Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Boston University Sues Apple Over Gallium Nitride Thin Film Patent

neuropsychguy said:
Apple will likely settle this one quickly. At least it's not another patent troll firm.
Click to expand...

Point is, though, Samsung and others have already been sued over this and we never heard a single word about it anywhere on tech blogs, especially places like C|net for example. Now Apple gets sued and suddenly it will be plastered over every blog on the Internet like they are the only ones to get this. That's how things work these days I guess.
 
As Tim Cook said, patents are broken the way they are now.
They're preventing technological evolvement and are being abused for bullsh* stuff like this, getting money from someone else.
 
drewyboy said:
F it, why not sue every end user for a dollar per infringing device. You'd make hundreds of millions of dollars rather than just 75 mill. Go big or go home. Also, what took them so long? Is it just in the last year that devices started using the technology?
Click to expand...

Because such a lawsuit would not be viable? Too obvious?
 
JohnPhamlore said:
Let's put the blame for the current patent mess where it belongs: the Vietnam anti-war movement. The Mansfield Amendment(s) cut off the military from sponsoring basic research at universities also removing a key advocate of funding such basic research, destroying a consensus that had emerged only after World War II. The NSF that was supposed to replace basic research funding had no political base in Congress.

The solution was to change the patent system so that universities could hold patents developed from government funded research. Now such patents are part of each university's net worth, and the universities can go to their local Congressmen and tell them to not reform patent law too much in the direction of limiting rights for non-practicing entities.
Click to expand...

The amendment barred the Defense Department from using its funds "to carry out any research project or study unless such project or study has a direct and apparent relationship to a specific military function."

The fact the the civilian research entity, NSF, plus DOE, Homeland Security and various other government entities can't together replace basic research funding of the military, says more about the limited cognitive capabilities of parochial politicians than the anti-war movement. Unless you lived in that time, and I was just entering high school then, you probably have little context to understand the anti-war movement. At any rate, the end of the Cold War and the peace dividend in the nineties would have had the same result.

Not seeing where Universities patenting research is all that big a deal. It shifts the funding burden to corporations and by definition, consumers, away from direct government funding. Isn't that what the public wants?
 
macs4nw said:
Free iPads for all students and faculty. :)

Seriously, it's getting so complicated and time consuming to check anything and everything that goes into the manufacture of outsourced components, that I can see this happening. Even if they knew, they might have thought that this could slip under the radar. Suppliers sometimes even substitute components/processes without telling their customers, and hope this will not be detected. I recently read of a case where FOXCONN had allegedly done this with, I can't remember which, APPLE product line.

If this is legit, APPLE should settle this quickly.
Click to expand...

My sister is studying in BU. Can I get one too?:rolleyes:
 
err404 said:
Because Apple is selling an infringing product. The LCD manufactures could probably be sued too, but there is more profits if you consider the final assembled product value.
Click to expand...

It's not an LCD but LED technology.
BU will need to prove that the method and process for making the LED that Apple uses is infringing.

Apple is probably indemnified by the supplier/manufacturer against this suit.
Apple would probably be banned from using the product, if it actually infringed.

BU doesn't make LEDs so the award if the infringement wasn't willful would be based on the market value for the infringing item. How many pennies do LEDs cost these days??
 
This doesn't make sense. Apple does not have a GaN foundry. In order to get GaN chips, they have to purchase them from outside. If there is a valid lawsuit, it would be with whichever foundry infringed on BU's process.
 
babbit said:
This doesn't make sense. Apple does not have a GaN foundry. In order to get GaN chips, they have to purchase them from outside. If there is a valid lawsuit, it would be with whichever foundry infringed on BU's process.
Click to expand...

Patent law covers not only the manufacture and sale of the patented product, but their import as well. If, as I believe they do, Apple buys foreign-made panels and assembles the final product offshore, then Apple is infringing the patent by importing those devices with non-licensed patented display technology in them.
Click to expand...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/patent-wielding-boston-u-seeks-ban-on-apple-amazon-samsung-products/
 
BWAAHAHA HA HAAA HAA HAHHAHAHAA...

AHAHAHAHAHAAA HA HA HA ha haaa haa haaaa.

Okay, it's an inside joke, but... an ex-girlfriend of mine works for the BU legal department, and was (probably still is) a HUGE Apple fan.

I can imagine she had a really hard time filing this legal paperwork. :)
 
Apple doesn't make the LCD screen how are they infringing?

Surely they just go and blame samsung or whoever is making them...

I seriously don't get tech patents like this after how long. It's profiteering.
 
iMatt7 said:
If Boston University gets some money out of this will it be dumped back into the school to lower tuition for students or into school buildings / programs? I know at other schools, it would most likely be stuffed into the pockets of the president, administrative faculty, board members, etc.
Click to expand...

Eh, not really. Most schools have a well-defined scheme for distributing royalty revenue (including money from infringement lawsuits) that doesn't leave any room to stuff it into the pockets of individuals, other than perhaps the inventors. Typically, the school's general fund, the inventors' department, the inventor's lab, and the inventor all get a cut. If the president and board see any of it, it is because of how university money as a whole (nothing specific to damages recovered in a lawsuit) is distributed.
 
TMay said:
The amendment barred the Defense Department from using its funds "to carry out any research project or study unless such project or study has a direct and apparent relationship to a specific military function."

...

Not seeing where Universities patenting research is all that big a deal. It shifts the funding burden to corporations and by definition, consumers, away from direct government funding. Isn't that what the public wants?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if allowing universities to hold patents is responsible for that shift; while the amount of privately-funded research has grown relative to government-funded research, most research at universities is still funded by government grants. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allows small businesses and non-profit organizations, including universities, to retain title to - and earn royalties from - inventions made under federally-funded research programs. Prior to Bayh-Dole, the government would retain title to any patents that were filed, and inventions would often sit on the shelf unused.
 
macs4nw said:
In all fairness, this appears to be a legitimate claim.
Click to expand...

The university says: We have a patent, and Apple is infringing. To you, that indicates it is a legitimate claim. Apple will obviously reply "no, we are not". That would then be clear evidence that they are talking ********.
 
Hmm, I'm about to write a grocery list with pen and paper. Anyone I have to license anything from before I start?
 
One upon a time I took a business law course and was taught that when dealing with strict liability the text book strategy is to sue everyone in the liability chain. As a party in the middle, your defense is to prove it wasn't your fault by passing the blame off to the next guy in the chain. Patent law isn't strict liability but I'm guessing they're attempting the same. I.e. sue marketer -> integrator -> designer -> manufacturer until they get the result they want (a settlement/licensing agreement).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back