Cause someone will make this comment eventually: "Caltech" not "CalTech". :)
CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
21–30 of 137 posts
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#22Earlier 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.
Yup, I think is is called patent infringement indemnification, but I'm guessing lawyers always sue everyone with deep pockets no matter what.
There is also the idea of patent exhaustion, which is that you get your royalties when the thing is implemented (ie the chip) and you don't get any more when that chip is re-sold. Of course Broadcom has some really wild patent "license" deals where they make you license the patent and buy the chips (that is also the subject of a court case)
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly. However, very few "single individual[s]" would have the resources to fund such inventions AND the associated patent procurement AND fund such a litigation. Moreover, this will be appealed and the final outcome could take a decade.
Your last point has me thinking - hypothetically if an individual were in this situation, could they sell 'equity' in the eventual settlement in order to take money off the table now, rather than go bankrupt from legal expenses etc and get nothing? E.g. Sell 50% of the initially ruled $1.1B settlement for, say, $100MM. Anything like this ever happened?
The patent game more then a 100 years ago was great for the sole inventor. Now it's a game that's insanely & wrongfully stacked against those folks. Nowadays you need a war chest behind you to secure patents and even worse fight for your rights in court against another war chest that will litigate for years and years until someone's war chest is depleted or almost depleted.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#24This decision saddens me.
I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation.
Anything that gives universities more of an incentive to pursue the patent angle, which this judgment does, will therefore be bad for science. :-(
(In CS, whole areas have become minefields for this reason. For example go out and implement a wavelet compression algorithm for images without violating any patents. Are you sure you didn't violate patents? Really sure? Exactly!)
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#25This decision saddens me. I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation. Anything that gives universities more of an incentive to pursue the patent angle, which this judgment does, will therefore be bad for science. :-( (In CS, whole areas have become minefields for this reas…
But in this case, a research institution is getting more money, presumably to be able to fund further research.
It seems like a perfect counter example of what your worries are about slowing progress.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly. However, very few "single individual[s]" would have the resources to fund such inventions AND the associated patent procurement AND fund such a litigation. Moreover, this will be appealed and the final outcome could take a decade.
Your last point has me thinking - hypothetically if an individual were in this situation, could they sell 'equity' in the eventual settlement in order to take money off the table now, rather than go bankrupt from legal expenses etc and get nothing? E.g. Sell 50% of the initially ruled $1.1B settlement for, say, $100MM. Anything like this ever happened?
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#27The issues here are simply too complicated for juries to decide--particularly the amounts of money. If Apple was simply using devices it purchased from Broadcom, Broadcom should be responsible for all the damages.
Which is why both sides bring in, and cross-examine experts to help the jury decide.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#28This decision saddens me. I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation. Anything that gives universities more of an incentive to pursue the patent angle, which this judgment does, will therefore be bad for science. :-( (In CS, whole areas have become minefields for this reas…
But in this case, a research institution is getting more money, presumably to be able to fund further research. It seems like a perfect counter example of what your worries are about slowing progress.
I bet that the money that they get will largely go to lawyers, administration, and increased efforts around finding/litigating patents on current research.
I am extremely dubious that it will result in research that advances the state of science. Science flourishes best when you share results and hypotheses early and often, then get feedback/inspire others. But that type of communication threatens patents, so inspires people to put their research into black boxes until the legal paperwork has been filed.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in this case, a research institution is getting more money, presumably to be able to fund further research. It seems like a perfect counter example of what your worries are about slowing progress.
I bet that the money that they get will largely go to lawyers, administration, and increased efforts around finding/litigating patents on current research. I am extremely dubious that it will result in research that advances the state of science. Science flourishes best when you share results and hypotheses early and often, then get feedback/inspire others. But that type of communication threatens patents, so inspire…
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.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#30If the patents were owned by a single individual instead of caltech, would the verdict be as large? They’d instantly be in the top 3000 richest people in the world.
Possibly. However, very few "single individual[s]" would have the resources to fund such inventions AND the associated patent procurement AND fund such a litigation. Moreover, this will be appealed and the final outcome could take a decade.
That's not how trolling works. Your out of pocket cost for patent prosecution is maybe $20K or $30K per. If you want to litigate, you enter into a contingency or mixed-fee arrangement with a plaintiff firm and possibly also a litigation financier, depending upon the size of your pocketbook and your appetite for risk. Your lawyers build up a war chest by shaking down easy targets until it's big enough that they can lay siege to a big opponent. It's become more difficult to do this than it used to be due to recent developments in patent law, but it's still eminently possible and happens all the time. This is, in fact, how plaintiff litigation works in a number of other civil case types.