VIA Technologies Files Patent Lawsuit Against Apple Over iOS Device Processors

[divinox]

Everybody's against apple now.. I wonder who else will against apple.. Hope that iPhone 5 will not be the last iPhone!!

I almost do. then they could spend that 80 billion of thinking about what comes next, rather than get stuck with what they currently have. In ways, one could (almost) say that they've played their part for now... just like how things have been in the past.

Before down-voting, i do not mean to say that their device is crap, or that it doesnt deserve to be. Im just reflecting on the fact that Apples brilliance have more often been in bringing us the future, rather than working on that future once here.

----------

Surely they should be suing ARM instead, considering this revolves around the processors used in the products?

Doesnt work that way. If it did, one could just set up a side company, steal everything - buy their products - and be home free.

 

[techwhiz]

Apple Sued By VIA

It will be interesting.
Remember Apple has significant processor IP.
They were part of AIM (Apple, intel, Motorola) which designed/modified the Power Architecture for Apple computers. They also purchased the assets of Power Computing. They purchased the company that evolved from Exponential Technology, Intrisity that specialized in high performance processor architectures.

Apple has plenty of processor IP in it's patent portfolio.

VIA may well have picked the wrong fight.

 

[CylonGlitch]

Doesnt work that way. If it did, one could just set up a side company, steal everything - buy their products - and be home free.

No, it wouldn't work that way, it would setup the shell to steal and sell products to their parent company. Then the shell would get sued, shut down, and the parent company would be stuck with no where to get parts.

If XYZ company builds a chip with stolen information and PDQ uses that chip, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to sue PDQ, they don't know the details of what goes on inside the chip, they know what they have read from the data sheet that XYZ provided. PDQ could, go to another vendor and get another chip to perform the same function (it will cost PDQ money, but it doesn't kill them).

Now, that may not be the case here, Apple purchased ARM technology. They then modified it. Now Via is suing them. First off, it's VERY, VERY hard to prove that a chip is using any specific IP; but it is possible that Apple added it, but if they didn't shouldn't Via be going after ARM? If it is a section that ARM provided and Via doesn't go after them, then that is evidence, that they are only looking at the big fish.

Now, here is how it will work out, in the worst case.

1. Court battle ensues, and VIA proves Apple violated one of their patents.
2. Apple pulls out their IP portfolio and picks a few patents and tell VIA lawyers that VIA is violating these patents.
3. Apple & VIA agree to cross license technology, no money is transferred and everyone goes home unhappy (except the lawyers).

 

[Oletros]

As I clearly stated, VIA has no demonstrable interest in actually protecting their IP.

Is their IP legitimate or not?

If it's legitimate they can sue anyone they think is infringing it.

I never said that.

I said that according to the recent lawsuits, Apple's are with merit, and the others are without merit.

It doesn't mean that a lawsuit could come in the future against Apple that has some teeth, and I will point it out. But only anti-Apple fan boys see any legitimacy in these current lawsuits against Apple.

Ah, anyone that doesn't have your opinion is a anti Apple fanboy because you have the TRUTH. And the TRUTH is that Apple lawsuits are legitimate and ALL the lawsuits agains Apple are bogus and withouth any merit.

----------

the fact that the A4 outperforms any similar chips in the market.

Source?

 

[divinox]

No, it wouldn't work that way, it would setup the shell to steal and sell products to their parent company. Then the shell would get sued, shut down, and the parent company would be stuck with no where to get parts.

at which point you revert to square 1, rinse and repeat. And, what if you set this company up in some ****** state, where you can easily buy yourself free? Then we dont even need to go back to square 1.

If XYZ company builds a chip with stolen information and PDQ uses that chip, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to sue PDQ, they don't know the details of what goes on inside the chip, they know what they have read from the data sheet that XYZ provided. PDQ could, go to another vendor and get another chip to perform the same function (it will cost PDQ money, but it doesn't kill them).

Yes it does, as their product is still infringing on their intellectual property. Sure, it sucks for the unknowing pdq - but thats their problem, not the problem of xyz who wants (and deserves) to be paid.

