sues Apple, that company is trash, classless, has no base for the claims, and the list goes on.


Only a few can see that, both sides usually are right and wrong and several ways to sunday. But at the end of the day, the system itself is the true corruption.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

First, LG isn't behind this. They sold the patent to a patent troll (probably because they thought it was worthless themselves).

Second, reading through the claims, it is quite clear that Apple doesn't do what the patent claims. The patent says: You boot a computer, then immediately after the boot you take the memory state and state of hardware and write it to disk. Then when you boot again, instead of going through the boot process, you just read the memory from disk and restore the hardware state from disk. (Hundred percent sure that Apple doesn't do any of these. Mostly because it is a rubbish idea in the first place). Then you check whether your config files are unchanged and if not you are in a mess that needs cleaning up (which is _why_ the patent is a rubbish idea), which is again more rubbish because the Mac doesn't have Windows config files.

So this patent may very well be valid; good luck finding anyone doing what the patent says.

There is no way in hell Apple does not use some type of fast boot system in their computers. Reason I know this is I have messed around with way to many computers over the years and in every one of them you could turn off fast boot which was always on by default. It makes a huge difference in boot up speed of a computer skipping all those checks.

Also as pointed out EFI is a type of BIOS. EFI was a evolution of the BIOS.

An way to look at it is Top Hat and baseball cap are two very different types of hats but end of the day they are both hats.
Another example pulled from math is rectangles (BIOS) and squares(EFI).
All squares are rectangle but not all rectangles are squares.

 

[Gasu E.]

Can you explain in detail why the judge should invalidate this claim? You obviously have detailed knowledge on this particular patent to have made such a comment.

It seems to me it fails the "obviousness" test. It would be obvious to anyone familiar with the general area.

Look, I have an engineering degree, although I haven't worked as an engineer since many, many years prior to 1999. But if I wanted to avoid having to go through a long initialization process everytime I started something, I would pretty obviously design it this way:

- check to see if there is a saved state
- if so load it, if not go through the entire initialization process
- save the state

Really, that seems to me all they are doing. The rest of the text just says where in thr start-up sequence they do this.

There are a million systems that work this way (I don't mean PC boot-up systems, I means all kinds of software or computer stuff) and I'm sure some of them go back to the dawn of digital computers.

 

[shartypants]

I have a proposal: Each time a patent is sold, it's award strength is cut in half. So after being sold three times, it is down to just 1/8 its original strength, meaning if a court awarded say $1M, the actual award would be just $125K. Patents were created to protect the INVENTOR allowing the Inventor to create the product and compete in the marketplace with their innovation. Patents should not be allowed to just be sold unless the entire business unit or company is being sold along with it. When are the courts going to do something about these patent trolls?!

 

[KnightWRX]

Second, people don't always support Apple. No one supported them over the changing of in app subscriptions,

You must have a missed a few threads on the subject.

 

[AidenShaw]

There is no way in hell Apple does not use some type of fast boot system in their computers. Reason I know this is I have messed around with way to many computers over the years and in every one of them you could turn off fast boot which was always on by default. It makes a huge difference in boot up speed of a computer skipping all those checks.

If you're talking about the "fast boot" option in a PC BIOS, that's something very different from the patent.

The BIOS-level "fast boot" option usually chooses between

1. exhaustive power-on self test of memory and other systems
2. quick self-test of a limited number of options

 

[Dorje Sylas]

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?
</>

So you want to shift this to Copyright violation claims instead if Patent? Which last the life of the writer + 100 years or longer in the case of holding companies? [sarcasm]Sure let's just push back the kind of societal progees that both copyrights and patents were established to protect.

Programs are already under Copyright by in large. Which can be problem all it's own. Just look at how much abandoned ware is out there that is still legally owned by someone and will be for 150+ years. Not that it matters because the source code is likey gone to a landfill.

 

[Glideslope]

ROFLOL.

LG, are you that scarred? Can you say "Dismissed".

 

[jonnysods]

This is the way of the future. Either the media is covering these stories more, or it is on the rise and that is the way big tech is going to make money! Suing the crap out of each other.

"Hey, I had the patent on drawing air in through your nose to get oxygen!"

 

[SeanMcg]

I love to read these threads to reassure how sane I am.

