The A4 and the Samsung Hummingbird are almost the same basic chip, both with optimizations done by Intrinsity before Apple bought the company.
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.
VIA Technologies Files Patent Lawsuit Against Apple Over iOS Device Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The A4 and the Samsung Hummingbird are almost the same basic chip, both with optimizations done by Intrinsity before Apple bought the company.
And the proposed definition said if they were harmed, they were not. In the above post i clarified that they were indeed harm, and thus no troll. Once more i ask, which part of the question did i not respond to?
Then the true test should have been between the A4 and a Hummingbird, not the Snapdragon.
Whether or not VIA was actually harmed. It would seem that if they were no chance to potentially sell a patent that Apple infringes on, they would have never pursued it, and thus didn't care about any harm, if any was even being done. In my opinion, if they had no intention of pursuing it otherwise, no actual harm has been done. VIA just sees a potential cash-out.
Who cares if people did not buy the phone because of the chip? How is that relevant at all for whether or not VIA has been harmed by the (assumed) infringement? It hurts VIA because VIA is relatively less able to compete through Apples inclusion of VIA ip in their architecture.
There mere fact that they would be better off if reimbursed for their R&D by Apple is enough to state that they have been harmed. Its not a neutral situation, its not a positive situation. The only thing remaining is: its a negative situation. I.e., they have been harmed.
----------
Apples use in itself a validation of its worth being higher than null. For everything with a value higher than null there is a chance to potentially sell. Basically, what you just stated boils down to: If i hadn't bought that piece of software anyway, i should be free to steal it.
That's not how patent infringement is enforced, though. The burden of complaint lies solely on those being infringed. There no patent police looking for infringing products like there are cops looking for theft. If there were, the number of patent disputes would be orders of magnitude higher, so I don't think that's a logically sound point to argue from. The question is: Is VIA trying to protect their revenue sources or create a new one? I think it's the latter because I don't think they would have pursued it if they didn't think they could sell it for a high amount.
That's an empty definition because all patent holders stand to get revenue through products sold or licenses granted. By that definition, harm is always done when a patent is infringed, so it's not a question worth asking. The question lies in the intent of the holder.
Last edited:
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".
I should have said A4 chip designed by instrinsity (now owned by Apple) and fabed by Samsung, just as the Hummingbird chip, but my first argument stands as VIA would be after having access to the innards of it all.
You realise that there are other companies besides Apple in the entire industry?
Yes. You can find them at the bottom of the profit share pyramid and below Apple in the customer satisfaction reports, consistently. What's your point?
*Looks at iPhone* It has an Apple logo on the back. *Looks at iPad* Well whaddya know. This has one too.
Where is all the "innovative" tablet competition? How is it that HP is innovating themselves out of the PC business? Why is RIM innovatively sinking? Those are some pretty innovatively lean WP7 numbers. They innovated an average product that might have been impressive three years ago.
Such innovation from everyone. Unless you raise your standards. Then it's a much, much smaller crowd.
Obviously.
Anyone who licenses universally does not. Most OEMs, in turn, don't.
That doesn't leave a very wide field of feelyness now does it.
Yet to be determined.
Maybe VIA didn't figure them out. Maybe this has more to do with forcing Apple to show the custom work as the only way to prove that they did not violate the patents. Thus, others can learn and profit off the knowledge. If Apple does not want to tip their hand and show or prove, then they have to pay out.
Obviously all of my claims are based on that the assumed infringement is in fact just that. Just couldnt be bothered to add assumed or alleged everywhere.
Fail to see how your question maps to the definition earlier given, or any definition of patent trolling really. They want pay for the work they have done in inventing the technology in question. Thats the only reason you perform r&d to begin with. If you get it through others licensing your product, or through sales doesnt really matter.
The intent was to extract value out of their ip. Apples infringement limits their ability to do that. Thus, they are harmed. Empty or not, it is what it is.
I fundamentally disagree. Apple infringement is precisely what allows them to extract value of their IP. A weapon in a patent war is going to go for more than market value.
does apples infringement make it easier or harder for via to compete with arm? can i get an answer on that?
How is that even a fair comparison. They are running different software... Typcially when you test hardware you make sure the software is the same...
Enough already!
We get it. Every single day there will be at least one new patent lawsuit against Apple or Apple suing someone. This whole patent thing would be funny if the lawyers weren't making so much money off of them. The news about patent suits isn't interesting anymore. Please give this stuff a rest and leave it in the courts.
We get it. Every single day there will be at least one new patent lawsuit against Apple or Apple suing someone. This whole patent thing would be funny if the lawyers weren't making so much money off of them. The news about patent suits isn't interesting anymore. Please give this stuff a rest and leave it in the courts.
That is absolutely irrelevant. If their patented technology is in the A4, then they should get a percentage of the income derived from the A4 consistent with the amount of their technology's contribution to the A4 as a whole. Compensation for invention, that is how patents are supposed to work.
This is good, since not too long ago there would just be huge awards based on how much money the infringing product had brought in. We now have the test of relative value to the whole product. If they win, it shouldn't be much given it's three minor technical aspects of a chip with tens of thousands of technical aspects, most much more important.
The countries I know of where "anything goes" and anyone can copy whatever they like from anyone else without worry of government intervention (like, say, Nigeria) are anything but socialist. The only form of actual socialism I've seen Obama openly support was in the form of taxpayer funded government programs exclusively for the use of military veterans and their families.
Last edited:
If their problem is competing with ARM, then they should have sued ARM. You don't sue the customer of your competitor. You sue your competitor.
Well, VIA managed to get intel to cough up an x86 license.... Can apple do that with its IP?
The timing behind this is a touché
Apples suit preventing Samsung sales in the UK comes to mind.
The biggest difference is the Pro Apple courts in the USA, there's no chance they'd rule against Apple.
There is no justice. The one with the most money wins.
Apple has all the money, power & ability to intimidate.
There's nothing else to say.
Apples suit preventing Samsung sales in the UK comes to mind.
The biggest difference is the Pro Apple courts in the USA, there's no chance they'd rule against Apple.
There is no justice. The one with the most money wins.
Apple has all the money, power & ability to intimidate.
There's nothing else to say.
True, in a way, but at the end of the day since Android doesn't run on the A-series and iOS doesn't run on snapdragon isn't the end experience the only *relevant* measure of speed? I really don't benefit knowing that I hold a smart phone with hardware that if the OS and browser didn't suck would be the fastest phone on the planet! I benefit from holding a smart phone that with the combination of hardware, OS, and browser *is* the fastest smart phone on the planet.
I think the Anandtech test, while outdated at this point, is the only real and relevant measure.