Slashdot Mirror


Apple Loses Patent Suit To University of Wisconsin, Faces Huge Damages (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Apple has frequently been in the news for various patent battles, but it's usually against one of their competitors. This time, Apple is on the losing end, and they're losing to the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A jury found that the university's patent on improving processor efficiency (5,781,752) was valid, and Apple's A7, A8, and A8X chips infringed upon it. Those chips are found within recent iPhone and iPad models, which generated huge amounts of money. Because of the ruling, Apple could be liable for up to $826.4 million in damages, to be determined by later phases of the trial.

19 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Live by the sword, die by the sword. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm generally pretty against patents.

    However, I love seeing bad things happen to bad people, especially if it's ironic punishment. Yeah patents should probably be scrapped, but anyone who tries to patent rounded courners and then sues deserves to lose patent lawsuits.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      such as the concept of an integrated app store

      You mean like Cydia: the first app store for the iPhone? Fun fact it was available via a jailbreak before apple launched an app store.

      I'm not sure why they bothered with superficial patents on things like the shape of the device's packaging

      Because they're not much of an innovator. This is not a troll. They've never been terribly good at inventing brand new things. What they do very well, arguably better than anyone else is taking a bunch of existing but not very popular technologies and producing an implementation which doesn't massively suck before anyone else.

      I don't believbe I'm doing them a disservice with that, doing such a thing is clearly very hard else they wouldn't be the first people to do it after others have tried and failed. But it's not generally protectable with patents.

      In actual fact, I think claiming Apple has made innovations where they haven't is actually doing them a disservice because it detracts from what they are uniquely good at.

      Look at the history of things they're well known for:

      The iPod: the canonical MP3 player. Not the first, afterall we know it had no wireless and less space than the Nomad (lame!) but by far the most popular and became synonymous with MP player. Due in large part because all the ones before had horrendous interfaces and other awful misfeatures.

      Smartphones: IBM invented the concept of the toucscreen only phone in 1993. Nokia had this device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... AT&T pretty much nailed the real concept of a smartphone http://www.xorl.org/people/njh... as one might recognise it with a decent UI and apps, except it needed a remote application server, too much connectivity and generally the tech wasn't up to it in 1998. Heck, they weren't even the first to put multitouch on a phone. What they did was combine all those elements in a way which didn't suck.

      And so on.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Informative

      The iPod had large "misfeatures" for most at the time it was released: It was firewire and Mac-only.

      Mac only limited the market, but I don't think that made it suck. Firewire was a good choice at the time: all macs had firewire. USB2 was only juuuuust out and if you cast your mind back to 2001, it stank. The chipsets were yound and flakey as was the software. Firewire was much faster, and much more reliable.

      Eventually USB2 realised it's potential and stopped sucking and actually caught up with firewire in terms of actual speed, but that took years.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because they're not much of an innovator. This is not a troll. They've never been terribly good at inventing brand new things.

      Agree with everything you said except this part. They're not a hardware innovator. If you've opened up Macbooks to repair them, you'll find the same commodity parts used by every other laptop manufacturer. Heck, they're not even made by Apple, they're made by Quanta, an ODM (original design manufacturer - like an OEM except they also design the product). You wouldn't believe the number of people I've had to argue with about that; they seem to think Macbooks contain Apple-brand fairy dust and unicorn horn powder inside It's like telling a kid Santa doesn't exist when I tell them the CPU is by Intel, the awesome-performing SSD is by hated Samsung, the memory by Micron, the screen by LG, etc. Those are the companies doing the true hardware innovation; Apple is just buying and reselling their products.

      But the one area Apple is really good at and really does innovate in is software. The iPod for example was successful mostly because of its tight integration with iTunes. Before that, it was a PITA to convert the music files on your computer into playlists on your MP3 player. Most involved connecting your MP3 player to your computer and dragging and dropping the individual MP3s, converting playlist files, automatic sorting via artist names stored in the MP3 (or not stored if you ripped it yourself), alphabetical sorting which sometimes got messed up depending on upper and lower case names, songs which disappeared because they were buried in the folder structure, etc. Before iTunes became a bloated mess, Apple nailed how synchronization of your music collection across devices should work. Likewise, Time Machine is the best UI I've seen on a backup program. The Macbooks are considered to have the best trackpads not because they're physically better but because they have the best software. The software augments the usability of the hardware enough to catapult the hardware into success.