When Apple sues, even a kid, the masses roar and say Apple deserves every penny.

When someone sues Apple, that company is trash, classless, has no base for the claims, and the list goes on.


Only a few can see that, both sides usually are right and wrong and several ways to sunday. But at the end of the day, the system itself is the true corruption.

I don't disagree with the general assessment of the posts we find here. The thing I find really...interesting (in the best Vulcan way) is how many times I see posts similar to yours (or worse, much more insulting) from people who haven't been members very long. However, they have posted so much that they have quickly risen through the ranks. I have to ask, why do people with such apparent disdain for the Mac community feel it necessary to be part of this forum?

(I will admit to not being the social type, hence the few postings, so I am admittedly on the other end of the spectrum, and one could just as easily ask why I bother. For another day...)

 

[DJ Dilbert]

Few thoughts...

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.

Hey genius, Mac's would be Macnitosh's not Macintoshes. The plural of Mac would indeed be Macs so you just proved the other guy's statement. Now the statement of "A Mac's system does not contain POST or BIOS but EFI" would be correct. This is because "Mac's" implies possession not a plural form of "Mac".

Microsoft will never be sued for "Fast" anything.

Just look at the snafu with the Halo: Reach servers and how they brought that to it's knees in one day...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, onto the topic at hand, is there any way to "rework" the way patents function? The original idea made sense in the days it was created, but lately it just seems to prevent any innovation/progress.

 

[YanniDepp]

It's not a serious discussion on patents until someone bring up Monsanto. They really, really suck.

 

[wescravn]

The one thing I've learned in life is this:

#1) People are naturally haters
#2) They will always try to bring you down, when your successful
#3) They're always jealous of what you have.

So to LG, please your company is yesterday's news. Apple is today.
Stop hating, and try to invent something. Oh I forgot, you never did invent anything.

Stick to your android phones.

BTW - That patent is so generic. What are you gonna sue microsoft now, because Windows 7/8 boots up quicker. Please. Go sit down.

NEXT

 

[gnasher729]

There is no way in hell Apple does not use some type of fast boot system in their computers. Reason I know this is I have messed around with way to many computers over the years and in every one of them you could turn off fast boot which was always on by default. It makes a huge difference in boot up speed of a computer skipping all those checks.

There is plenty of documentation what Apple does to make booting fast, which you can find easily by googling a bit. What this patent suggests is _not_ among the things that Apple does. And this patent is not about skipping checks. It is about taking a copy of RAM just after booting has finished and storing it on disk, then loading it from disk on the next boot. And no, Apple doesn't do that.

And here is something that you need to learn about patents: A patent patents what it says, nothing else. A patent that says "make a computer boot faster by doing X" doesn't cover "making a computer boot faster by doing Y".

The one thing I've learned in life is this:

#1) People are naturally haters
...
So to LG, please your company is yesterday's news. Apple is today.

Once more: LG doesn't own the patent. They sold it years ago. They are not suing. But I think your first point is correct.

LG, are you that scarred? Can you say "Dismissed".

And again: LG isn't suing. Read the article. Carefully.

 

[SeanMcg]

Hey genius, Mac's would be Macnitosh's not Macintoshes. The plural of Mac would indeed be Macs so you just proved the other guy's statement. Now the statement of "A Mac's system does not contain POST or BIOS but EFI" would be correct. This is because "Mac's" implies possession not a plural form of "Mac".

...

I thought it was clear I was having fun with the whole situation, but to answer your post:

Macintoshes is an acceptable plural of Macintosh. Therefore, the removal of the intervening letters could be signified with an apostrophe, hence Mac's. I also said Not necessarily, because if one does accept Mac as an acceptable short name, then yes, Macs would be the proper plural, and, yes, Mac's could also signify the possessive.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Macs absolutely do have POST. And they also have BIOS (they use EFI primarily, but there is also a 100% BIOS-compatible mode - how do you think people boot their Macs into Windows?).

Windows is EFI compatible.

There is no way in hell Apple does not use some type of fast boot system in their computers. Reason I know this is I have messed around with way to many computers over the years and in every one of them you could turn off fast boot which was always on by default. It makes a huge difference in boot up speed of a computer skipping all those checks.

Also as pointed out EFI is a type of BIOS. EFI was a evolution of the BIOS.

