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

#1

Post by _Codemonkeyism » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 5:26 AM UTC

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

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

#2

Post by pasttense01 » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 6:34 AM UTC

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.

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

#3

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

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

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

#4

Post by sitkack » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

That could fund a couple of sweet astrophysics experiments.

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

#5

Post by daddypro » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

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.

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.

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

#6

Post by randyrand » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

If 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.

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

#7

Post by hnburnsy » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

daddypro wrote: post #5

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.

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.

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

#8

Post by sjg007 » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

hnburnsy wrote: post #7

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.

Yup, I think is is called patent infringement indemnification, but I'm guessing lawyers always sue everyone with deep pockets no matter what.

Are they custom chips Broadcom developed for Apple?

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

#9

Post by hcknwscommenter » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 8:15 PM UTC

randyrand wrote: post #6

If 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.

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

#10

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

Does anyone have information about what the patent is for? Google search shows 500 general news articles with no specific information about the lawsuit.