      Smartphones: IBM invented the concept of the toucscreen only phone in 1993. Nokia had this device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... AT&T pretty much nailed the real concept of a smartphone http://www.xorl.org/people/njh... as one might recognise it with a decent UI and apps, except it needed a remote application server, too much connectivity and generally the tech wasn't up to it in 1998. Heck, they weren't even the first to put multitouch on a phone.

      To add to your list, here's pinch to zoom in 1988

    4. Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The difference is that all of those smartphones had major flaws, shit operating systems that treated a handheld the same as a desktop computer, terrible web browsers, crap media playback, crap battery life.

      Raise your hand if you've used a Windows Mobile device for any time at all, and didn't have to find the task manager to shut down runaway processes that were eating memory and battery. Look, no hands raised. There was a reason why even in 2006 that Blackberry was dropping the hammer on everyone - they'd at least gotten email and messaging to work properly.

      Apple and Google got into this business because everyone else was fucking the dog. No, they didn't 'invent' smartphones - they just created smartphones that people actually want to use and don't hate.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple Tax

      I'm not an Apple fan: I can't stand 'em, but I'm pretty sure the Apple tax is a myth. Last time I was shopping for laptops, for comparable weight, size, build quality, speed, memory and performance the Macbook Air was pretty close in price to similar machines such as the Zenbook UX11 (when that was current).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Mostly because lawyers are typically very dumb, and lawyers are who file the patents.

      Patent lawyers are required to have degrees in STEM fields. They don't just let any Tom,Dick, or Harry esquire become a patent attorney. You are not dealing with someone that did underwater basket weaving as their undergrad degree.

      (that probably makes the situation all the more sinister)

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      A shame this got modded as Flamebait, since it's exactly the right answer. For some reason, many Slashdotters seem to be completely unaware (or perhaps willfully ignorant) of the distinction between utility patents (i.e. what we think of when we say "patents") and design patents, which are something else entirely. As a result, when they hear that "Apple got a patent on rounded corners", they rightfully think that's utterly ridiculous and an example of a broken patent system, when it's actually nothing of the sort, since design patents more closely resemble a time-limited trademark than they do a utility patent.

      The reality of the situation, is that Apple is one of likely thousands of entities with design patents that include a claim for rounded corners. That's because those design patents aren't just making a claim for rounded corners. They're for rounded corners + a long list of additional claims that makes each of those products uniquely identifiable as the product they are. In the case of the iPhone 5 series, the design patent was for something along the lines of rounded corners + chamfered edges + aluminum trim + flat glass front + aluminum back + no adornment on the front + some other stuff I'm forgetting. I've seen a similar design patent filed by Samsung that covers some of their phones, and, as you'd expect, rounded corners were included in their list of claims as well. Again, each claim is considered alongside the other claims, rather than independently of the other claims, and for a competitor to be infringing, they need to be infringing against not just one of the claims, but against many or all of them. After all, rounded corners do not an iPhone make.

      In the end, I'm just disappointed that there's a cadre of Slashdotters who appear to be willfully phrasing it as they do so as to confuse the issue, since in most subjects we discuss here, the commenters are seeking the truth of the situation. Unfortunately, when it comes to discussions that elicit fanboy-ish responses, they would rather seek out phrasings that help suit their narrative, rather than accurately convey the facts as they are.

  2. Jury competence? by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a very technical patent having to do with prediction. Not predicting branches, but predicting data. It might even be valid - I haven't kept up with processor architecture for too long. The gigantic question is: given the state of the art at the time this patent was filed, is it a logical extension obvious to a person "skilled in the art". That would be a very tough question to answer, even for an expert in the field.

    Just how is a jury of non-technical people supposed to figure this out?

    I'm sure they will have heard from Apple's experts: "This is obvious, a kid could figure it out", and the university's experts: "wow, what a clever invention". How will they have judged and compared these expert opinions? Their charisma? Their hairstyle?

    The whole patent system is one gigantic disaster. Even for potentially valid patents, the process is just wrong.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  3. Re:Who would receive this money? by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As with almost all patents, most definitely not the people who actually came up with the invention.

