Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#121

Post by stubish »

chrischen wrote: post #38
daddypro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't Broadcom be solely responsible for this? If apple buys a product, why would apple be responsible for details that went into the hardware on BC's end? Not trying to troll - but genuinely trying to understand the logic/law here.

Then there would be a loophole where you make an independent entity that “makes” something that shields infinite liability. It makes sense to go after all beneficiary owners and parties.

I see. So I guess, assuming appeals don't overturn the decision, then Apple needs to sue Broadcom for damages? I don't see Apple left holding the bag in this. Unless they would rather use it as a stick when negotiating future deals with Broadcom.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#122

Post by PunchTornado »

rudedogg wrote: post #48
bsinger98 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. If I invent a new technology I should have the right to sell it. It is not fair for the inventor to create a novel technology only to have a huge corporation steal your idea. It is similar to China stealing US IP, it ruins the incentive to actually invent new ideas. If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established corporations. For example, look…

> If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established corporations. I agree, but I don't think the current patent system does this. I think the length of patents should be reduced dramatically, 5 years sounds reasonable. It's crazy when you think about how patents last for 20 years, which doesn't really work with the current pace of technology IMO (as an example, the iPho…

Not gonna work. getting a new patent in genetic sequencing takes 10 years of research. then in 5 years you sell only a couple of products, especially if you're not the market leader. Then your competitor can use your idea while you invested billions in it.

Think about oxford nanopore and illumina for example. if illumina could just use their patents after 5 years and given that they already have 90% market share, they would be dead.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#123

Post by derf_ »

grecy wrote: post #111
bmdavi3 wrote: post #88

If it were any other company I'd get depressed and say it's another victim of the tragedy of software patents. But Apple deserves every post-Creative Labs patent victory ruled against them. For anyone that doesn't know, in 2006 Apple was caught off guard and sued by Creative Labs over the iPod, resulting in a $100 million settlement. It was total nonsense and Jobs was right to be pissed, but what does he do? Does he…

> It was total nonsense and Jobs was right to be pissed, but what does he do? Does he get fired up to bring about patent reform? No! He doubles down on software patents himself and goes on to sue Samsung in the same shitty way in 2011. I realize Jobs and Apple were/are big, but what makes you think he had any hope in hell of doing anything about patent reform?

The America Invents Act was signed into law in September 2011. This was exactly the time to do something about patent reform. There was a lot of discussion about it among tech companies at the time, but little leadership and no unified message on anything beyond, "Trolls are bad." Congress was not likely to (and did not) revisit the issue for some time afterwards.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#124

Post by serverQuestion »

nodamage wrote: post #100
bmdavi3 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. You're correct, I've wondered why this isn't mentioned more often, and maybe that's why. However even after realizing that, I personally still consider a design patent about rounded corners to be on the same level of B.S. as a software patent, and still stand by my conclusions. But I'd be interested to know why I shouldn't do that, and if you have more information I'm honestly all ears

You make it sound like Samsung was quietly doing their own thing and then were blindsided by a lawsuit from Apple. But actually after the iPhone was released Samsung deliberately went through it screen by screen and produced a 132-page report on what features and interface elements they should steal from the iPhone. https://archive.org/details/436142-samsung-relative-evaluati... I don't have a great opinion of the pa…

I mean any competitor would right? see how the other products are better and how you can use those insights to improve your own?

everybody has reports like that.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#125

Post by michaelt »

shoguning wrote: post #43
staticautomatic wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patent litigation is expensive but you would hardly need a billion-dollar war chest to monetize a portfolio with a successful litigation history. Between contingency fee arrangements and litigation financing, you could essentially print money with little downside risk, albeit with far less upside potential than if you paid sticker price to litigate.

