Apple Ordered to Pay $506.2 Million in Patent Lawsuit

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Kroon said:

 

Actually no!  Qualcomm have a FRAND licence and that can't be applied to third parties, like Apple.   IF Apple would have used Qualcomm chip then they would be under same licence but Apple manufacture their own chip bases on Qualcomm design, there is the difference.  FRAND licence are quite clear it's physical products and not product designs that are licensed.

Apple don't make their own modems yet, and they do use qualcomm.   Apple buy physical products (the modem) from Intel and qualcomm.

Quote

Apple actually argued that the whole patent should be disqualified/ never be granted in the first place. 

 

Anyhow the "proof" part is quite easy since Apple did use the technology so they infringes on the patent.  Argument was that Apple did have a licens and/or if there even should be a patent in the first place.  There was a lot of document of "proof" and one of them was the FRAND contract between Qualcomm and Optis. 

 

I rely don't like it but I think this will go all the way to Supreme Court and Apple will still be at fault unless they somehow successfully disqualify the whole patent.  

 

You aren't actually answering the question,  using the tech is NOT the same as infringing the IP in that tech.   If the IP is in the Qualcomm modem or the Intel modem then apple are NOT infringing but still have the tech in their phone.

 

Again please show me how they proved apple was infringing the IP patent.  Just saying "you have LTE" is NOT proof.

 

EDIT: also, you said you had read the court documents, Why can't you tell me what they used for proof? just saying there was a lot of documents doesn't mean anything. 

 

[Kroon]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If the IP is in the Qualcomm modem or the Intel modem then apple are NOT infringing but still have the tech in their phone.

 

 

Okay try one more time :)

 

Part of the technology in the modem design Apple have licensed is patented by Optis. Other manufacturers have FRAND licence with Optis for this design.

 

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why can't you tell me what they used for proof?

 

Because the case it self is not about how ever Apple used the technology or not it's about if they have the light/license to do so.  Therefore is the documents proof, haven't read thru all but I assume the jury have.  Part of the "proof" is the FRAND licence I already stated above.   Apple claim they are under the umbrella and of cause Optis claim they Apple is not.   

 

Proof in cases like this is not "Hoo look an Apple employee finger print" or "Ho look here at they code they stole".  Again apple them self saying they are using the technology but have the right to do so.  If someone are calming the right to use technology they do not own/have patent for they have the burden of proof, in this case Apple have the burden of proof to prove they have the right to use Optis patent.  Example: If you and I enter a contract where you can barrow my car, I claim you stole it then it's your burden to proof that you have the right to use my car not mine that you don't.

 

To be extra clear I repeat my self:  From what I understand whole this case hinges on however APPLE can claim they are using FRAND licence and/or claim patent null void.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Kroon said:

 

 

Okay try one more time

 

Part of the technology in the modem design Apple have licensed is patented by Optis. Other manufacturers have FRAND licence with Optis for this design.

 

 

Because the case it self is not about how ever Apple used the technology or not it's about if they have the light/license to do so.  Therefore is the documents proof, haven't read thru all but I assume the jury have.  Part of the "proof" is the FRAND licence I already stated above.   Apple claim they are under the umbrella and of cause Optis claim they Apple is not.   

 

Proof in cases like this is not "Hoo look an Apple employee finger print" or "Ho look here at they code they stole".  Again apple them self saying they are using the technology but have the right to do so.  If someone are calming the right to use technology they do not own/have patent for they have the burden of proof, in this case Apple have the burden of proof to prove they have the right to use Optis patent.  Example: If you and I enter a contract where you can barrow my car, I claim you stole it then it's your burden to proof that you have the right to use my car not mine that you don't.

 

To be extra clear I repeat my self:  From what I understand whole this case hinges on however APPLE can claim they are using FRAND licence and/or claim patent null void.