    Engineers should form some kind of intellectual property defence league and refuse to sign employment contracts that blanket assign all inventions to an employer for a wine and cheese basket and day off. Of course employers deserve some level of ownership for creating the environment in which the innovations could occur, but without the engineers they would have neither the environment or the ideas.

    Intellectual property is increasingly becoming one of the most valuable assets in our economy, yet most engineers trade their ideas for an hourly wage that is barely enough to buy a place to live in most cities now.

  4. Paging Governor Walker by overshoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a nice windfall for the Job Creators of Wisconsin. This may be as much as another $800 million you can cut from University funding.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  5. Re:Love that this is modded troll by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it trolling or flamebait to point that large companies are constantly suing one another over patents which mostly seem obvious to us, and that it's about time one of them came up short?

    I don't care if you're a Microsoft fanboi, an Apple fanboi, a Google fanboi, or a Samsung fanboi ... these patents and the lawsuits which stem from them more or less amount of a bunch of multi-billion dollar corporations carving up the industry and making sure nobody else can get into the game.

    Patents are probably doing more to stifle innovation that foster it, precisely because they all patent even the smallest thing to have in their war chest.

    Honestly, seeing the big players getting screwed in patent lawsuits gives me hope at some point they'll all wise up and start pushing for patent reform themselves.

    Because as long as it's a stacked deck which makes them huge amounts of money, they have no interest in things ever changing. If the only way for things to change is by costing these guys a bunch of money, bring it on.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Re: You are joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Yeah, 800 million dollars is nothing. You fucking idiot."

    They have $212 billion that they can't figure out what to do with. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the bank.

    And that's *Mister* fucking idiot to you.

  7. They did the same to Intel by dlenmn · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the people who actually hold the patents (the university isn't allowed to have them directly), did a similar thing to Intel not all that long ago (5 years?). I guess I can't complain since WARF funds my research (and a lot of research on campus -- having an internal funding mechanism is great). However, I recall that a bunch of the Intel money was supposed to go to the college of engineering (COE), which seems to have spent the money redecorating Engineering Hall (which, admittedly, is super ugly) and cutting ECE teaching assistant positions. It would be nice if the COE got a chunk of this and actually put it to good use...

  8. $823 Million ... 0.4% of Apple's cash on hand by enjar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple has somewhere around $200 billion in cash. If they have to pay $823 million they still will have around $200 billion in cash.

    If you buy something for around $200, do you care if it's $200 or $200.80? Do you really miss the extra 0.80?

  9. WARF gets it by dlenmn · · Score: 4, Informative

    The money goes to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). The university isn't allowed to own the patents directly. That means that the university and state can't just raid the money as they see fit, which is probably a good thing.

    WARF doles out the money in various ways. Much goes to research on campus, some goes to "faculty retention" (i.e. when another university tries to poach a strong faculty member, WARF steps in with money to keep them here), some is administrative costs (WARF assists university personnel in getting patents), some gets returned directly to the university, some goes to the people who did the research to get the patent, etc.

    In short, the answer is "all of the above and more".

  10. Re:Better coverage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hi,

    I've done CPU design. I'm not a professional, but I'm definitely familiar with it. The amazing thing about a lot of CPU innovations is, once thought up, they seem incredibly obvious. But you get somebody holding your hand and you're trying to think of what they did before they flat out tell you, and it usually only dawns on you about 1 or 2 steps before they flat out tell you.

    Just because something seems obvious once you've been told about it, doesn't mean it was obvious.

  11. Re:Prior art? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

    This patent is a bit different to what RISC and MIPS were doing back then. It involves out of order execution, which IIRC ARM didn't do in the Acorn Archimedes era. When doing OoO execution the CPU executes instructions based not on the order in which they are programmed, but on the order in which its resources are available to them (ALUs, FPUs, bus access etc.) This patent also predicts when data produced by one instruction will be needed by another, in a very specific way.

    Other manufacturers have either licensed it or used a difference scheme to do data prediction, but the specific method they claim appears to be novel, or at least was back in 1998.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  12. University patents funded by the public by laughingskeptic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These university patents are paid for by the tax-paying public, why does this no longer make them public domain?