5 ms·

Via sues Apple for patent infringement over 'microprocessor functionalities'

22 points by nickolai 15y ago

cageface 15y ago
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
- dmbaggett 15y ago
  As much as I agree with this sentiment, it's seems more like the rule of law has been entirely suspended, and in a such a case all die by the sword.
Kell 15y ago
O sweet Irony.
- danssig 15y ago
  Yea, because it's only Apple who sues people. It would have been irony if a real patent troll company got sued for patent violations.
danssig 15y ago
So are they suing everyone else too? Sounds like the whole computing world is in violation of their massive 5,000 patent portfolio.
- shabble 15y ago
  As far as I know, unlike trademark infringement, both copyrights and patents don't require active protection. You're allowed to pick your targets, and go after them only. I suspect it's down to one or more of the following factors: * Everyone else is suing Apple, and they want a piece of the action. * Google or someone else has had a few words in the right ears. * Apple has a huge amount of ready cash, and they might just settle for a sizeable sum or licence because they've got other things to be doing.
  - vetinari 15y ago
    Or none of the above. VIA has close ties with HTC. Apple fired salvo against HTC, considering it weak. So maybe it is not so weak after all. Edit: To illustrate the close ties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Wang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Wang
    - shabble 15y ago
      That was where I was going with "or someone else has had a few words in the right ears." But I guess "chairperson of both boards pulled out the tomahawk" is also valid, and probably quite a bit more compelling.
DiabloD3 15y ago
Why are they suing Apple? Apple doesn't make CPUs nor do they have control over what instruction sets are in the CPUs they buy. Am I missing something?
- jensnockert 15y ago
  Except Apple is designing CPUs, I don't really doubt that the lawsuit makes sense. But somehow I have a feeling that the patents wouldn't make sense in a perfect world.
  - ssp 15y ago
    Except Apple is designing CPUs, I don't really doubt that the lawsuit makes sense. Even if they didn't design them, just reselling patented devices is illegal.
  - DiabloD3 15y ago
    No, PA Semi and Intrisity are. Last time I noticed they were still separate legal entities from Apple even though Apple acquired them.
- kalleboo 15y ago
  "Apple engineers developed the A4 chip"[1], even if it's originally an ARM design I can see them being liable for it. [1] http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/#a4 http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/#a4
  - DiabloD3 15y ago
    Except thats a Samsung design that Samsung developed for Apple and now sells an almost identical version for other vendors.
    - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
      Apple are probably referring to the fact that they later bought the company that did some power tuning on the chip in collaboration with Samsung. Those engineers are presumably now "Apple engineers". Intentionally misleading, but also factual as stated.
bgarbiak 15y ago
Is the recent brood of patent related lawsuits something extraordinary? And if so what could be a reason for that? Economy crisis? Rise of smartphone/tablet market? Or maybe the hi-tech industry was always like that, only no one from the outside cared about it?
- podperson 15y ago
  The light bulb, the telephone, the electrical power system, and the television -- to name a few examples off the top of my head -- were all fraught with lawsuits, and the "winners" were not necessarily the people you'd think were morally in the right. If I recall with the telephone it was literally a matter of who got to the filing desk first. The difference today is that the products in the center of the fights are all composed of a set of technologies each of which represents a bunch of inter-related fights. I guess the patent system is good at turning innovation into a lottery where if you invent something crucial then you get a _shot_ at fame and fortune. And psychology teaches us that random reinforcement works better than simply being "fair", so as an incentive system the patent system seems to work. As a dispenser of natural justice -- not so much.
choko01 15y ago
United States Patent (1997): 6253311 http://1.usa.gov/o9tpqa http://1.usa.gov/o9tpqa United States Patent (1998): 6253312 http://1.usa.gov/p0BErf http://1.usa.gov/p0BErf United States Patent (2002): 6754810 http://1.usa.gov/qI6MDt http://1.usa.gov/qI6MDt i just can't figure what it will be in 10 years for all the patents currently filed ...

