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

51–60 of 137 posts

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

#51

Post by poizan42 »

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…

> For example go out and implement a wavelet compression algorithm for images without violating any patents.

Aren't those expiring around this time? I'm thinking a lot of the work was in the late 1990ies, e.g. jpeg2k was developed 1997-2000.

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

#52

Post by strbean »

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 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.

See the mess around CRISPR patents for an excellent example of this.

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

#53

Post by stefan_ »

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.

There are tons of ways to avoid a jury panel. You find any sort of prior art and patents, along with any suits, simply vanish; you file a challenge with the patent office for reexamination, an expert there decides it's invalid, the case disappears.

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

#54

Post by stefan_ »

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.

You mean like they make shell companies for patents so any adverse judgements don't sink the whole boat? Hell yeah, lets have it then.

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

#55

Post by tooltalk »

btilly wrote: post #28
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.

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…

what "black box" are you talking about? Caltech is a major research institution -- their invention was published and widely cited (according to Google, by 840+ papers), so others clearly benefitted from their work. It seems only major tech companies making billions by selling wireless gears didn't know about it.

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

#56

Post by exjdjeejfh »

dgacmu wrote: post #47
coldpie wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It sounds to me like you're the one purposely changing the definition to discredit them. It's obvious from social cues that they're not using a strict legal definition.

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

#57

Post by msla »

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 agree that research institutions shouldn't pursue patents, but I think patents in general have some value, because they discourage companies from relying on trade secrets, which used to be the norm, and is why certain ancient and medieval inventions were lost once the guilds dissolved and took their trade secrets with them.

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

#58

Post by tooltalk »

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…

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 University research tech spinoff's in the US, especially in the SF Bay area.

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

#59

Post by pacetherace »

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…

Universities want to generate royalty from the patents. Their motivation is not to block others from using their patents.

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

#60

Post by tooltalk »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #3

I.e. Broadcom stole Caltech patents and didn't pay royalties. Apple uses Broadcom chips (like many others). So they'll pay too.

Yep, it's called secondary infringement. Apple knows how to play the game -- Apple sued Samsung for Google Android specific features found in Samsung smartphones a few years ago (though the jury found no infringement).
Post reply on HN