Apple's $1.1 Billion Patent Dispute With Caltech Granted New Damages Trial

[BC2009]

Good, Apple stealing tech should be punished. I wonder how Apple would feel if you used their technologies without being asked? Prepare to get homeless‘d.

Stealing tech? Really? Did you read the article.

Caltech's patents were incorporated into various WiFi standards. ANY manufacturer buying chips that implement those standards is therefore "infringing" on those patents. Apple just had the biggest purse strings.

But a university does NOT manufacturer anything -- so they are basically acting like a patent troll. Shame on Caltech -- a university devoted to innovation and knowledge sharing -- to seek damages for an invention that was incorporated into a standard used by everybody. In academia the reward here should be bragging rights that your innovation is part of the standard -- not a weapon to use to extort money from whomever implements the standard.

At best here, Apple was just buying off-the-shelf chips from Broadcom and stepped into a patent troll trap. But for you to call that "stealing tech" and demand they be punished is ridiculous.

 

[cmaier]

Stealing tech? Really? Did you read the article.

Caltech's patents were incorporated into various WiFi standards. ANY manufacturer buying chips that implement those standards is therefore "infringing" on those patents. Apple just had the biggest purse strings.

But a university does NOT manufacturer anything -- so they are basically acting like a patent troll. Shame on Caltech -- a university devoted to innovation and knowledge sharing -- to seek damages for an invention that was incorporated into a standard used by everybody. In academia the reward here should be bragging rights that your innovation is part of the standard -- not a weapon to use to extort money from whomever implements the standard.

At best here, Apple was just buying off-the-shelf chips from Broadcom and stepped into a patent troll trap. But for you to call that "stealing tech" and demand they be punished is ridiculous.

Especially since, if he owns and uses one of the accused apple products, he is infringing himself merely by using the device.

 

[XXPP]

Good, Apple stealing tech should be punished. I wonder how Apple would feel if you used their technologies without being asked? Prepare to get homeless‘d.

Good? All these pointless patent fees are included in the price of the equipment. It is the customer who ultimately pays for everything. Besides, the US is destroying the competitiveness of its goods. Chinese companies can be much cheaper because they are not encumbered with patents.

 

[Wildkraut]

I'd ? if the new damage amount was reduced to $1.0 billion from $1.1 billion.

Though $100 million less is $100 million saved.

Or more than $1.1B for some reason they forgot… ?

 

[california_kid]

LOL, $1.1B does not sound like a FRAND. For the period of time in the suit, Apple shipped about 300M iPhones and other WIFI things (275M iPhones and 25M other). I don't think a FRAND would charge every licensee almost $4 per unit royalty. I also don't think a FRAND would be a percentage of revenue since a device can have a whole lot of other expensive parts in it that got nothing to do with the WIFI FRAND. There must be other "damages" but damn, Caltech is a non-profit that doesn't sell or manufacture anything so nothing comes to mind for me - maybe emotional distress?

 

[mikethemartian]

Stealing tech? Really? Did you read the article.

Caltech's patents were incorporated into various WiFi standards. ANY manufacturer buying chips that implement those standards is therefore "infringing" on those patents. Apple just had the biggest purse strings.

But a university does NOT manufacturer anything -- so they are basically acting like a patent troll. Shame on Caltech -- a university devoted to innovation and knowledge sharing -- to seek damages for an invention that was incorporated into a standard used by everybody. In academia the reward here should be bragging rights that your innovation is part of the standard -- not a weapon to use to extort money from whomever implements the standard.

At best here, Apple was just buying off-the-shelf chips from Broadcom and stepped into a patent troll trap. But for you to call that "stealing tech" and demand they be punished is ridiculous.

How do you know if it was off the shelf parts or if was custom parts specifically made for Apple? Do you have the part numbers and data sheets?

 

[mikethemartian]

Good? All these pointless patent fees are included in the price of the equipment. It is the customer who ultimately pays for everything. Besides, the US is destroying the competitiveness of its goods. Chinese companies can be much cheaper because they are not encumbered with patents.

It’s OK if you want to work for free but most of us prefer to be paid for our work product.

 

[xyz01]

If it is part of a standard, the patents should no longer be enforceable, or any fees are paid by use of the standard.

If someone submits a patent to a standard, the standard organizations normally require that they have to be licensed on FRAND terms (fair, reasonable, and non-disciminatory). If they were no longer enforceable and free, noone would submit patents to a standard.

If the patents just make things go smoother, rather than being an essential part of the standard, then you can choose to license it. Or not.

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

I thought Apple would be happy to pay the 838 million. Many Apple employees are Caltech graduates. Why not invest a bit in one of the country’s top schools?