 

From what I can gleam out of the whole thing,  Optis have failed to prove anything and are just saying that the apple have infringed because the product is LTE and thus has to have it.  Apple are saying show us where we used your IP without license.  As far as apple are concerned, Qualcomm and Intel cover all the licensing of IP within those products, apple just buy and install them in their phones.  The courts don't seem to be too concerned about that (likely why they chose that court district (as is shown in earlier documents I linked to be a hotspot for that reason )).

 

It really wouldn't surprise me if apple let this one go without too much argument knowing that when they get to a higher court outside of Texas/delaware , that they have a chance to not only crush the case but weaken the patent itself.  Which is something they would be very interested in doing as they are designing their own modems as we speak and will require that tech in their product.   That is one of the dangers of suing for patent infringement, there is the chance the patent will be disqualified/weakened.  Not likely in Texas but a higher court might.  Such an outcome could make it harder for companies like optis to enforce patents (even ones under widely accepted FRAND).

 

 

[Kroon]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Optis have failed to prove anything and are just saying that the apple have infringed because the product is LTE and thus has to have it.  Apple are saying show us where we used your IP without license.

 

Not correct!  Apple admit using the technology but claim they have the licence to do so.  

 

It would be plain stupidity of Apple to claim they don't use the technology because you cant connect to 3 ro 4G without it.  Simply turn on the phone and check if it works, and yes that would be enough.  Due to how cellular connectivity are set up from the base stations you cannon connect in any way without using Optis technologies. 

 

While discussing this here I read what the US layer that handles our company's patent overt here wrote.  Lets say he had a different spin on this!  It might end up in Apple suing the company that they bought the chip designs from.  Thing is here is that it MIGHT be that Apple have a contract with the chip designer saying saying that all necessary patent licences are in place.  Problem is that the chip designer might not have the right to sign over the patent license to third party, if its FRAND licence they WILL not have that right.  So in this case both parties might actually be "sort of" right but Apple needs to get money back from another party.  This would however be really disappointing because I was hoping that Apple would be able to dissolve the patent, that would make the whole industry happy.  

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Kroon said:

 

Apple admit using the technology but claim they have the licence to do so.  

Your sentence and my sentence say the same thing.

 

31 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 Apple are saying show us where we used your IP without license.

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Kroon said:

It would be plain stupidity of Apple to claim they don't use the technology because you cant connect to 3 ro 4G without it.  Simply turn on the phone and check if it works, and yes that would be enough.  Due to how cellular connectivity are set up from the base stations you cannon connect in any way without using Optis technologies. 

 

While discussing this here I read what the US layer that handles our company's patent overt here wrote.  Lets say he had a different spin on this!  It might end up in Apple suing the company that they bought the chip designs from.  Thing is here is that it MIGHT be that Apple have a contract with the chip designer saying saying that all necessary patent licences are in place.  Problem is that the chip designer might not have the right to sign over the patent license to third party, if its FRAND licence they WILL not have that right.  So in this case both parties might actually be "sort of" right but Apple needs to get money back from another party.  This would however be really disappointing because I was hoping that Apple would be able to dissolve the patent, that would make the whole industry happy.  

 

That is an awful lot of mights. Remember until evidence is presented that apple used the IP outside of the modem, then apple is the customer buying product with that IP, not the manufacturer making it.      What you suggest here would be akin to Toyota suing a Chinese car maker for using a Mitsubishi engine (under license form Mitsubishi) that contained toyota IP.    The beef is with Mitsubishi not the car maker,  in this case if qualcomm are selling Modems that contain IP they don't have license to sell,  then the beef is with Qualcomm, not apple. 

 

Which is why apple took the course they did.  I dare say they knew the outcome of this case long before it even got to the court.

 

[Kroon]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Remember until evidence is presented that apple used the IP outside of the modem, then apple is the customer buying product with that IP, not the manufacturer making it.

 

But here lies the problem.  Apple made the that modem from designs they bought.  If they would have bought the physical chip like all other phone makers this would not be a problem. Question is if the patent licenses are transferred with the design. Optis  say NO Apple says YES! 

 

Since Apple ARE using the technology it's their burden to prove that they have licence to do so, not the other way around. 

