CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by btilly » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #34

Live by the sword, die by the sword. I wonder when Apple, Broadcom, etc., will have enough of these pyrrhic patent lawsuit victories and start lobbying for an end, or at least a major curtailment, of the patent system.

According to economic theory, the ability of a company to sustain profits in the long term is based on having barriers to entry to their market. This kind of patent threat is a barrier to entry, and suffering on the losing end of them is rent on the profit margin that they have been able to sustain.

Therefore, even with these losses, the patent system is worthwhile for them.

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

#42

Post by throwaway_tech » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:46 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #40

rileymat2 wrote: post #25

Earlier 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.

Did CalTech's filing of this patent help Apple or Broadcom's engineers create their devices? I sincerely doubt it. This is just patent trolling, and Caltech should be shamed for it.

>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.

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

#43

Post by shoguning » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

staticautomatic wrote: post #29

btilly wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 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.

It's sad (and a waste of money) that universities have become fixated on being get-rich-quick patent trolls instead of doing transformational research.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/&apple-wins-reversal-in-univ... [2] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/10/09/the-changing-face-of-u...

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

#44

Post by coldpie » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:05 PM UTC

throwaway_tech wrote: post #42

coldpie wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did CalTech's filing of this patent help Apple or Broadcom's engineers create their devices? I sincerely doubt it. This is just patent trolling, and Caltech should be shamed for it.

>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.

If Caltech ever framed their lawsuit in those terms, I would agree with you. I doubt they have. Caltech clearly has a history of patent trolling.

https://www.law360.com/articles/652442/dish-hughes-escape-so...

https://www.reuters.com/article/intuitivesurgical-lawsuit-id...

https://www.zdnet.com/article/sony-settles-digital-camera-la...

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

#45

Post by bsinger98 » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:11 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #24

This 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…

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 at the Wright Brothers. They invented the airplane and didn't make any money. They spent their entire life suing people for stealing their idea. The system should encourage and incentivize creating ground breaking inventions.

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

#46

Post by coldpie » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

b1ur wrote: post #35

btilly wrote: post #24

This 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…

I personally think that patents are necessary to promote independent (i.e. non-corporate) innovation. If an individual has a novel idea they should be entitled to some of the money that a corporation makes using that idea. Of course, the US patent system is pretty deeply flawed. I participated in a study involving patent infringement allegations between two big companies, and my opinion was consistently "Why was this…

> If an individual has a novel idea they should be entitled to some of the money that a corporation makes using that idea.

Absolutely not. Suppose I, Mr Independent Inventor, come up with some idea and convince the patent office to grant me a patent, and then proceed to do exactly nothing with it. Five years later, Ms Employed Engineer working at ABC Corp comes up with the same idea, and they manage to turn it into a product, which becomes successful. I contributed nothing to their product. Why on Earth am I owed any money for their work?

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

#47

Post by dgacmu » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #44

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.

If Caltech ever framed their lawsuit in those terms, I would agree with you. I doubt they have. Caltech clearly has a history of patent trolling. https://www.law360.com/articles/652442/dish-hughes-escape-so... https://www.reuters.com/article/intuitivesurgical-lawsuit-id... https://www.zdnet.com/article/sony-settles-digital-camera-la...

You don't seem to use the common definition of a patent troll. Caltech very clearly is in the business of inventing real, new technology. You can disagree with their filing of infringement lawsuits, but they're not a troll in the way the typical NPE is.

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

#48

Post by rudedogg » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:30 PM UTC

bsinger98 wrote: post #45

btilly wrote: post #24

This 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…

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 iPhone wasn't released until 2007). So you can't use anything Apple patented to make the ORIGINAL iPhone work until... 2027? That doesn't seem good for humanity to me.

If the lengths were reduced, and the requirements much more strict, I think the world would be a better place.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent

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

#49

Post by senderista » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #13

pasttense01 wrote: post #2

The 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.

> The issues here are simply too complicated for juries to decide--particularly the amounts of money. That's why the appeals courts exist.

Pretty much any case requiring non-trivial evaluation of evidence is unsuited for a jury trial. Outsourcing the adjudication of justice to a dozen random people is stupidity on a par with deciding complex policy issues by popular referendum. There's a reason the non-Anglo-American developed world doesn't do it this way.

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

#50

Post by simonh » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:36 PM UTC

bsinger98 wrote: post #45

btilly wrote: post #24

This 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…

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…

Their problem was that other engineers didn’t actually use the novel tech the brothers invented in their airplanes. The basic idea of putting an engine with a propeller on a winged vehicle was not novel, it had been tried many times before. It was simply a matter of power to weight ratios and aerodynamics knowledge crossing the right threshold.

Their key innovation was wing warping for control, but the industry rapidly switched to flaps and ailerons, leaving the brothers’ main innovation behind. Their aerodynamic concepts were advanced, but again others pushed beyond their concepts very quickly.

So their technical innovations were brilliant, but not used extensively by later engineers.