 

[xyz01]

LOL, $1.1B does not sound like a FRAND. For the period of time in the suit, Apple shipped about 300M iPhones and other WIFI things (275M iPhones and 25M other). I don't think a FRAND would charge every licensee almost $4 per unit royalty. I also don't think a FRAND would be a percentage of revenue since a device can have a whole lot of other expensive parts in it that got nothing to do with the WIFI FRAND. There must be other "damages" but damn, Caltech is a non-profit that doesn't sell or manufacture anything so nothing comes to mind for me - maybe emotional distress?

Well, are we sure that these patents are actually part of the standard, or just an efficient way of implementing it? (In this case, it seems to be an new (from 2000, so patent expired now?) and efficient way to encode/decode something that is part of the standard, not the actual part of the standard itself.

In any case, terms when you license something before using it and terms when taken to court after implementing, but not licensing the tech, are usually very different.

 

[name99]

Good, Apple stealing tech should be punished. I wonder how Apple would feel if you used their technologies without being asked? Prepare to get homeless‘d.

Since you're an expert in this issue perhaps you can clarify the following points:

- The patents describe a turbo-like code used in 802.11n. But the important thing is that (contra the description above) what's described is the generic code structure, not specific techniques for implementing a coder or decoder.
Thus use of the patent is baked into the 802.11n spec.

Now in other specs, like cellular or codecs, part of the deal for getting your idea into the spec is that you promise to license the patent to all comers on FRAND grounds. So
- was Caltech not party to, and not part of the 802.11n spec process, so they never agreed to their patents being part of the spec? OR
- did Caltech refuse to license to Apple and Broadcom on FRAND grounds OR
- did Caltech offer a license, which Apple and Broadcom refused to pay for?

No-one is denying that these LDPC codes are useful, nice work. The legal issues are
(a) are they PATENTABLE work? The original Gallagher LDPC codes were invented in 1963. It's unclear to me that there's anything novel enough in Caltech's 2001 patent claims to justify a patent.
(b) Assuming the patent is legit, is the way Caltech is wielding it (get it into a spec, then sue anyone who use the spec) acceptable?
(c) Assuming (b) why is Apple on the hook when they simply bought a chip from Broadcom?

To claim that Apple is "stealing tech" requires all three of these points to be clarified.

 

[name99]

Well, are we sure that these patents are actually part of the standard, or just an efficient way of implementing it? (In this case, it seems to be an new (from 2000, so patent expired now?) and efficient way to encode/decode something that is part of the standard, not the actual part of the standard itself.

In any case, terms when you license something before using it and terms when taken to court after implementing, but not licensing the tech, are usually very different.

The two (of the four) that I scanned were very much at the abstract "this is the mathematical structure of the code" level, NOT at the "here's an efficient algorithm for a Viterbi-like efficient soft decode" or anything similar.

Possibly Caltech invented a very impressive (and justifiably patentable) decoding algorithm. But when they throw in whatever random crap they can find into the lawsuit, rather than just the one single patent that's where the merit actually lies, my inclination is to lose patience and consider the whole thing to be without merit.

 

[bollman]

(a) are they PATENTABLE work? The original Gallagher LDPC codes were invented in 1963. It's unclear to me that there's anything novel enough in Caltech's 2001 patent claims to justify a patent.
(b) Assuming the patent is legit, is the way Caltech is wielding it (get it into a spec, then sue anyone who use the spec) acceptable?
(c) Assuming (b) why is Apple on the hook when they simply bought a chip from Broadcom?

To claim that Apple is "stealing tech" requires all three of these points to be clarified.

a: obviously, according to the court
b: yes, it's part of the standard, CALTECH is offering it under FRAND
c: both Apple and Broadcom refused to pay license.

The reason for Apple not paying is that they think Broadcom should pay the license since they made the chip.
Broadcom thinks Apple should pay the license since they make the product, Broadcom only made the chip.

Everyone else on the market pays the license after using Broadcom chips, Apple decided they wanted Broadcom to pay.
Thing is, if Broadcom had to pay, the chip would be more expensive for everyone, even those who decide not to use the part that requires the license. Hence, Broadcom offers the chip cheap, with the caveat that if you want to use this tech, you have to pay license fee to CALTECH. Apple is trying to offload the cost to Broadcom, while not paying more for the chips. You know, bottom line.

 

[maxoakland]

I'd ? if the new damage amount was reduced to $1.0 billion from $1.1 billion.

Though $100 million less is $100 million saved.

I think it should be increased

 

[svish]

Wonder by how much the amount could reduce.

 

[Westside guy]

Were these patents under some open license agrement? I have a problem with universities making major money out of their work. They get tax benefits, get government funding or money via donations that are tax deductible. Their work should benefit all, as it is sponsored by all. If it was a minimal fee then ok, but the 1Billion sound like a major patent dispute.

Yeah, I’ve always felt that if research was done using tax-provided funding (meaning most federal- and state-funded grants), any financial benefit should either flow back to the taxpayers or else go into a pool which is then used to fund future research.