 

Cases likt this is a really sad example how patent law works but at the same time really interesting. 

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, Kroon said:

 

But here lies the problem.  Apple made the that modem from designs they bought.  If they would have bought the physical chip like all other phone makers this would not be a problem. Question is if the patent licenses are transferred with the design. Optis  say NO Apple says YES! 

I think the problem here is that you are confused how the modem in iphones work.  They are a chip from Qualcomm or Intel.  Apple do not make their own, not even from Qualcomm or Intel parts. So they did buy the physical chip like all other phone makers.

 

This is an iphone 6 (part of the case)  All the IP resides in the Qualcomm chip apple purchased from Qualcomm.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Kroon said:

Since Apple ARE using the technology it's their burden to prove that they have licence to do so, not the other way around. 

 

Cases likt this is a really sad example how patent law works but at the same time really interesting. 

Again, burden of proof is on the plaintiff not the defendant.   The defendant only has to counter evidence not provide it. Relevant links to laws are in a post I made on the first page.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kroon]

I have to check what the documents says but I don't think it's the actual modem that is the problem because they mention chip design and apple produced.

 

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again, burden of proof is on the plaintiff not the defendant.   The defendant only has to counter evidence not provide it. Relevant links to laws are in a post I made on the first page.

Incorrect!  First of all in US court you must always back up your claims with proof no matter what side you are on. That's why it's sometimes best to say nothing at all.  Secondly this is contract law not criminal law.  You can't simply say you have a licence and get away with it.

 

Let's say I copy the iPhone.  Apple will off cause sue me and in court I claim I have license from Apple.   Apple, the plaintiff, simply can't dispute my claim because how do you prove that the contract don't exist?  So this will not help me unless I actually can prove that there is a license agreement between Apple and I.

 

If you simply could claim contract/license without actually produce a copy of said contract there would never be any patent/licence cases in court because everyone would do just that.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Kroon said:

I have to check what the documents says but I don't think it's the actual modem that is the problem because they mention chip design and apple produced.

Check away, I think you will find that is why apple said anyone could verify the lack of existence of said IP by simply looking at their product.

6 minutes ago, Kroon said:

 

Incorrect!  First of all in US court you must always back up your claims with proof no matter what side you are on. That's why it's sometimes best to say nothing at all.  Secondly this is contract law not criminal law.  You can't simply say you have a licence and get away with it.

 

Let's say I copy the iPhone.  Apple will off cause sue me and in court I claim I have license from Apple.   Apple, the plaintiff, simply can't dispute my claim because how do you prove that the contract don't exist?  So this will not help me unless I actually can prove that there is a license agreement between Apple and I.

 

If you simply could claim contract/license without actually produce a copy of said contract there would never be any patent/licence cases in court because everyone would do just that.

 

 

Did you check the link? 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

 

Quote

 In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. A "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are different standards, requiring different amounts of proof.

 

I am not making this stuff up.  The plaintiff in a civil law case has the burden of proof.  It was never apples job to prove themselves innocent, it was optis's job to prove they were guilty beyond 50% chance (meaning not absolute as in a criminal case,  but at least more likely than not).  I firmly believe given everything we know they have failed to do that.

 

 

[Kroon]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am not making this stuff up.  The plaintiff in a civil law case has the burden of proof.  It was never apples job to prove themselves innocent, it was optis's job to prove they were guilty beyond 50% chance (meaning not absolute as in a criminal case,  but at least more likely than not).  I firmly believe given everything we know they have failed to do that.

 

 

Quote

The burden of proof has two components. First, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of production, which has also been referred to as the burden of going forward. As the terms suggest, this burden requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects. After the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments.

Source: https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/lawsuits-and-the-court-process/evidentiary-standards-and-burdens-of-proof/

 

So in my example above: As soon apple can prove that I'm copying their product the burden of proof have shifted to me and I can't simply say I have a licence I must also provide proof of said license.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Kroon said:

 

 

Source: https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/lawsuits-and-the-court-process/evidentiary-standards-and-burdens-of-proof/

 

So in my example above: As soon apple can prove that I'm copying their product the burden of proof have shifted to me and I can't simply say I have a licence I must also provide proof of said license.

