Modemn't - Apple, Broadcom lose $1.1 billion lawsuit for patent infringement

[rcmaehl]

Source:

Engadget (Quote source)
GSM Arena

 

Summary:
A jury has decided that, no, Apple did not do it first, and has fined Apple and Broadcom a collective $1.1 billion dollars. 

 

Quotes/Excerpts:

Quote

The California Institute of Technology (CalTech) has won a $1.1 billion jury verdict against Apple and Broadcom. A case that first hit federal courts in 2016, CalTech accused Apple of using Broadcom WiFi chips that violate four of its patents in all iPhones, starting around 2012. [RC Note: iPhone 5 and newer].  The jury reportedly ordered Apple alone to pay $838 million, or about $1.40 per device...which works out to about 598 million gadgets. Apple told Reuters that it plans to appeal. The technology is vital to the 802.11n and 802.11ac WiFi standards, though its inventor said that the patents (related to data transmission tech), weren't originally designed for WiFi. Broadcom remains a major Apple supplier, having recently signed a $15 billion agreement. It remains to be seen if CalTech will go after other device manufacturers, but told Reuters that it is "committed to protecting its intellectual property in furtherance of its mission to expand human knowledge."

 

My Thoughts:

I doubt this is going to serious affect either company. 1.1 billion is 0.001% of Apple's value and Broadcom got an even smaller amount than Apple did. With Apple planning to appeal, it may be another couple years before we see any final resolution to this suit.

[ARikozuM]

$100 add-on charge to iPhones when?

[nick name]

25 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

$100 add-on charge to iPhones when?

And then the added cost from this award for patent infringement.  

[melete]

13 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Basically, more American shenanigans happened

America, the only place in the world where patents exist.

[sazrocks]

I’m confused; if apple is a customer of broadcom, why are they also being fined and not just broadcom?

[ARikozuM]

8 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

I’m confused; if apple is a customer of broadcom, why are they also being fined and not just broadcom?

Doesn't Apple make their own chips?

[sazrocks]

16 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Doesn't Apple make their own chips?

If that is the case, then why is broadcom involved?

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

If that is the case, then why is broadcom involved?

They provide the modems? @DrMacintosh @Electronics Wizardy We need clarification on what Apple and Broadcom do together. 

[DrMacintosh]

27 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

We need clarification on what Apple and Broadcom do together. 

Broadcomm is the preferred suppler of the modems in Apple devices. Broadcomm is the one infringing on the patents, Apple is just being singled out for using them because they are a whale for this University to steal money from.  

[mr moose]

32 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Broadcomm is the preferred suppler of the modems in Apple devices. Broadcomm is the one infringing on the patents, Apple is just being singled out for using them because they are a whale for this University to steal money from.  

It doesn't matter who made the chips if apple knowingly sold them with infringing product they are just as liable.  It's like selling counterfeit DVD's then trying to argue "I didn't make the dvd's I just sold them"  you are still guilty.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

you are still guilty.

Can you explain why other companies that sell devices with Broadcomm modems aren’t also being sued? 

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

if apple knowingly sold them with infringing product they are just as liable.

Apple would have had no idea that Broadcomm was infringing on patents. How could they? Apple doesn’t even have its own network engineers yet. 

[Bombastinator]

36 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Broadcomm is the preferred suppler of the modems in Apple devices. Broadcomm is the one infringing on the patents, Apple is just being singled out for using them because they are a whale for this University to steal money from.  

Maybe. Or perhaps Apple told Broadcom they did it first and to use the stuff.  This kind of thing is rarely straight forward.  There was a lot of making fun of the Macdonalds hot coffee lawsuit too and that one turned out to be totally correct.  More than correct even.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Can you explain why other companies that sell devices with Broadcomm modems aren’t also being sued? 

Apple might be the biggest vendor buying from Broadcom's infringing products? 

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Apple would have had no idea that Broadcomm was infringing on patents. How could they? Apple doesn’t even have its own network engineers yet. 

It's your legal team's job to figure everything out. That's for legality of materials, legality of labor, legality of everything. If they didn't consider this, they didn't do their jobs. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

If they didn't consider this, they didn't do their jobs. 

Don’t know if that could hold up in court as Apple intentionally doing anything wrong. At most they could be fined for not doing “their research.” Doesn’t sound like the University has much of a case against Apple as far as intentionally being nefarious is concerned to me. 

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Can you explain why other companies that sell devices with Broadcomm modems aren’t also being sued? 

 

Apple would have had no idea that Broadcomm was infringing on patents. How could they? Apple doesn’t even have its own network engineers yet. 

As has been explained, liability can easily it be shifted with the appropriate paper work.  We know nothing about the case other than the courts decided apple was guilty. I think one of the biggest mistakes this forum makes when addressing issues of this nature or of any legal matter, is that they assume false equivalencies. I.E just because company A only sues one of 4 companies doesn't mean the suit is merely a money grab.  There are many conditions that effect how these suits go ahead.  In this caser going after apple might be setting the stage to then go after broadcom with which a win might enable them to go after Intel.   Or conversely if they went after a harder case and lost they might lose the ability to go after the main culprit.

