6 ms·

The patent in question is for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors, and it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Upon cursory glance, that appears to

• tyingq 8y ago
  Oh, geez. It really does look like a patent for (paraphrased): A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result
  • marshray 8y ago
    In my 1972 Ford Maverick, I could turn on the headlights and the lighting in the interior console would adjust accordingly.
    • tyingq 8y ago
      My 80's boombox did this in a pretty binary way. Plugging in the AC adapter mechanically lifted the contact to the batteries. Still a detection followed by a current draw adjustment.
      • judge2020 8y ago
        Watch out, Qualcomm is going after you next.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
  • herniatedeel 8y ago
    Both the patent and the finding of patent infringement are a bit more complicated than that. In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed. Claim 1 recites: A multiple supply voltage device comprising: a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a control signal, said control network comprising: an up/down (up/down) detector configured to detect a power state of said core network; processing circuitry coupled to said up/down detector and configured to generate said control signal based on said power state; one or more feedback circuits coupled to said up/down detector, said one or more feedback circuits configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a current capacity of said up/down detector; at least one first transistor coupled to a second supply voltage, the at least one more first transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered down and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered on; at least one second transistor coupled in series with the at least one first transistor and coupled to said first supply voltage, the at least one second transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered on and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered down; at least one third transistor coupled in series between the at least one first transistor and the at least one second transistor.
    • tyingq 8y ago
      That's what I paraphrased, other than it involves 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that.
      • jcranmer 8y ago
        If you don't have 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that, you don't violate the patent. (Actually, at least 2 transistors, the other two independent claims cover cases where you replace the third transistor with something else). You don't violate a patent by violating a loose summary of the patent, you have to specifically violate the claims in full.
        • jacobolus 8y ago
  • jcranmer 8y ago
    Here is a brief guide to reading patents: * Ignore the title, it will only confuse you. * Ignore the abstract, it will only confuse you. * Ignore the figures, it will only confuse you. * Ignore the description, it doesn't matter. * Jump straight to the claims (the only thing left in the patent). This is literally the only thing that matters in the entire document. * Ignore most of the claims--anything that says "the thing of claim N". You can't violate those without violating other parts of the patent, by definition. The Google patent view helpfully puts these in lighter gray. * You can also generally go straight only to the first claim, because the other claims end up being subtly-reworded variations of the first claim. * This claim is, in short, "A thing comprising A, B, and C." You have to have all of A, B, and C to violate the patent. If you have just A and B and no C, you don't violate it. If you have A, B, and something that is similar to C but you used a relay where C says to use a transistor, you don't violate it.
    • tyingq 8y ago
      The point is that it isn't novel. Novelty is supposed to be a requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. This patent is like making a drink by mixing 4 different fruit juices, but stirring it with a teak spoon. No identical prior art, very specific claims. Not novel.
      • sneak 8y ago
        The patent office has been granting technology patents for non-novel things for ages, sadly. There does not appear to be any fix for it, as it even ensnares one of the world’s richest companies. Presumably there would need to be consequences to the government for granting non-novel patents, and there appear to be none.
      • kurthr 8y ago
        Well, I kinda agree, but in that case it should be easy for the defendant to find prior art that meets the elements of the claim or to modify their implementation to avoid the teak spoon. That they haven't makes me wonder if they find some novel utility in the teak spoon.
    • 8y ago
• chrischen 8y ago
  Sounds like Qualcomm is just pulling its arsenal of patents out to fire some small shots...
  • gleenn 8y ago
    Some small billion dollar shots
    • tsimionescu 8y ago
      At Apple's level, they're probably only concerned with these amounts like that famous government spending admonition - I understand it's just a billion dollars, but a billion here, a billion there, soon we'll start talking about real money.
    • chrischen 8y ago
      Are these billion dollar lawsuits? The one that Apple lost so far was only for about 30 million—basically a pellet gun shot. Apple's the one seeking billions in rebates which is probably why Qualcomm is shooting back.
• openloop 8y ago
  Thank you.
• kattuviriyan 8y ago
  Yes. Like "bounce to scroll" by Apple.
• monochromatic 8y ago
  Do the claims sound ridiculous? Because I'm guessing you have not even looked at the claims...