Caltech Accuses Apple of Violating its Patented Wi-Fi Technologies

[nekonokami]

So this happens if you decide to oppose the government and its wish to access your customers data illegally.

Little hint for the ones who can only read three letters in one setting:

Apple can just stop all business in the US and move all of its business abroad. It will take a hit but nothing at all fatal.

 

[kdarling]

That makes no sense at all. Under that scenario then Apple should be the one getting sued, not both of them.

We have to wait to see what the lawsuit actually says, but when two companies are being sued over patents at the same time, often one of them is included on the grounds that they "encouraged infringement" by the other.

When that happens, the patent holder is saying, "We warned one of them that the other one was infringing, but they continued to (buy/sell) the infringing chip anyway."

That's what recently happened in the Immersion haptics lawsuit against Apple, where they also named AT&T as a defendant. The claim is that AT&T encouraged infringement by continuing to sell iPhones even after a warning.

Again, not saying that's what happened here, but it's one possibility. It's all just legal tactics to put pressure on. Apple's lawyers use the same methods in their own lawsuits.

 

[gprovida]

Wouldn't patent exhaustion mean they can only actually sue BroadCom? You know, since Apple is just buying the chips, while BroadCom are the ones designing and manufacturing them and thus having to license the relevant patents.

Also, wouldn't these patents' inclusion in wi-fi standards mean they have to license them under FRAND terms and *can't* try to get sales injunctions?

Seems like Caltech is going the patent troll route instead.

 

[Wowereit]

apple acquires this company in 3....2.....1....

Ehm, I don't think universities are for sale

 

[gprovida]

If it is true, "...The technologies are implemented in both the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards used by many Apple products. ..." then it would seem the FRAND applies. I believe past cases, SAMSUNG, attempts to get an injunction failed due to FRAND and I suspect similarly would apply here.

It is unclear whether, Caltech asked for a FRAND price nor is it clear whether this is a bill to Apple versus Broadcom, although the chips prices might go up.

There are wonderful discussions of FRAND and the poor legal situation in FOSS Patents site. The law has been poorly clarified by the legislatures and so it has devolved to the courts. This complicates harmonizing decisions across various districts as well as internationally.

 

[kdarling]

So this happens if you decide to oppose the government and its wish to access your customers data illegally.

Not sure how you think these things are even remotely related. I mean, if it was the government suing Apple, then maybe.

Little hint for the ones who can only read three letters in one setting: Apple can just stop all business in the US and move all of its business abroad. It will take a hit but nothing at all fatal.

Weird, but at least you didn't say, "Apple should just buy Caltech!"

 

[tooltalk]

So... This is Broadcom infringing on the patent, right? How is Apple liable again?

This is called a secondary liability. If you sell, buy, own infringed products, you are just as liable as the thief himself/herself.

Apple plays this game all the time , eg Apple vs Samsung, so lets not cry unfair, broken paten system, etc...

 

[Tech198]

Is no other vendor that sells phones, tablets, or computers with Wi-Fi also infringing on these patents?

I'm wondering the same... so much news about infringing and Apple.... I'm starting to think how much of it is actually true. and how much the FBI just wants the source code for iOS, so it will do these court cases to Apple until they give in.

Of course, that's just speculation

 

[now i see it]

This is going to be HUGE NEWS. Front page stuff. Heads will roll at Apple.

 

[nStyle]

ALLEGEDLY

 

[OLDCODGER]

Ehm, I don't think universities are for sale

Commercially, no. Politically - absolutely!

 

[robjulo]

Ahhh yes, here come all the automotive, watch, marketing, software, hardware experts running over to now play patent experts.... All in the defense of Apple.

 

[alphaod]

Sounds like a typical case of a student who did research, the school takes "credit" in the patent; then said student is hired by Broadcom and with a little tweaking "creates" this new breakthrough. So it would up to the court to decide if this is derivative work and an improvement on the original work done or simple "copy and paste."

 

[lazard]

Do the math. Apple sitting on a mountain of cash. CalTech hemorrhaging cash (just like any other university). For the past two decades big colleges and universities have expanded their 'business operations' to chase down anything that even closely smells like it could generate a buck. They will claim anything and any idea, even if only the sound of it once simply drifted over their campus.

Yup, Caltech with a $2.2B endowment is hemorrhaging cash.

 

[gluckett]

So... This is Broadcom infringing on the patent, right? How is Apple liable again?

And why only Apple, not everyone using Broadcom's chips?

 

[997941]

Everyones s patent troll unless your name is apple.

 

[Junkdrop1]

I guess Caltech needs some money also.
Apple isn't in violation since everything is licensed.
These patents are antiquated anyways.

 

[Bubba Satori]

These patents are antiquated anyways.

They have something in common with Apple's prehistoric computers.

 

[mkldev]

Patent trolling has gone mainstream. Maybe this is what it takes to finally reform the patent system.