Read that again. 

 

From your quote:

Quote

First, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of production, which has also been referred to as the burden of going forward. As the terms suggest, this burden requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects.

 

The plaintiff has the burden of proof, the defendant only has to counter that.  they can do that anyway they want.  If the plaintiff doesn't provide proof then what is the defendant going to counter? 

 

So going right back tot he start,  what proof did optis present?  so far it looks like they simply claimed their IP was infringed because the iphone had LTE.  

[Kroon]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Read that again. 

 

SERIOSLY?!?  Read what we have been discussing.

 

 

As I said before:

9 hours ago, Kroon said:

You can't simply say you have a licence and get away with it.

And your comment to that was:

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am not making this stuff up.  The plaintiff in a civil law case has the burden of proof.  It was never apples job to prove themselves innocent, it was optis's job to prove they were guilty beyond 50% chance (meaning not absolute as in a criminal case,  but at least more likely than not).  I firmly believe given everything we know they have failed to do that.

 

 

#1:  Apple ARE using the technology, that is proven and Apple do not deny it!  That means that burden of production is proven to more then 50%.

 

#2: Burden of production are now on Apple that claims they have licence to use said technology, discussed a lot above.

 

If #1 never had happened Apple would not have claimed they have a licence just asked the judge to dismiss the case and so would have happened.   Once they claimed they have a license they must also prove said license exist.  Once that is established that a license exists its again Optis job to explain why that licence are not valid if they do so it's back to Apple and so goes the "ball of burden" back and forward.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Kroon said:

 

SERIOSLY?!?  Read what we have been discussing.

 

 

As I said before:

And your comment to that was:

 

 

Apple are not saying they have a license, they are saying they don't need one.  big difference. What I said was true and mains true.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kroon said:

 

#1:  Apple ARE using the technology, that is proven and Apple do not deny it!  That means that burden of production is proven to more then 50%.

 

#2: Burden of production are now on Apple that claims they have licence to use said technology, discussed a lot above.

 

If #1 never had happened Apple would not have claimed they have a licence just asked the judge to dismiss the case and so would have happened.   Once they claimed they have a license they must also prove said license exist.  Once that is established that a license exists its again Optis job to explain why that licence are not valid if they do so it's back to Apple and so goes the "ball of burden" back and forward.

I really don't think you have properly grasped what has happened here or how the system is supposed to work.

 

.

 

 

[Lord Vile]

2 hours ago, Kroon said:

 

SERIOSLY?!?  Read what we have been discussing.

 

 

As I said before:

And your comment to that was:

 

 

 

#1:  Apple ARE using the technology, that is proven and Apple do not deny it!  That means that burden of production is proven to more then 50%.

 

#2: Burden of production are now on Apple that claims they have licence to use said technology, discussed a lot above.

 

If #1 never had happened Apple would not have claimed they have a licence just asked the judge to dismiss the case and so would have happened.   Once they claimed they have a license they must also prove said license exist.  Once that is established that a license exists its again Optis job to explain why that licence are not valid if they do so it's back to Apple and so goes the "ball of burden" back and forward.

Don’t think you’re understanding the dudes argument mate 

[Kroon]

17 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Don’t think you’re understanding the dudes argument mate 

 

Perhaps but with his last comment about Apple calming that they do not need a licence he make it obvious that he did't read the court documents. 

 

Interesting case for the whole industry and I guess we will read a lot about it in there forums the upcoming year.  See see you all next time. ;)

[starry]

Heres a hot take that literally nobody will agree with. Corporations shouldnt be allowed to own intelligence, only individuals should. This whole thing is so stupid and I couldnt care less if apple has to pay a number that doesnt even compare to their worth.

 

What Im trying to say is that corperate patent lawsuits are dumb and that I couldnt care less.