Apple Sued Over 'Fast Booting' Patent Linked to LG

[AidenShaw]

BIOS and EFI are totally different things.

An AT-compatible BIOS and UEFI are very different - but both are "basic input output systems". From the 10k metre viewpoint, they do the same thing.

The patent does not say "AT-compatible BIOS", is merely establishes that for the rest of the document the acronym "BIOS" will be used in lieu of "basic input output system".

This is simple English grammar, not legalese - but legalese often depends on a simple, strict interpretation of the language.

If I say that the "computer has a Failed UniBus Address Register (FUBAR)", then I can use FUBAR in the rest of the document to refer to the error register. It doesn't matter that there's an alternate definition of FUBAR that's NSFW.

 

[err404]

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? 🙄

Not really comparable. The items you are listing are copyright complaints, not patent. These are about brand recognition, not technology. Entirely different legal areas. I'm not defending Apple, just pointing out that there is no relation to these cases.

The touch screen patent complaints were about specific techniques to overcome shortcomings inherent to touch display tech and UI. Similarly LG doesn't have a generic patent on 'Fast Booting'. They have a patent on a specific technique.
These may be weak/obvious patents, but they describe distinct a process.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Oh for fu...

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

This isn't inventing anything. It's simply an optimized boot routine. This demonstrates once again why there should be NO SUCH THING as a "software patent". Software should be covered purely by copyright law. There's 20 different ways to skin a cat in software, but if you abstract it all down to basic concepts where there is only one way to do something, all you do is STAGNATE technology so nothing moves forward for fear of lawsuits on everything you do. Big companies like Apple don't have to worry about these kinds of lawsuits, but small companies would go bankrupt in no time being sued on all ends for trivial patents on basic concepts like moving data over the internet via a button in HTML that transfers sales data from a computer to a centralized server. THAT is the kind of BS that hurts everyone (except the patent holder, of course). Exactly how else could you run an online store except to transfer sales data via HTML to a server that handles the transaction? Yet I seem to recall reading about such a patent very recently involving iPhone Apps.... 🙄

A patent should be something like a specific method to achieve fusion using lasers. If someone else can do it another way using lasers, that should be a separate patent. The former patent should not cover every possible method to achieve fusion using lasers and fuel pellets. The specifics are everything. It can be the difference between a viable reactor and one that uses more power than it produces. A reflecting telescope is a different animal than regular one, yet they both share common science. If a patent covered "magnification through lenses", that would cover everything from microscopes to the Hubble space telescope. It's just too darn broad.

 

[boss.king]

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.

Actually lots of manufacturers have EFI, it's mostly implemented with higher end motherboards, but Apple is definitely not the only company using it.

I have to say, I'm genuinely surprised and impressed with the responses here, I thought there would be a lot more "APPLE SHOULD WIN COZ THERE KOOL" but people seem to actually be pretty informed.

 

[chrono1081]

It's because at some point it ends up raising our prices.



Apparently you didn't read this a few posts up:

I gotta agree. Also, most MR members think Apple trying to trademark "App Store" is idiotic.

The patent system needs a massive overhaul anyway.

Thats what it was! The App Store trademark! I couldn't think of it for the life of me but yes, it was an idiotic move on Apple's part.

 

[err404]

This isn't inventing anything. It's simply an optimized boot routine. This demonstrates once again why there should be NO SUCH THING as a "software patent". Software should be covered purely by copyright law. There's 20 different ways to skin a cat in software, but if you abstract it all down to basic concepts where there is only one way to do something, all you do is STAGNATE technology so nothing moves forward for fear of lawsuits on everything you do. Big companies like Apple don't have to worry about these kinds of lawsuits, but small companies would go bankrupt in no time being sued on all ends for trivial patents on basic concepts like moving data over the internet via a button in HTML that transfers sales data from a computer to a centralized server. THAT is the kind of BS that hurts everyone (except the patent holder, of course). Exactly how else could you run an online store except to transfer sales data via HTML to a server that handles the transaction? Yet I seem to recall reading about such a patent very recently involving iPhone Apps.... 🙄

A patent should be something like a specific method to achieve fusion using lasers. If someone else can do it another way using lasers, that should be a separate patent. The former patent should not cover every possible method to achieve fusion using lasers and fuel pellets. The specifics are everything. It can be the difference between a viable reactor and one that uses more power than it produces. A reflecting telescope is a different animal than regular one, yet they both share common science. If a patent covered "magnification through lenses", that would cover everything from microscopes to the Hubble space telescope. It's just too darn broad.

