How is this journalism? It doesn't even tell you the damn patent number.
Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
31–40 of 145 posts
Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#32How is this journalism? It doesn't even tell you the damn patent number.
At the top of the gray bar there's a "Contact BBC News" link. (Not the "contact us" link at the very bottom of the page.)
For this article it's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20039682
Please do let them know that they need to start linking, or at least naming, documents that they're talking about. They do it all the time and I agree it's annoying. They'll discuss a medical study and not have any links to it. Sometimes they don't even name the report nor where it appeared.
Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#33Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#34In general, I welcome the day when universities get what is coming to them for this kind of stuff (see also: Marvell vs CMU for 300+ million, reduced from 1.5 billion on appeal, etc).
In particular, given how much industry funds them, collaborates with their professors, etc, what is going on now is a remarkably stupid approach mostly driven by tech transfer offices that want to prove their value.
Which will be "zero", once the tech industry starts cutting them off.
Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#35Looks like the "idea" of the patent in the description is to use a predictor to predict when a STORE and LOAD alias and not speculate the LOAD and any instruction depending on the load (although the claims generalize this to any non-static dependency). As it generally happens in software/hardware patents, the claimed solution seems quite obvious whenever one wants to solve that particular problem, and the hard part i…
I strongly agree with you. To patent an idea with no definition of execution seems too broad to me.
An easy example is to patent an "opening mechanism that requires force" (door). Yes, that's an idea but can have different ways to execute, sliding door, regular opening door, suicide doors.
Now a patent on the hinge that performs the operation seems more concrete. The exact execution of said idea.
Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#36Awesome, maybe the Brewers need a new stadium too.
Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#37How is this journalism? It doesn't even tell you the damn patent number.
At the top of the gray bar there's a "Contact BBC News" link. (Not the "contact us" link at the very bottom of the page.) For this article it's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20039682 Please do let them know that they need to start linking, or at least naming, documents that they're talking about. They do it all the time and I agree it's annoying. They'll discuss a medical study and not have any links to it. Sometim…
When I see examples of that my nature is to immediately question the validity of the story.
Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#38This is sort of a depressing precedent. Do we really want to turn our universities into patent trolls?
Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#39This is sort of a depressing precedent. Do we really want to turn our universities into patent trolls?
If they are trolling other patent trolls, then why not?
Re: Apple facing huge chip patent bill after losing case
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
$862 million? > Man, that's such a humbling stat. Many of us here don't even earn that in a lifetime ! FTFY Unless I missed the /s ;)
Even more exaggerated than that. Many families don't earn that across several generations. That's about 17,000 years at $50,000/year. At 40 years of working life, you'd need over 400 people.
The combined income earned by anyone in the entirety of history who is the least bit related to me, adjusted for PPP, probably does not equal $800MM+.