Now, that may not be the case here, Apple purchased ARM technology. They then modified it. Now Via is suing them. First off, it's VERY, VERY hard to prove that a chip is using any specific IP; but it is possible that Apple added it, but if they didn't shouldn't Via be going after ARM? If it is a section that ARM provided and Via doesn't go after them, then that is evidence, that they are only looking at the big fish.

They are free to go after anyone they see fit, for whatever reason. They are, de jure, free to only look at the big fish so to speak.

Now, here is how it will work out, in the worst case.

1. Court battle ensues, and VIA proves Apple violated one of their patents.
2. Apple pulls out their IP portfolio and picks a few patents and tell VIA lawyers that VIA is violating these patents.
3. Apple & VIA agree to cross license technology, no money is transferred and everyone goes home unhappy (except the lawyers).

Says you...

 

[chrmjenkins]

Is their IP legitimate or not?

If it's legitimate they can sue anyone they think is infringing it.

That's for the court to decide. IP being legitimate having an effect on whether or not something is patent trolling is a personal judgement call. Generally something is considered patent trolling/profiteering if no harm is actually being done to their business.

Personally, I consider it patent trolling because I don't see any proof that VIA's business is being harmed. Generally people advise to sue because not suing can actually be construed as an unwillingness to protect your IP which can actually hurt you in further disputes, but then you must ask the question of why now?

 

[Oletros]

Generally something is considered patent trolling/profiteering if no harm is actually being done to their business.

Mmm, no, patent trolling is well defined and is not what are you saying. A patent trolling doesn't produce anything and they have IP ONLY for suing

 

[divinox]

That's for the court to decide. IP being legitimate having an effect on whether or not something is patent trolling is a personal judgement call. Generally something is considered patent trolling/profiteering if no harm is actually being done to their business.

Personally, I consider it patent trolling because I don't see any proof that VIA's business is being harmed. Generally people advise to sue because not suing can actually be construed as an unwillingness to protect your IP which can actually hurt you in further disputes, but then you must ask the question of why now?

Via sells chips. Via claims Apple is infringing on their ip related to their chips. How could harm - if true - NOT be done to their business? Will they sell MORE or LESS chips due to Apples (assumed) infringement? (Hint: its not more).

 

[dethmaShine]

Everyone wants a piece of the Apple pie, now that Apple's changed the game (several times) and the also-rans are struggling in key markets because they just can't capture consumer interest like Apple can.

Except Apple didn't do it by strong-arming.

They didn't do it by anti-competitive activity that landed them a conviction.

They didn't do it by compulsion, duress, or brute force.

They did it by creating great products, by actually giving a damn about what they put their name to, and by following this guy's vision:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaJp66ArJVI

It's that simple. And the surprising (or not so surprising) thing is, is that the also-rans still haven't figured it out, well over a decade later.

You realise that there are other companies besides Apple in the entire industry?

You realise that there are other companies besides Apple innovating and filing patents for the same?

You realise that there are other companies besides Apple who do not appreciate other companies infringing on their technology?

You realise that there are other companies besides Apple who feel for their products and innovations?

Even Apple needs to pay up. Grow up and realise that.

 

[jiarizti]

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiarizti
the fact that the A4 outperforms any similar chips in the market.

Source?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3633/apples-a4-soc-faster-than-snapdragon

 

[Lord Appleseed]

Via sells chips. Via claims Apple is infringing on their ip related to their chips. How could harm - if true - NOT be done to their business? Will they sell MORE or LESS chips due to Apples (assumed) infringement? (Hint: its not more).

Since i can't imagine Apple installing Via chips rather than their own, I don't see how iOS devices would harm Via in any other way than they already do, even if they had other kinds of chips rather than ARM.
It's not really the chips that sell the iOS devices anyway.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Mmm, no, patent trolling is well defined and is not what are you saying. A patent trolling doesn't produce anything and they have IP ONLY for suing

And what is the effective difference if the patent in question is immediately sold off immediately after judgement is won, just like the last time they did this?

Via sells chips. Via claims Apple is infringing on their ip related to their chips. How could harm - if true - NOT be done to their business? Will they sell MORE or LESS chips due to Apples (assumed) infringement? (Hint: its not more).

Because no one outside of Apple is using those chips. So you'd have to make the argument that VIA is losing sales (or at least patent licensing) to Apple because of the infringement.