The patent is pretty specific. Basically it compares the hardware/software config from post and if it matches the prior boot, it load a RAM snapshot from disk.
Just because it's inconvenient and obvious, doesn't mean that it's not specific.

 

[AidenShaw]

never mind....

BIOS and EFI are totally different things.

Actually lots of manufacturers have EFI, it's mostly implemented with higher end motherboards, but Apple is definitely not the only company using it.

The EFI spec was deprecated and EOL'd in 2005.

EFI was dead before the first Intel Apples were sold to the public.

The current spec, and what is used on Apples, is UEFI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uefi ...

Apparently Apple is still using the deprecated EFI 1.10 standard from 2005...

https://discussions.apple.com/message/13276048?messageID=13276048#13276048?messageID=13276048

 

[Rodimus Prime]

The patent is pretty specific. Basically it compares the hardware/software config from post and if it matches the prior boot, it load a RAM snapshot from disk.
Just because it's inconvenient and obvious, doesn't mean that it's not specific.

It might seem that way but could be no one was sure how to store something that big in the very VERY limited space where the BIOS of a computer is stored. You do not exactly have much memory there you can use.

 

[pubwvj]

When is this nonsense going to end?

Ideas are a dime a dozen. It is implementation, production, marketing and sales of an idea - the entire chain - that should be rewarded. Nobody should be able to claim ownership of mere ideas. I come up with a hundred to a thousand ideas a day. A dozen of them are really good. I market a few of them per year. The rest is chaff, not useless, just blowing in the wind and others should be able to reinvent and use them too.

 

[JerzeyLegend]

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.

I am not a PC aficionado, but I do believe the lastest ASUS 1555 Sandy Bridge boards use UEFI which they also call BIOS. Its a more customizable BIOS, in which all changes are done in real time, such as overclocking.

 

[AidenShaw]

It might seem that way but could be no one was sure how to store something that big in the very VERY limited space where the BIOS of a computer is stored. You do not exactly have much memory there you can use.

I don't think that the memory footprint is a significant issue. The boot process contains a number of steps of small, primitive loaders that load more capable loaders, repeated until eventually a loader capable of starting the full OS and all of its drivers and services is loaded.

The check for and loading of the saved image could happen in the secondary, tertiary, quaternary or later stages.

 

[marksman]

Next thing you know Apple will be sued for their patent on leather shoes.

 

[err404]

It might seem that way but could be no one was sure how to store something that big in the very VERY limited space where the BIOS of a computer is stored. You do not exactly have much memory there you can use.

The patent specifically mentions storing the RAM snapshot on the HDD.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Wow, this is reaching...

Pretty soon some patent troll is going to dig up a patent on the freaking mouse and totally destroy the entire industry...

 

[joueboy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Somebody should sue Ford because their car run faster now than it used too, or maybe Mc Donalds because their drive thru is more effecient and faster nowadays.

 

[Portaluk]

Another big payout coming......



to the lawyers.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Next thing you know Apple will be sued for their patent on leather shoes.

Other way around.

 

[Mac Rox]

The whole concept of capturing and restoring memory conditions isn't exactly new. I had a system for taking a RAM snapshot connected to my Apple II+ back in the late 1970's.

 

[MrNomNoms]

I think reading whether or not LG has a connection to the lawsuit into this is a bit of a stretch. Companies sell patents all the time and they are probably not going to go digging up old patents they sold off to encourage some patent troll to sue one of their biggest customers even if a competitor.

