The Case is Patent: Apple, Broadcom Ordered to Pay $1.1 billion to CalTech

[Vya Domus]

They have made so many infringements it is not funny.

But the thing is that everyone does it, it's simply impossible to make products of that complexity and scale these days without infringing on a plethora of patents. With everything you can find, if you search deep enough will find something, it's unavoidable. The only real thing that matters is who will find it and whether or not they figure out how they can use it to extort money from some entity.

The manner in which these patents are created and used is fundamentally flawed, there is no filter. Of course someone should be able to protect their designs to an extent but not like this, it's a straight up broken system.

For instance one of the many examples of a mind boggling patent shitshow is how Magnavox acquired a patent to "video game art " (you heard that right) and used it to make millions of dollars over the span of dozen of years from all sorts of companies.

 

[Prince Valiant]

Apple may have a point here in an appeal, but Broadcom is screwed.

Apple merely licensed the infringing product. How were they to know?

Due diligence? A multi-billion dollar company should be on top of such things.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Due diligence? A Trillion dollar company should be on top of such things.

Correction needed. No offense of course.

 

[cdawall]

Pretty sure when signing such massive deals, Apple does know what they are getting into. Any competent legal department will take a look at something like that & knowing Apple, especially their dubious patent litigation history, they would've looked into it.

If they received a patent list and it matched the patents there is no reason to look into it further.

The patents filed that are in this should never have existed and describe exactly what is wrong with the US patent system.

A serial concatenated coder includes an outer coder and an inner coder. The outer coder irregularly repeats bits in a data block according to a degree profile and scrambles the repeated bits. The scrambled and repeated bits are input to an inner coder, which has a rate substantially close to one.

This should never have been approved and a team of lawyers convinced people this case should not have been thrown out and those four patents disposed of. I do however find myself curious if Caltech comes back and files against all manufacturers using wireless N or AC since that is what the current filing against Apple and Broadcom is about.

US7116710B1 - Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes - Google Patents

A serial concatenated coder includes an outer coder and an inner coder. The outer coder irregularly repeats bits in a data block according to a degree profile and scrambles the repeated bits. The scrambled and repeated bits are input to an inner coder, which has a rate substantially close to one.

patents.google.com

US7421032B2 - Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes - Google Patents

A serial concatenated coder includes an outer coder and an inner coder. The outer coder irregularly repeats bits in a data block according to a degree profile and scrambles the repeated bits. The scrambled and repeated bits are input to an inner coder, which has a rate substantially close to one.

patents.google.com

US7916781B2 - Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes - Google Patents

A serial concatenated coder includes an outer coder and an inner coder. The outer coder irregularly repeats bits in a data block according to a degree profile and scrambles the repeated bits. The scrambled and repeated bits are input to an inner coder, which has a rate substantially close to one.

patents.google.com

US8284833B2 - Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes - Google Patents

A serial concatenated coder includes an outer coder and an inner coder. The outer coder irregularly repeats bits in a data block according to a degree profile and scrambles the repeated bits. The scrambled and repeated bits are input to an inner coder, which has a rate substantially close to one.

patents.google.com

 

[remixedcat]

Isn't Apple pretty much Broadcom's only large scale WiFi customer at this point? Given that Apple uses them exclusively and buys their chipset in the tens if not hundreds of millions each year I would guess they are quite intimately involved with their development.

Most phones have BCM wifi radios. My s9 plus, s4, a20s and my nexus 6 all have BCM wifi.

Also lots ood laptops and windows tablets as well.

BCM is also a leader in bluetooth as well.

 

[Frick]

A reminder that universities are business first, education second.

FREEEEEEEEEDOM

 

[lexluthermiester]

A reminder that universities are business first, education second.

That depends on whether or not it is a private or public University.

Private? Yes, they are a business, but they also have standards and reputations to uphold so they are always striking a balance.

Public? They are Education first and foremost. No public school can act as a profit entity, such is specifically prohibited by law. They can however make a profit as long as that profit is reinvested back into the institution in question and is equally shared with those doing the research.

In this case CalTech is a privately run entity, so they can do with the money as they please.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Due diligence? A multi-billion dollar company should be on top of such things.