When is the last time you heard of a handset manufacturer using VIA parts or licensing their technologies? Never? Ok then. Then it stands to reason that it is selective predation on a company with the expectation that a win will be profitable for them. Thus, they're not losing sales because of the IP, they just see a chance to cash in by selling patents known to have a judgement in their favor against Apple. I suppose that's a viable business model for some, but I don't think many would find it very ethical.

 

[divinox]

Since i can't imagine Apple installing Via chips rather than their own, I don't see how iOS devices would harm Via in any way even if they had other kinds of chips rather than ARM.
It's not really the chips that sell the iOS devices anyway.

Because their ARM chips simply wouldn't be as good without the infringing technology. This would make their proprietary solution less competitive compared to Vias offering, and thus Via has been harmed - like it or not.

(all assuming the claim is correct).

What you're basically saying is: As long as i just steal for my own benefit and dont share with others, no one is harmed. Obviously, that is not true.

 

[rockrigo]

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiarizti
the fact that the A4 outperforms any similar chips in the market.

Source?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3633/apples-a4-soc-faster-than-snapdragon

now find one that includes Hummingbird

 

[divinox]

Because no one outside of Apple is using those chips. So you'd have to make the argument that VIA is losing sales (or at least patent licensing) to Apple because of the infringement.

When is the last time you heard of a handset manufacturer using VIA parts or licensing their technologies? Never? Ok then. Then it stands to reason that it is selective predation on a company with the expectation that a win will be profitable for them. Thus, they're not losing sales because of the IP, they just see a chance to cash in by selling patents known to have a judgement in their favor against Apple. I suppose that's a viable business model for some, but I don't think many would find it very ethical.

See above.

 

[chrmjenkins]

See above.

You haven't actually answered the question. If this is a move for an immediate sell-off of assets, there's an implicit lack of concern for their IP being infringed, else they should have sued sooner and sued more people and their legal department should be fired.

 

[rjohnstone]

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiarizti
the fact that the A4 outperforms any similar chips in the market.

Source?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3633/apples-a4-soc-faster-than-snapdragon

First, define similar as the A4 was a unique chip to begin with.
Second, a one chip comparison is a far cry from "any similar chip".

 

[Lord Appleseed]

Because their ARM chips simply wouldn't be as good without the infringing technology.

Says who? WHo's to say that if Apple had not used the ARM chips, they didn't create other chips that work as good as, or better than their A4 /A5?

What you're basically saying is: As long as i just steal for my own benefit and dont share with others, no one is harmed. Obviously, that is not true.

No, I am not basically saying that.
I am saying that I am sure no one bought an iPhone because of the ARM chip, but because it's an iOS device. And since the success of the iOS devices is not based on the chips, it does not hurt Via because iOS devices would be the same threat even if they used other chips.
At least that's what I think.
If Apple really infringed Via's patens or not, I do not know.

 

[takezo808]

Patents are important to help keep your intelectual property from being stolen and used by another company.

Lets say you created the Hula Hoop, That hoop's design can be patented so that if some other company wants to ride your success and create the same design, they would have to pay you rights to use that design patents. seems fair right? You would not want someone to make money off somthing you created right?

Problem... Patent laws were not designed to deal with complex technologies. As such companies purposely apply for pattents for products that are still in it's conceptual stage meaning the patents are usually vague and are hard to differenciate from smillar technologies. It's up to the Lawers to prove which side is right. This is why technology companies seem to sue each other. It's a game of win some, loose some.

 

[divinox]

You haven't actually answered the question. If this is a move for an immediate sell-off of assets, there's an implicit lack of concern for their IP being infringed, else they should have sued sooner and sued more people and their legal department should be fired.

What part of the question did i fail to address?

For all the "should have", they are irrelevant. If Apple infringes, they infringe. Quite simple, isnt it?