22 points by nickolai 15y ago

cageface 15y ago

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

dmbaggett 15y ago
As much as I agree with this sentiment, it's seems more like the rule of law has been entirely suspended, and in a such a case all die by the sword.

Kell 15y ago

O sweet Irony.

danssig 15y ago
Yea, because it's only Apple who sues people. It would have been irony if a real patent troll company got sued for patent violations.

danssig 15y ago

So are they suing everyone else too? Sounds like the whole computing world is in violation of their massive 5,000 patent portfolio.

shabble 15y ago
As far as I know, unlike trademark infringement, both copyrights and patents don't require active protection. You're allowed to pick your targets, and go after them only. I suspect it's down to one or more of the following factors: * Everyone else is suing Apple, and they want a piece of the action. * Google or someone else has had a few words in the right ears. * Apple has a huge amount of ready cash, and they might just settle for a sizeable sum or licence because they've got other things to be doing.
- vetinari 15y ago
  Or none of the above. VIA has close ties with HTC. Apple fired salvo against HTC, considering it weak. So maybe it is not so weak after all. Edit: To illustrate the close ties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Wang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Wang
  - shabble 15y ago
    That was where I was going with "or someone else has had a few words in the right ears." But I guess "chairperson of both boards pulled out the tomahawk" is also valid, and probably quite a bit more compelling.

DiabloD3 15y ago

Why are they suing Apple? Apple doesn't make CPUs nor do they have control over what instruction sets are in the CPUs they buy. Am I missing something?

jensnockert 15y ago
Except Apple is designing CPUs, I don't really doubt that the lawsuit makes sense. But somehow I have a feeling that the patents wouldn't make sense in a perfect world.
- ssp 15y ago
  Except Apple is designing CPUs, I don't really doubt that the lawsuit makes sense. Even if they didn't design them, just reselling patented devices is illegal.
- DiabloD3 15y ago
  No, PA Semi and Intrisity are. Last time I noticed they were still separate legal entities from Apple even though Apple acquired them.
kalleboo 15y ago
"Apple engineers developed the A4 chip"[1], even if it's originally an ARM design I can see them being liable for it. [1] http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/#a4 http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/#a4
- DiabloD3 15y ago
  Except thats a Samsung design that Samsung developed for Apple and now sells an almost identical version for other vendors.
  - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
    Apple are probably referring to the fact that they later bought the company that did some power tuning on the chip in collaboration with Samsung. Those engineers are presumably now "Apple engineers". Intentionally misleading, but also factual as stated.

bgarbiak 15y ago

Is the recent brood of patent related lawsuits something extraordinary? And if so what could be a reason for that? Economy crisis? Rise of smartphone/tablet market? Or maybe the hi-tech industry was always like that, only no one from the outside cared about it?

podperson 15y ago
The light bulb, the telephone, the electrical power system, and the television -- to name a few examples off the top of my head -- were all fraught with lawsuits, and the "winners" were not necessarily the people you'd think were morally in the right. If I recall with the telephone it was literally a matter of who got to the filing desk first. The difference today is that the products in the center of the fights are all composed of a set of technologies each of which represents a bunch of inter-related fights. I guess the patent system is good at turning innovation into a lottery where if you invent something crucial then you get a _shot_ at fame and fortune. And psychology teaches us that random reinforcement works better than simply being "fair", so as an incentive system the patent system seems to work. As a dispenser of natural justice -- not so much.

choko01 15y ago

United States Patent (1997): 6253311 http://1.usa.gov/o9tpqa http://1.usa.gov/o9tpqa United States Patent (1998): 6253312 http://1.usa.gov/p0BErf http://1.usa.gov/p0BErf United States Patent (2002): 6754810 http://1.usa.gov/qI6MDt http://1.usa.gov/qI6MDt i just can't figure what it will be in 10 years for all the patents currently filed ...