An way to look at it is Top Hat and baseball cap are two very different types of hats but end of the day they are both hats.
Another example pulled from math is rectangles (BIOS) and squares(EFI).
All squares are rectangle but not all rectangles are squares.

Useless analogy as EFI (UEFI) is encased in patents owned by Intel, Microsoft, Phoenix and a few others, none of which deal with this patent.

Patent holders: http://www.uefi.org

All big players: http://www.uefi.org/about/

To sue on this will bring them all in.

 

[CFreymarc]

How you can even patent an idea to 'Fast Booting' a computer is beyond me, if the judge has any clue this patent will be invalidated.

That is always a fun approach. Using data from a former boot goes back to the Linux days in the 90's. Sure a prior art search would handle this.

The one thing I've learned in life is this:

#1) People are naturally haters
#2) They will always try to bring you down, when your successful
#3) They're always jealous of what you have.

Time to move to a better town with more successful people. Worked for me.

 

[42streetsdown]

BIOS stands for "basic input/output system". It's the layer of software that stands between the operating system and the actual hardware. By definition, every computer has some kind of firmware that does this, although the actual acronym "BIOS" tends to get associated with Windows/Intel PCs.

At their most basic level, every computer is pretty much equivalent. Whether you call it EFI or BIOS or something else entirely, there's something that handles that job. Years ago I had a Mac-loving friend who made fun of my DOS/Windows computer and all of its jargon about file allocation tables (FAT32 etc). He was pretty much insistent that Macs were better because they didn't have any such thing.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Gasu E.]

Hey genius, Mac's would be Macnitosh's not Macintoshes. The plural of Mac would indeed be Macs so you just proved the other guy's statement. Now the statement of "A Mac's system does not contain POST or BIOS but EFI" would be correct. This is because "Mac's" implies possession not a plural form of "Mac".

FYI, I turned off to your argument after the first two words.

 

[err404]

...There is no way in hell Apple does not use some type of fast boot system in their computers...

It doesn't matter if Apple uses optimizations to reduce boot up time. It would only be relevant if they implemented the specific process outlined in the patent.

If they do infringe on the patent, they can either: pay the license, modify the boot process or challenge LG in court. All of which will be essentially transparent to the end user.

 

[AppleScruff1]

How you can even patent an idea to 'Fast Booting' a computer is beyond me, if the judge has any clue this patent will be invalidated.

It's like app store, or a touch screen phone with icons. Of course it's ok when Apple sues over something like that, right?

 

[aristotle]

BIOS and EFI are totally different things. While both can be used to initialize a computer to a point where a boot loader takes over, that is where the similarity end. The EFI in macs is not simply a replacement of BIOS but rather it takes the place of the boot loader so it is not needed. All you need is a disk with the right files in the right structure. There is no boot sector on macs with EFI. When you install Windows XP, the MBR is encapsulated in a special partition to emulate the old style MBR used by BIOS dependent but that sort of thing is not used by OS X.

OS X also does not use a video BIOS on the graphics card so that also has to be emulated by the compatibility module when booting into XP. OS X never looks at the EFI after it has been handed control. [FONT=Verdana,arial]
[/FONT]

 

[Rodimus Prime]

BIOS and EFI are totally different things. While both can be used to initialize a computer to a point where a boot loader takes over, that is where the similarity end. The EFI in macs is not simply a replacement of BIOS but rather it takes the place of the boot loader so it is not needed. All you need is a disk with the right files in the right structure. There is no boot sector on macs with EFI. When you install Windows XP, the MBR is encapsulated in a special partition to emulate the old style MBR used by BIOS dependent but that sort of thing is not used by OS X.

OS X also does not use a video BIOS on the graphics card so that also has to be emulated by the compatibility module when booting into XP. OS X never looks at the EFI after it has been handed control. [FONT=Verdana,arial]
[/FONT]

You are confusing the BIOS OS used in computer and what a BIOS is.

The EFI is a type of BIOS no if and or buts about it. It is a type of BIOS. To many people here are confusing the two things and in this case BIOS is a valid term. There are a lot of different types of BIOS programs.

 

[azurehi]

Oh for fu...

Ok, how about from now on, nobody ever invent anything else. Ever. That might solve all this patent crap.

why not Invent for the good of humankind and do away with patents? Like, Seriously...