It looks like a solid claim, so Apple will have to find a way in which their OS dances around this claim (i.e.: does not do all the specified steps in the specified order -- since it seems that order may be intrinsic to this claim).

Also, if I were Apple I would be looking to potential prior art from Microsoft that has already been licensed by Apple.

But if Apple infringes this patent then they will need to pay up -- and likely Microsoft too since I think that Windows 2000 did the same thing.

EDIT: And here is how Apple would likely dance around this:

I'm pretty sure this 'fast rebooting' predates their migration from PowerPC to Intel - I think it was way back in the Mac OS 9.x days where faster reboots/boots were done through a combination of different methods that cut down the time to a few seconds. What ever the case maybe there is also the most obvious rebuttal, it is too obvious and too broad - the patent isn't addressing a specific way of achieving something but a very broad description that could describe almost anything one pleased if one had a good enough lawyer.

 

[ciociosan]

sweet sue, just you#

 

[bigwig]

This patent clearly violates the "obvious to the well-educated practitioner" standard for denying a patent. The notion of caching system state is inobvious only to a lawyer.

 

[dethmaShine]

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? 🙄

Are you trying to say that Apple has patented the idea of an 'App Store'?
OR
Are you trying to say that Apple has patented the idea of a 'touchscreen phone with icons'?

OR
Are you trying to tell us that you are just sad?

Seriously, look at your post history. Every single comment has been a shot against Apple or its fans. Get a life mate.

 

[VulchR]

You know, a lot of us are blaming lawyers for this mess (and why wouldn't we?). However, I think part of the problem is in the Patent Office.

To illustrate: I enjoy stargazing and there are now very fancy telescopes that are guided by handheld computer controllers. When the computer controllers were first introduced, one had to enter latitude, longitude, and universal time manually. It was a pain. I wrote one company (we'll call it 'M') asking if they would ever incorporate a GPS receiver in their telescope controllers. They wrote back and rudely dismissed the idea. Guess what happened six months later? You guessed it - M was awarded a patent for a GPS-based telescope controller. M promptly sued another company (call it 'C') into near bankruptcy for developing a similar controller and the prices of telescopes stopped falling for both M and C (with C having to pay license fees). I am no engineer or astronomer, so if I could think this up, why couldn't a patent officer see that this was such an obvious idea that could hardly be called 'innovation' or 'invention'? That patent should have never been awarded by the Patent Office, nor should it have withstood judicial scrutiny, but it did....

 

[KnightWRX]

To illustrate: I enjoy stargazing and there are now very fancy telescopes that are guided by handheld computer controllers. When the computer controllers were first introduced, one had to enter latitude, longitude, and universal time manually. It was a pain. I wrote one company (we'll call it 'M') asking if they would ever incorporate a GPS receiver in their telescope controllers. They wrote back and rudely dismissed the idea. Guess what happened six months later? You guessed it - M was awarded a patent for a GPS-based telescope controller. M promptly sued another company (call it 'C') into near bankruptcy for developing a similar controller and the prices of telescopes stopped falling for both M and C (with C having to pay license fees). I am no engineer or astronomer, so if I could think this up, why couldn't a patent officer see that this was such an obvious idea that could hardly be called 'innovation' or 'invention'? That patent should have never been awarded by the Patent Office, nor should it have withstood judicial scrutiny, but it did....

Patents are not about ideas, they are about methods to implement ideas. 2 companies could very much implement GPS into a controller for telescopes and both have a patent for doing it.

It's the method that needs to be obvious for the patent to be rejected, not the idea itself.

 

[divinox]

Isn't this just a patent for using two features (POST and BIOS) in a sensible way? I mean, it's common practise in computing to store commonly accessed data, particularly if it's costly to retrieve freshly every time, so how is this patent novel?

how is gridbased icons novel? how is gestures novel? how is [insert random apple "invention] novel?