 

[Trudy]

Well, Apple did design their own custom processors with the ARM architecture. If this company believes that the infringement comes not from ARM's licensed architecture but from Apple's modifications

I found the patents:

US 6,253,311 Instruction set for bi-directional conversion and transfer of integer and floating point data

US 6,253,312 Method and apparatus for double operand load

US 6,754,810 Instruction set for bi-directional conversion and transfer of integer and floating point data

From what I've read so far they are absurdly obvious to one skilled in the art. In any case, 311 and 810 relate to instruction sets, and Apple uses the ARM instruction set. 312 could be Apple-specific optimizations. OTOH, Apple has not released the specifics of any custom work, so it would be interesting to see how VIA figured them out.

 

[divinox]

Patents are important to help keep your intelectual property from being stolen and used by another company.

Lets say you created the Hula Hoop, That hoop's design can be patented so that if some other company wants to ride your success and create the same design, they would have to pay you rights to use that design patents. seems fair right? You would not want someone to make money off somthing you created right?

Problem... Patent laws were not designed to deal with complex technologies. As such companies purposely apply for pattents for products that are still in it's conceptual stage meaning the patents are usually vague and are hard to differenciate from smillar technologies. It's up to the Lawers to prove which side is right. This is why technology companies seem to sue each other. It's a game of win some, loose some.

If you ask me, the issue isnt "complex technologies". The issue is that patents are given for non-complex technology artefacts and general, broad, concepts. The complexity of things should really make the whole thing easier to regulate, as complexity should result in greater level of detail, and thus more specific applications.

 

[Dr McKay]

It doesn't take a fanboy to see that Apple is suing for legitimate reasons most of the time, and other companies are suing Apple for bogus reasons.

You have a clear bias against Apple. Fair and balanced does not mean that Apple suing X and X suing Apple are the same. You must look at the underlying details of the lawsuits. If I sue my neighbor because he crashed his car into my house and won't pay for it, then he sues me because my dog crapped on his lawn, did I just 'deserve' that lawsuit, thus rendering my lawsuit invalid? Come on, now. That's what you're saying.

I do not have a "clear bias" against Apple, I've defended Apple on here in the past, if you read my post, I wasn't defending the company suing Apple, or even Apple, I haven't actually commented on this lawsuit, all I was doing was asking LTD a question on his stance of defending EVERY lawsuit against Apple and EVERY lawsuit Apple has made on previous occasions, many of them legitimate.

It's a little hard to draw up a bogus comparison when I haven't even made a stance on this lawsuit, and I'm not going to, I'm fed up with everyone suing everyone.

 

[chrmjenkins]

What part of the question did i fail to address?

For all the "should have", they are irrelevant. If Apple infringes, they infringe. Quite simple, isnt it?

Because the question is more than just "do they infringe?" It is "Are they being a patent troll or not?"

I found the patents:

US 6,253,311 Instruction set for bi-directional conversion and transfer of integer and floating point data

US 6,253,312 Method and apparatus for double operand load

US 6,754,810 Instruction set for bi-directional conversion and transfer of integer and floating point data

From what I've read so far they are absurdly obvious to one skilled in the art. In any case, 311 and 810 relate to instruction sets, and Apple uses the ARM instruction set. 312 could be Apple-specific optimizations. OTOH, Apple has not released the specifics of any custom work, so it would be interesting to see how VIA figured them out.

Short answer: they didn't. Sure, they could have reverse engineered it by looking at it under an electron microscope, but I doubt the architecture is unique to apple. They believe the ARM architecture infringes and they chose to attack Apple because they know that win would be lucrative to sell off, especially to HTC.

 

[polbit]

That's just plain stupid as innovation would stuck - nobody would invest so much money and man-power to invent something new if it can be stolen identically by everyone ... THAT is destroying everything.

No, instead we should all just have to invent everything from scratch.

In case you haven't heard, innovation is usually an IMPROVEMENT of somebody else's idea. Apple IMPROVED upon a cell phone and a smartphone idea. Apple IMPROVED upon a tablet idea. They didn't design the iPhone from scratch, and they didn't design an iPad from scratch. We can all argue how big of an improvement it was, but in the end they took an existing device and made it better.

Patent lawsuits are getting out of hand right now because it has become part of doing business. It is practically impossible in the tech industry now to invent something and not get sued by somebody. THAT is destroying innovation because smaller startups have no money to defend themselves. Not the notion that somebody looks at an iPad and tries to make a thinner and lighter one.