This judgment sounds big but it can be appealed and Caltech may never collect a penny. A $200 million judgment against Apple was thrown out less than 2 years ago [1]. Most tech transfer programs at universities don't break even, they usually lose money [2]. This is even more insane than it sounds because the research is already paid for. Tech transfer deals don't even cover the university lawyers. If the patents were…

> If the patents were so valuable why wouldn't the universities be starting unicorns left and right

There's a vast gulf between the Fraunhofer MP3 patent and the commercial success of the iPod, Spotify and suchlike.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#126

Post by Retric »

skosuri wrote: post #108
Retric wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s crazy is universities don’t fund research. That’s a more central issue. They both directly profit from research and want to then own the results of that research, it’s a parasitic relationship with funding agencies.

They do. Most universities also rely on other sources to supplement research including donations, endowment spending, ip, and even tuition.

When a university’s are extracting more money from doing research on net then they invest in research that’s not funding. They do get rather creative with accounting, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion.

EX: A students tuition paid for by a research grant does not count as R&D spending by the University or even R&D.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#127

Post by ddxxdd »

PunchTornado wrote: post #122
rudedogg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established corporations. I agree, but I don't think the current patent system does this. I think the length of patents should be reduced dramatically, 5 years sounds reasonable. It's crazy when you think about how patents last for 20 years, which doesn't really work with the current pace of technology IMO (as an example, the iPho…

Not gonna work. getting a new patent in genetic sequencing takes 10 years of research. then in 5 years you sell only a couple of products, especially if you're not the market leader. Then your competitor can use your idea while you invested billions in it. Think about oxford nanopore and illumina for example. if illumina could just use their patents after 5 years and given that they already have 90% market share, the…

Solution: allow a company or individual keep a patent up until (total assets - total liabilities) / (research costs) is greater than 15.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#128

Post by throwaway_tech »

nodamage wrote: post #94
throwaway_tech wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Did CalTech's filing of this patent help Apple or Broadcom's engineers create their devices? No but Apple's patent for rounded corners didn't help Samsung engineers from creating their devices...and yet Apple filed the patent and sued Samsung for patent infringement. Caltech should be championed for trolling a troll.

> No but Apple's patent for rounded corners didn't help Samsung engineers from creating their devices...and yet Apple filed the patent and sued Samsung for patent infringement. It's unfortunate that this story has now been twisted into "Apple suing Samsung over rounded corners", when in actuality Samsung deliberately produced a 132-page report comparing the iPhone to their current phones at the time and pointed out h…

>Samsung deliberately produced a 132-page report comparing the iPhone to their current phones at the time and pointed out hundreds of features and design elements they should steal from the iPhone user interface

But that doesn't really matter, you can adopt concepts and designs from 3rd parties (including competitors) so long as the same is not protected.

The "rounded corners" was patented and infringement of the patent was a count on the lawsuit, and Samsung was found liable for infringing that patent.

What is unfortunate and "twisted" is claiming a research university is a patent troll. Research universities develop and patent new technology all the time, you could say its part of their business model, and historically they are happy to license their patents to commercial entities to take to market...very rarely do universities actually develop their new inventions for commercial purposes. Most would consider it a win-win to shift costs of development to universities, not universities being patent trolls.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#130

Post by njarboe »

tooltalk wrote: post #58
shoguning wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This judgment sounds big but it can be appealed and Caltech may never collect a penny. A $200 million judgment against Apple was thrown out less than 2 years ago [1]. Most tech transfer programs at universities don't break even, they usually lose money [2]. This is even more insane than it sounds because the research is already paid for. Tech transfer deals don't even cover the university lawyers. If the patents were…

Sure, if VirnetX's ordeal with Apple is any indication, Apple/Broadcomm would drag out the suit as long as they could -- and I predict that this can last 5-7 years easily. >If the patents were so valuable why wouldn't the universities be starting unicorns left and right with actual investors or actual revenue? Instead they try to get the money through litigation. Not sure where you are coming from, but there are many…

Yea, there is this company called Google. Stanford licensed them the PageRank algorithm for stock and later sold it for a total of $336 million in the mid 00's. Check out this for info[1]

[1]https://matr.net/news/why-stanford-is-celebrating-the-google...

Post reply on HN