 

 

TL:DU  there is too much in this case we don't understand in order to draw such conclusions.  From the evidence/court outcome we have,  apple did something wrong and it remains to be seen if broadcom did.  

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

From the evidence/court outcome we have,  apple did something wrong and it remains to be seen if broadcom did.  

The case would be a complete farce if Broadcomm were not also found to be in the wrong for supplying the allegedly infringing modems. 

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The case would be a complete farce if Broadcomm were not also found to be in the wrong for supplying the allegedly infringing modems. 

Can't disagree with that one. 

[Blademaster91]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It doesn't matter who made the chips if apple knowingly sold them with infringing product they are just as liable.  It's like selling counterfeit DVD's then trying to argue "I didn't make the dvd's I just sold them"  you are still guilty.

I'm not sure how Apple wouldn't be aware of it, being the one of the largest vendors of Broadcom hardware it would've been pretty obvious from the evidence we do have, and well Apple choosing to make their own chips makes even more obvious they knew. I wouldn't be surprised either if Apple passed along the fine onto the consumers, although a $100 increase really wouldn't hurt people buying iPhones.

[Bombastinator]

In the end we know little about this case.  I’m reminded of that other case talked about here where there wasn’t enough data and basically everything in the initial report was skewed.  Someone want to do a deep dive into what sounds like a 4 year long case be my guest but I bet it’s even more complicated than the hot coffee one.  And public opinion on that one was total garbage. 
 

im withholding judgement.  I know nothing.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The case would be a complete farce if Broadcomm were not also found to be in the wrong for supplying the allegedly infringing modems. 

Only according to what you think you know about the case.

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

I'm not sure how Apple wouldn't be aware of it, being the one of the largest vendors of Broadcom hardware it would've been pretty obvious from the evidence we do have, and well Apple choosing to make their own chips makes even more obvious they knew. I wouldn't be surprised either if Apple passed along the fine onto the consumers, although a $100 increase really wouldn't hurt people buying iPhones.

Neither am I,  It seems there was enough evidence for the courts and  Apple are hardly new to the game having been haggling, buying and leasing IP for modems for a decade now.   Which is why I likened it to selling counterfeit DVD's then trying to argue innocence because someone else made them.

[Salv8 (sam)]

8 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

$100 add-on charge to iPhones when?

got mine for free, android FTW!

[suicidalfranco]

pocket change, now to slightly increase the price of iphones and recover it all in the next quarter

[melete]

19 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

The only place where you can apply for really generic patents that end up being used by patent-trolls.

This doesn't have anything to do with vagueness at all. What Broadcom and Apple were arguing was that Caltech's patent was obvious, i.e., it's an obvious extension of prior work by ECC researchers in the 1990s and therefore invalid as a patent. That argument was rejected by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. I'm not a patent lawyer but it's pretty clear Broadcom/Apple were pretty much doomed at that point, because 802.11n and 802.11ac clearly implement IRA codes as patented by Caltech. A federal jury found in Caltech's favor there.

 

[RonnieOP]

21 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

 

It's your legal team's job to figure everything out. That's for legality of materials, legality of labor, legality of everything. If they didn't consider this, they didn't do their jobs. 

Not really.

 

There are laws to protect people who buy in good faith.

 

For example. My brothers car was stolen and sold. The criminal was found as was the car. The thief had sold the car to a family. My brother didnt vet hos car back and the family didnt have to give the car back because they bought it in good faith.

 

Same thing with other purchases. If i buy a pc/tv/etc from someone off craigslist and it turns out to be stolen then i face no punishment.

 

If i stock my business with supplies from a store and it turns out that store has been abusing child labor laws to supply me those products i face no punishment.

 

So apple could very well win the appeal if its deemed they bought the chips in good faith. Which is the right thing imo.

 

It should not be on the buyer to reverse engineer a product and then go and check and then go search patents to make sure the supplier owns it.

 

I get the hate for apple on a lot of things but in this case they have done nothing wrong and should not be punished.

[ARikozuM]

12 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Not really.

 

There are laws to protect people who buy in good faith.

 

For example. My brothers car was stolen and sold. The criminal was found as was the car. The thief had sold the car to a family. My brother didnt vet hos car back and the family didnt have to give the car back because they bought it in good faith.

 

Same thing with other purchases. If i buy a pc/tv/etc from someone off craigslist and it turns out to be stolen then i face no punishment.

 

If i stock my business with supplies from a store and it turns out that store has been abusing child labor laws to supply me those products i face no punishment.

 

So apple could very well win the appeal if its deemed they bought the chips in good faith. Which is the right thing imo.

 

It should not be on the buyer to reverse engineer a product and then go and check and then go search patents to make sure the supplier owns it.

 

I get the hate for apple on a lot of things but in this case they have done nothing wrong and should not be punished.

The burden of proof is vastly higher for a company like Apple than it is for Joe Schmo. 

 

You shouldn't compare a company with a 1/4 billion dollars worth of legal consultants with the average person. Any judge would know the difference in case law and legal proceedings.