STEM faculty are very well paid, they have tenure, and their departments already claim 55+% of their research grants as operating “overhead”. There are better places to put this sort of money.

Note: None of this should be taken as an argument for or against this particular lawsuit.

 

[rp2011]

Well, the strict guidelines on copy paper and other office supplies might have suddenly loosened up for faculty at Caltech.

 

[wirefire]

There should be industry precedent for this. Ether the manufacturer or the integrator typically pays the FRAND. that should give a good starting point where this should go. Also it appears Apple knowingly used the chips without paying the FRAND and went about business as usual.

looks like they are trying to argue what the FRAND infringement is worth and the way the calculate FRAND values is crap. in this case if I put a wifi chip in a PC Card, that card is like 20-30 dollars. iPhone - $1000, new car $35000. the trick is that they want the FRAND to be based on the price of the final product not the wifi chip chip itself which is total trash. if you do something innovative with someone else's component the component is all their reimbursement should be based on. How I decide to use the component is part of my innovation / IP. Caltech deserves something, for sure but not $4 / unit. they should have to disclose FRAND rates for other agreements and look at ones for cell phones and mobile devices and the penalty should be based on those rates. Higher, but at least based on them.

 

[JimmyHook]

Companies and patent holders tend to try to negotiate higher FRAND fees for Apple than other manufacturers… so Apple refuses to pay. It’s extortion. They should only have to pay what every other manufacturer pays

 

[ACHD]

Companies and patent holders tend to try to negotiate higher FRAND fees for Apple than other manufacturers… so Apple refuses to pay. It’s extortion. They should only have to pay what every other manufacturer pays

And apple forces others who make products to accept lower payments for things or leave them for companies who use child labor.

Makes companies sign exclusivity agreements for those same companies forcing them to not be able to get new clients and then when apple thinks prices are to high and that you have no other cusotmers they come in and then tell the company they are renegotiating for the lower amount otherwise they will leave them.

Forcing some to HAVE to lower their wages, do layoffs or to shut down purely because of that.

The issue at heart is that Broadcom used a part with the FRAND tech disabled.

Apple was told to use that tech they need to pay the FRAND fee for it.

Apple refused to do it. THEN ENABLED the tech. KNOWINGLY using tech they were not authorized to use.

Broadcom REDUCED the price of the parts for anyone who DOESNT buy the tech with it enabled meaning you only had to pay for what you used.

Apple wanted to use the tech anyways and not pay anyone. THEY KNEW they couldn't use the tech without paying and still did it LOL.




Apple SUED others for making a rectangle shaped phone LOL.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Public or private is not the issue, Caltech is a not-for-profit organization like all .edu entities. Apple is a for-profit and yes, they don't pay a lot of taxes, but that's due to legal financial maneuvers while Caltech by virtue of the tax filing status does get tax breaks as a not-for-profit.

Every intelligent university has a private IP established entity to defend the research it has created. This has become necessary after decades of exploitation by for profit business entities abuse of their joint relationships.

 

[name99]

a: obviously, according to the court
b: yes, it's part of the standard, CALTECH is offering it under FRAND
c: both Apple and Broadcom refused to pay license.

The reason for Apple not paying is that they think Broadcom should pay the license since they made the chip.
Broadcom thinks Apple should pay the license since they make the product, Broadcom only made the chip.

Everyone else on the market pays the license after using Broadcom chips, Apple decided they wanted Broadcom to pay.
Thing is, if Broadcom had to pay, the chip would be more expensive for everyone, even those who decide not to use the part that requires the license. Hence, Broadcom offers the chip cheap, with the caveat that if you want to use this tech, you have to pay license fee to CALTECH. Apple is trying to offload the cost to Broadcom, while not paying more for the chips. You know, bottom line.

Thanks! That's a great summary of the legal+technical issues and why each party is arguing as it is.

 

[name99]

Yeah, I’ve always felt that if research was done using tax-provided funding (meaning most federal- and state-funded grants), any financial benefit should either flow back to the taxpayers or else go into a pool which is then used to fund future research.

STEM faculty are very well paid, they have tenure, and their departments already claim 55+% of their research grants as operating “overhead”. There are better places to put this sort of money.

Note: None of this should be taken as an argument for or against this particular lawsuit.

This is a deliberate policy choice made by the federal government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act

You may not like it but it's unclear that it is a BAD choice. Every IP regime will result in some degree of disagreement and resentment; the issue is not "are there complaints" but "does this regime generate a better stream of technical progress than the alternatives", and the answer to the second question is not clearly no; there have been many positive consequences of Bayh-Dole and I'm unaware of a large pool of *informed* opinion that feels it should be replaced,

 

[Apple of my eye]

Everyone is getting worked up over whether Apple infringed or not. A completed trial has already concluded they have and...

"The new damages trial will only reconsider Caltech's awarded sum, rather than revisiting the patent infringement itself."