This isn't patent trolling. Patent trolls don't create things. Research universities do. Whether this particular patent suit is or is not legit, it doesn't fall into the same category as patent trolling.

As for patent exhaustion, Apple has previously had problems claiming that rule.

You see, such protection only applies to chips bought in the US. However, it's very likely that, in order to avoid paying US taxes, Apple did a purchase deal outside of the US.

Not only that, patent exhaustion only applies in situations where the original product was properly licensed. If a Broadcom product infringes a patent because Broadcom didn't properly license the patent for use in that product, then the product is tainted no matter how may hands it passes through. Patent exhaustion just means that if Broadcom did pay the licensing fee, then Caltech can't go after Apple for building a product based on that chip, because the licensing fee was already paid once by Broadcom.

I can understand they go after Apple - $$ signs in the eyes. This is like suing a car buyer because the tires use some patent. Weird.

No, it isn't. Apple is building a product that contains the chips in question. It's like suing a car manufacturer for selling cars with pre-installed tires that violate a patent.

If it is true, "...The technologies are implemented in both the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards used by many Apple products. ..." then it would seem the FRAND applies. I believe past cases, SAMSUNG, attempts to get an injunction failed due to FRAND and I suspect similarly would apply here.

Only if Caltech authorized its inclusion in the standard in the first place. You can't really make assumptions like that....

 

[5105973]

And I honestly think it's wrong for a university to "own" the rights to a technology. Shouldn't anything that a university creates be a contribution to the world? Or is it really "just business"? I'm probably not up to speed on all of the details here.

When I was attending our state university they were all about soaking students out of every penny we had through fees and fines. Now as an alumni who has gone through four address changes and a name change they are still hounding me for donations. A university is a business like any other. Don't kid yourself. They're not in it for the greater good of anything.

 

[69Mustang]

A bigger question to ask is why do degree granting universities own patents? These are institutes with the mission of exploration and distribution of knowledge. They get their money off government grants and endowments.

Any IP developed in these institutes should be public domain. Third party groups with relations to institutes like this should hold patents and not the institute itself as it blurs the line between corporate and academia.

All universities are not public. Some are private. Even the public universities only receive various portions of their money from the gov't and some of those endowments are specifically for developing viable products and processes. Higher learning in universities was long ago supplanted by generating income.
Bolded: That's how most colleges and universities manage their patent portfolio. Through a 3rd party.

Do the math. Apple sitting on a mountain of cash. CalTech hemorrhaging cash (just like any other university).

If sitting on a $2.5 billion endowment is hemorrhaging, cut me so I can bleed like that.
[doublepost=1464661111][/doublepost]

This entire thread is a wasteland of misinformation. Look, it's real fun to speculate about why they're doing this, but for the most part you're all wrong. Apple is this biggest player in Broadcom's game, of course they're going to be named. This has nothing to do with apple and all to do with Broadcom. Stop spouting your BS misinformation and talk to an attorney. I hope none of you are taking these comments to the bank, mac rumors forums are really only good for tech information, the armchair dolts with dumb opinions are rampant around here.

/holds up mirror for youdontgetit

 

[sudo1996]

Maybe they just reinvented it.

Probably not since it's a "highly technical" patent. If this isn't bogus, I guess this is really bad for Apple.
[doublepost=1464661401][/doublepost]

When I was attending our state university they were all about soaking students out of every penny we had through fees and fines. Now as an alumni who has gone through four address changes and a name change they are still hounding me for donations. A university is a business like any other. Don't kid yourself. They're not in it for the greater good of anything.

Depends. Boot up your Mac in verbose mode, and read the first thing that shows up

 

[StevieD100]

It sounds to me like this would strictly be a problem with Broadcom... it doesn't seem to me that Apple should be found liable for using parts supplied by Broadcom which violate these patents. Apple just wants wifi chips - I don't think the inner workings that are detailed would be something they'd look at before making a purchase.

Think again. This 'double-dipping' is pretty common.
Broadcom may even have a license from Caltech to make devices using these patents but are selling them illegally (in Caltech's eyes) to Apple and others. For that Broadcomm need another more expensive license OR Apple needs to buy the 'end user' license from Caltech. Either way, TWO licenses are needed. One to Make and the other to Use.
Stupid? Yes.
This was discussed at length on Groklaw some years ago.

AFAIK, some companies won't sell a combined Make and Sell license in the hope that this sort of thing might happen and they get a patent windfall.

 

[Col4bin]

Screw Broadcom! I returned two iPhone 6's due to flakey wifi chips in those devices that refused to hold a signal, even when my iPad, iPod and MBP had zero issues staying connected to the same exact networks. The most frustrating iPhone experience I've yet dealt with. Ultimately I settled on an iPhone 6 Plus once I could my hands on one. (Luckily no problems with that device.)

 

[richsw]

So... This is Broadcom infringing on the patent, right? How is Apple liable again?

Apple has the money.