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

How could it possibly be irrelevant to whether or not Via has been harmed or not, whether they have been harmed or not? :confused:

You seem to agree with me, and yet you dont. I just dont get you here :- )

----------

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.

You sue wherever your ip is infringed. But by all means s/ARM/Apple - happy?
 
You sue wherever your ip is infringed. But by all means s/ARM/Apple - happy?

That's not what they are doing though. The easiest solution would be to sue ARM, win, and then collect part of ARM's royalties for all of their licensees. Instead, they chose to sue someone who would presumably be their customer. It doesn't look like someone trying to protect their IP or revenue structure. It looks like someone trying to capitalize on a group of companies being overly litigious.
 
Exactly. Every time Apple is sued, they are the victim of greedy evil idiots. When they sue, they are morally 100% right. Is it any wonder people hate Apple-fanatics?

This is exactly what makes me embarrassed about owning a mac computer. I even have to explain to people I have no loyalty towards the company, or any other for that matter.

There are many examples of the apple-obsessed individuals, some in this thread (wont name names but its obvious who though). Its unfortunate that people instead of thinking rationally would rather devote their lives to a BRAND! No you can't think logically as a consumer, thats stupid. You have to be completely on the side of Apple.

Makes me sick to know this is how far people will go with their love for a company.
 
How could it possibly be irrelevant to whether or not Via has been harmed or not, whether they have been harmed or not? :confused:

Assuming the patents are valid, a patent suit against Apple is to recoup what VIA should have been paid had Apple properly licensed the patents, plus any penalties, and possibly punitive damages to discourage such behavior in the future.

It's not about a vague concept of harm in competition with a third company (ARM). That would create its own different basis for a lawsuit against ARM.
 
These lawsuits are eventually going to hurt Apple, regardless of whether they are suing or being sued. Too much negative energy.
 
This is exactly what makes me embarrassed about owning a mac computer. I even have to explain to people I have no loyalty towards the company, or any other for that matter.

There are many examples of the apple-obsessed individuals, some in this thread (wont name names but its obvious who though). Its unfortunate that people instead of thinking rationally would rather devote their lives to a BRAND! No you can't think logically as a consumer, thats stupid. You have to be completely on the side of Apple.

Makes me sick to know this is how far people will go with their love for a company.
Why don't you change your sig so you aren't a complete hypocrite?
 
These suits are over patents that have nothing to do with ARM architecture in the first place. While a story at geek.com seems to say the patents relate to x86 architecture (?) the description they give — double operand loading and bidirectional FP to integer conversion — would not be ARM type operations but would be part of the GPU. The Apple Ax processors integrate a GPU into the processor, so that would be where VIA sees a patent infringement.
 
That's not what they are doing though. The easiest solution would be to sue ARM, win, and then collect part of ARM's royalties for all of their licensees. Instead, they chose to sue someone who would presumably be their customer. It doesn't look like someone trying to protect their IP or revenue structure. It looks like someone trying to capitalize on a group of companies being overly litigious.

i was in a rush, and quite distracted. end result: shitpoor wording.
also, s/arm/apple means: replace arm with apple.

either way, (i.e. if ARM and/or Apples ARM are infringing), they can do as they see best fit. for example, in going after Apple they might score some cash, while going after ARM perhaps is more likely to end up with a cross-license deal (which then, perhaps, would make them unable to go after Apple). When presented with choice, the rational thing is to try and pick the best one. Simply put, this might be that choice - a choice which is their right to make.

----------

Assuming the patents are valid, a patent suit against Apple is to recoup what VIA should have been paid had Apple properly licensed the patents, plus any penalties, and possibly punitive damages to discourage such behavior in the future.

It's not about a vague concept of harm in competition with a third company (ARM). That would create its own different basis for a lawsuit against ARM.

Im still awfully confused here. Are we disagreeing on anything?
 
would not be ARM type operations but would be part of the GPU. The Apple Ax processors integrate a GPU into the processor, so that would be where VIA sees a patent infringement.

Then go after Imagination Technologies, the licensor of the PowerVR GPU in the Apple Ax chips, and many others.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.