Obviously anyone who licenses Broadcom products would be in violation. However, Apple has the deepest pockets, so Caltech thinks they can get the most money by adding Apple to the suit.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Caltech Accuses Apple of Violating its Patented Wi-Fi Technologies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Obviously anyone who licenses Broadcom products would be in violation. However, Apple has the deepest pockets, so Caltech thinks they can get the most money by adding Apple to the suit.
I hope there is some serious punishment/penalty for patent trolls who sue randomly. If you lose the case you should pay the defendant lawyer fees, the court, your lawyer fees, and compensation to the defendant for wasting his time and energy and embarrassing him publicly.
Now, copyright and patent protection has already been used as a tool to sue virtually anyone possible, rather than "protecting intellectual property". Unfortunately current law does not limit such "patent trolls".
Then, what we did long before, will eventually be "awarded" in a certain time, being sooner or later.
Only human can destroy themselves, not anyone else.
Then, what we did long before, will eventually be "awarded" in a certain time, being sooner or later.
Only human can destroy themselves, not anyone else.
You make a good point, but this is how it works under the law. The US government allows Universities to keep patent rights stemming from government-funded research as an incentive to do the research. Keep in mind the individual faculty members who did the research get a substantial chunk of the royalties (1/3). This is one of the perks that keeps top-flight researcher at universities, rather than going to the corporate world for substantially higher base salaries.
Sounds like you know the system, and, I'm sure that it "makes sense" from a legalistic point of view inside the system. But, for someone outside the system, like the rest of us, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Not because everybody loves Apple or feels sorry for Apple or whatever. The reason it makes no sense is that the chips implement standards, and, it should be part of the negotiations for incorporating something in a standard to figure out all this ahead of time, and, if something patented is in any kind of standard, it should be a simple, fixed, low cost. I find it extremely irritating that they could discover that there is a patent issue with 802.11n in an Airport Extreme 9 years after I bought it. If this could happen, it should never have been part of a standard.
Dude I am sorry, but if you pick an apple off of a tree and eat it, I can pick an apple off of a tree and eat it. If you pick 10 apples off, and take them to town to sell, so can I. I hate the foolish BS in this country and the world, it all starts with some dude saying that apple tree is MY APPLE TREE...says who? Can you put it in your pocket? or hold it in your hand? No you can only put the apple from the tree in your hand and then in your mouth, and if you don't eat the apple in the next two or three weeks (without refrigeration), the earth's atmosphere claims that apple back to compost. It's a freaking gift to be alive and to be able to breath on this earth. I hate these trademarks, copyrights, and patents. The only thing worse is our government taking a satellite picture of the United States, and sectioning off land with a marker and saying that nobody is allowed to go to, live, or own, cause you're trespassing, what a joke. Who gives this country or anyone the right to call off any EXPLORATION and INGENUITY to LIVE or WORK (respectively)...
Seriously?
It should be 99 44/100% clear that the two are totally unrelated. When does any company remove products from the shelf before a lawsuit has been decided or a restraining order (temporary or permanent) been issued? If it was an, "Oops, we goofed," Apple would write a check to Caltech long before they'd pull product off the shelf. If Apple doesn't feel they erred (and considering the suit was filed so recently, they probably haven't had time to fully examine the claims), then there's no reason at all for Apple to pull the product from the shelf at this time. And why pull those particular products, which didn't even find their way onto the suit's list of products, "iPhone SE, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPad Pro, iPad Mini 4, iPad Mini 3, iPad Mini 2, MacBook Air [and] Apple Watch," while those far more numerous, listed models are still on sale?
Meantime, your May 27 article had this to say,
"No, that's far too implausible! Let's go with the lawsuit angle!"
But the problem is that Broadcom are the one who writes the drivers for Apple and from what it appears the drivers are no different to what Dell ships with their own repackaged Broadcom based wifi cards or what other vendors sign up for. It is a shake down by an institution that is bleeding money because it would sooner spend money on expansive campuses, multi-million dollar stadiums and a mountain of non-academic frills that aren't required for a university to function.
For CalTech to sue Apple would be like the MPEG LA suing end users of a piece of software because the software company may or may not have paid the required royalties for h264. Apple is the end customer and thus the onus is on Bradcom, not Apple, to ensure that all t's and c's are dealt with. The fact that Apple is singled out when plenty of others also use Broadcom chips tells me that this is a shake down not to mention the fact that CalTech has had SEVEN YEARS to actually say something - 7 years they sat around and said/did nothing then suddenly out of the blue they finally start suing? really? if there was ever evidence of CalTech not giving a crap about their IP then it is clear the 7 years when they did nothing should be proof that they should lose their right to the patent - either defend it or lose it, don't just sit on it and do nothing whilst claiming that your IP property is oh so important but not important enough to actually defend.
Ah yes. That multi-million dollar Caltech stadium.
You have no clue what Caltech is, do you? You're joined by more people on this thread than I ever thought possible. I suggest that before posting anti-Caltech comments, people check out
http://www.caltech.edu/content/caltech-101
But is it a troll or could it be payback from the FBI-unlock case/deep-state retaliation? ;-)
I agree on the FRAND "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, denote a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard"
compare with CSIRO's $430,000,000 here http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...nvented-wifi-and-sued-its-way-to-430-million/
So they're going to sue strictly 2 companies over a owning a standard implementation they've given the whole world and which the whole world has now used for 6 years?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhahahaahhaha. I hope they get thrown out of court to a chorus of laughter.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhahahaahhaha. I hope they get thrown out of court to a chorus of laughter.
I wonder how much input Apple has into the design produced by BroadCom and used in Apple devices. Especially from a University of CalTech's reputation, I would not try to place a "troll" label on this. It looks like it has significant merit. I just wonder how deep the Apple involvement is.
[doublepost=1464699806][/doublepost]
In most cases, forward progress in the halls of academia is slow and measured. That it took 3 years is no surprise. I wonder how long it took CalTech to become aware of it and to identify the scope of the issue.
It's probably a reaction to less enrollment because of the poor economy and third wave brain washing and the college needs funds!
Yep. Here's a real life example:
Apple uses Qualcomm chips for its cellular radios. Apple buys the physical chips from Qualcomm for $15-35 each.
THEN ON TOP OF THAT, Apple also pays Qualcomm a royalty of 3-4% of the factory price of the iPhone, in order to use the particular Qualcomm patents to implement 3G, HSPA, 4G, etc.
And on top of that, Apple might have to pay Nokia, Motorola, Samsung and others for any related IP.
--
Basically, you pick and pay for what you implement. This actually makes the most financial sense.
Example: let's say you are a company that wants to use a Qualcomm modem chip just to send 2G telemetry from natural gas meters installed in buildings. You do not want to pay for 3G or 4G licenses because you don't intend to use those capabilities of the chip. Nor do you care about the BT, WiFi, or NFC capabilities. All you want to do is license what's needed for 2G. So the last thing you want to do is pay a LOT more for a chip that comes with all possible licenses included... even assuming that was possible.
I'm not sure which part of the story/thread you are responding to, but, Cal Tech is a private university, not part of the California system (UC, CSU, community colleges, etc.).
Cal Tech as a contractor also happens to run JPL for NASA, so there is a major Federal government connection.
Your correct but they still receive federal funding as in sure a lot of other schools do. I just don't like a taxpayer funded lawsuit on a major employer. I know most of these end up in some negotiations or settlement but it sure seems like they are just being another troll out for big bucks. Don't make something a standard and end up suing those that use it.