Apple Ordered To Pay $506 Million In Damages For Processor Patent Infringement (hothardware.com)

MojoKid writes from a report via Hot Hardware: Apple has been ordered to feed a recognized patent troll hundreds of millions of dollars for infringing on a patent that has to do with technology built into its A-series mobile processors. Initially Apple was on the hook for $234 million, owed to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) after it won a patent dispute against the Cupertino tech giant. However, a judge this week more than doubled the fine by tacking on an additional $272 million. U.S District Judge William Conley in Madison ruled that Apple owed additional damages plus interest because it continued to infringe on the patent all the way up until it expired in 2016. WARF is reportedly a non-practicing entity that exists only currently by defending its patents in litigation. The lawsuit filed in 2014 involves U.S. Patent No. 5,871,752, which describes the use of a predictor circuit that can help processors run more efficiently. WARF claimed the technology was used in Apple's A7, A8, and A8X processors that power the iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, and various iterations of the iPad. Apple is not commenting on the matter, though it's being reported that Apple plans to fight and appeal the ruling.

Comments

Re: All that predictor technology...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, WARF is not a patent troll. They genuinely represent university inventors and feed through licensing revenues to said inventors (in fact, for federally funded patents, this practice is required by law).

Royalties

[JBMcB]

If they are interested in making money on patents, then they should either make a product using those patents, or sell them to someone who can use them.

In any case, often times, even coming from universities, the patents applied for are minor tweaks on existing, well established technology. A branch predictor circuit? Those have been around for decades. The really advanced designs were on DEC Alpha chips, whose patents are now held, I believe, by HP. They did global prediction, which sounds an awful lot like what the WARF patent does, and the Alpha came out the same year the WARF patent was filed (it was issued two years later.)

Re:Royalties

[Baloroth]

If they are interested in making money on patents, then they should either make a product using those patents, or sell them to someone who can use them.

It represents a university. Universities don't make products, they conduct research. Some of that research has practical usage, some of it doesn't (that's part of the idea of a university: they can conduct basic research, not just product development). The technology that is potentially useful can be licensed to fund more basic research, which is the idea behind WARF. It's a non-profit that handles the licensing and feeds the money back into funding research. WARF may not make a product, but they certainly don't follow classical patent-troll patterns (not least of which is, you know, being a non-profit, which kinda undermines the entire motivation behind patent trolling).

A branch predictor circuit? Those have been around for decades.

Coincidentally, so has the patent: it was filed 1996. I don't know enough about the technology to say much, but it certainly doesn't sound like a troll patent.

Not a troll.

[msauve]

Patent trolls take questionable patents and go after companies without the resources to put up a good defense, hoping they'll decide it's cheaper to settle. They want to avoid litigation at all costs, because a loss threatens their business model.

A non-practicing entity _could_ be a patent troll, but not here. Apple has vast resources to defend itself, did so in court, and lost because the court determined that they were infringing a valid patent.

Re:All that predictor technology...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former researcher at the University of Wisconsin, I can reassure you that WARF is not a patent troll. WARF is a frequent target of accusations of being a patent troll, but they are a legit arm of the university. They get a bit of a bad rep because they're much more aggressive in asserting their patent rights than other public universities. The patents are certainly real, and they're based on real research. WARF won't pursue bullshit patents just because they think they might generate a payout, they only pursue stuff that is legitimately applicable and interesting.

If anything, I'd say they're overly conservative in what they choose to patent. My grad research was patentable, but they opted not to just because THEY didn't understand the application. Wish I'd gone out and paid for it myself, it's the hot new thing in a certain growing tech sector.

Re:Conflict of Interest

[msauve]

"Ordered to pay the University of Wisconsin."

Nope. Get your facts straight:

WARF is a separate, independent 501(c)3 foundation which serves as the dedicated patenting and licensing organization for UW-Madison... faculty, staff and students are not obligated to assign their intellectual property to WARF, unless required to do so by federal law or the terms of a sponsored research agreement with a third party.

Some people think universities are mostly trolls

[Kernel Kurtz]

WARF is reportedly a non-practicing entity that exists only currently by defending its patents in litigation.

My first question would be does anyone else license this patent from them?

Actually it looks like they do. http://www.businessinsider.com... (the single page link does not seem to work)

I'm not sure troll applies to this company anymore than it does to Apple itself.

I did like one of the comments on the linked article from 2014 though;

"So apple get sued for patent infringement is patent trolling but apple suing for rectangles with rounded corners or unlocking by sliding your finger (on a touchscreen!) Is fine...."