Guilt is not a function of how much money you have. If we are going to hold the purchaser of component liable for copyright infringement of the component as you say, it is a small leap from there to holding people who purchased the finished product liable. You purchased a TV that had copyrighted software on it that wasn't paid for? You shoulda done your homework and known better, pay up buddy.

 

[lexluthermiester]

it is a small leap from there to holding people who purchased the finished product liable.

No it isn't. The end user has NO idea if the tech in their devices has been properly and lawfully obtained. All they know is that it is a device for sale. There is no lawful expectation for the consumer to research information they have no lawful access to. Apple however DOES have the legal expectation to be in full knowledge of what they are using in their manufacturing process. Apple was in full knowledge that the technology they were using was NOT proper obtained, thus the lawsuit and judgement against them.

You purchased a TV that had copyrighted software on it that wasn't paid for? You shoulda done your homework and known better, pay up buddy.

That is not how patent and copyright law works.. Nor should it EVER work that way.

 

[RandallFlagg]

No it isn't. The end user has NO idea if the tech in their devices has been properly and lawfully obtained. All they know is that it is a device for sale. There is no lawful expectation for the consumer to research information they have no lawful access to. Apple however DOES have the legal expectation to be in full knowledge of what they are using in their manufacturing process. Apple was in full knowledge that the technology they were using was NOT proper obtained, thus the lawsuit and judgement against them.

There is no lawful expectation that Asus go our and check for patent issues when they buy a chip from Broadcom to use in one of their manufactured motherboards. Why would there be such an expectation of Apple?

The law is all about precedent and pattern, and despite your snarky response the pattern / precedent that this ruling would set is that the purchaser of a product or component of a product is somehow liable for patents/copyright issues with said product. First you might say manufacturer, buying a component from a 3rd party, is somehow liable for what that 3rd party did. That pattern is not much different from holding a purchaser of finished product liable - since from the manufacturer's standpoint they are buying a finished product (a chip). What if I go out and buy a chip to use in my Arduino project, do I need to check all their patents too?

I was giving an example and you responded as if it were my statement. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point.

That is not how patent and copyright law works.. Nor should it EVER work that way.

Then people shouldn't let their hate of Apple move them to support stupid LEGAL PRECEDENTS like this one that lead to slippery slopes.

If you buy a product from a manufacturer (regardless of if YOU are a manufacturer or not), any copyright / patent issues with said product should fall on the originator of the product. Not the purchaser.

 

[lexluthermiester]

There is no lawful expectation that Asus go our and check for patent issues when they buy a chip from Broadcom to use in one of their manufactured motherboards. Why would there be such an expectation of Apple?

The law is all about precedent and pattern, and despite your snarky response the pattern / precedent that this ruling would set is that the purchaser of a product or component of a product is somehow liable for patents/copyright issues with said product. First you might say manufacturer, buying a component from a 3rd party, is somehow liable for what that 3rd party did. That pattern is not much different from holding a purchaser of finished product liable - since from the manufacturer's standpoint they are buying a finished product (a chip). What if I go out and buy a chip to use in my Arduino project, do I need to check all their patents too?

I was giving an example and you responded as if it were my statement. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point.



Then people shouldn't let their hate of Apple move them to support stupid LEGAL PRECEDENTS like this one that lead to slippery slopes.

If you buy a product from a manufacturer (regardless of if YOU are a manufacturer or not), any copyright / patent issues with said product should fall on the originator of the product. Not the purchaser.

That whole comment says three things;
1. You have no idea how liabilities work in the law.
2. You have taken personally the comments made that are not in favor of Apple.
3. You are not being objective.

 

[kapone32]

But the thing is that everyone does it, it's simply impossible to make products of that complexity and scale these days without infringing on a plethora of patents. With everything you can find, if you search deep enough will find something, it's unavoidable. The only real thing that matters is who will find it and whether or not they figure out how they can use it to extort money from some entity.

The manner in which these patents are created and used is fundamentally flawed, there is no filter. Of course someone should be able to protect their designs to an extent but not like this, it's a straight up broken system.

For instance one of the many examples of a mind boggling patent shitshow is how Magnavox acquired a patent to "video game art " (you heard that right) and used it to make millions of dollars over the span of dozen of years from all sorts of companies.

I know but I was refering specifically to Apple in the thread. One of my favourites is Asetek and how they almost atgnated the AIO market with their pump/block patent .