Apple ordered to double down on patent payment after failing to adhere to previous ruling (506 Million USD)

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, Hunter259 said:

https://www.geek.com/apple/apple-loses-patent-lawsuit-may-owe-wisconsin-university-862-million-1636794/

 

According to that they had been trying since 2001 to do a deal about this. This would have been against Netburst which had an elongated P6 OOE branch predictor which Intel had been using for 3 years before they even patented it.

See above (another source looking at it explicitly from the legal perspective at the time). The patent was applied for in 1996. Netburst was released in 2000. 

[Hunter259]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

See above (another source looking at it explicitly from the legal perspective at the time). The patent was applied for in 1996. Netburst was released in 2000. 

And the basic circuit design was being SOLD as the Pentium pro in 1995. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, Hunter259 said:

And the basic circuit design was being SOLD as the Pentium pro in 1995. 

Which did not utilize the same infringing technology... derp.

 

Which again, is why this made its way into top tier papers on microprocessor technology as well as the patent...

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

And the basic circuit design was being SOLD as the Pentium pro in 1995. 

Also Apple later attempted to patent the exact same thing... while citing the given patent as "relevant prior art"

[Hunter259]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Which did not utilize the same infringing technology... derp.

 

Which again, is why this made its way into top tier papers on microprocessor technology as well as the patent...

My point is that it is generic as are most scientific patents. Very easy to infringe upon. P6 and Core 2 used very similar pipelines with netburst being the most different. 

 

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Also Apple later attempted to patent the exact same thing... while citing the given patent as "relevant prior art"

Are you surprised? They realized what they could do and patented it. They do it constantly.

[Misanthrope]

I think that the appeal process for Apple shouldn't continue unless they actually pay the sum at least partially and of course they're subject to recover whatever was paid if their appeal is successful.

 

The right to appeal should not be used to circumvent paying a lawful verdict when in all other cases it reverses the verdict it does not suspends it.

[Hunter259]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I think that the appeal process for Apple shouldn't continue unless they actually pay at least partially and of course they're subject to recover whatever was paid if their appeal is successful.

 

The right to appeal should not be used to circumvent paying a lawful verdict when in all other cases it reverses the verdict it does not suspends it.

That kinda goes against innocent until proven guilty don't you think?

[Curufinwe_wins]

There are 159 US patents that explicitly cite this one as prior art.

https://www.google.com/patents/US5781752

Including a very large number from Apple BTW. 

 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Hunter259 said:

That kinda goes against innocent until proven guilty don't you think?

It doesn't: The burden of proof is sufficiently met by the lawful verdict. In criminal cases for example, people that are sentenced to jail time don't get to go home through their entire appeal process, they're entitled to it but not at the expense of avoiding punishment.

 

Appeals are a fail safe not a part of the process henceforth presumption of innocence should not apply.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, Hunter259 said:

That kinda goes against innocent until proven guilty don't you think?

Well other than the proven guilty part (twice)...

 

But there are logistical reasons why that is the way in civil court. I don't really think it is a better or worse than the alternatives for a number of reasons. Both have issues.

 

But for criminal court, people appealing rulings are very rarely let out of prison once found guilty once. So not really sure how that is an applicable idea.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

It doesn't: The burden of proof is sufficiently met by the lawful verdict. In criminal cases for example, people that are sentenced to jail time don't get to go home through their entire appeal process, they're entitled to it but not at the expense of avoiding punishment.

 

Appeals are a fail safe not a part of the process henceforth presumption of innocence should not apply.

I mean "in fairness" stays are not unheard of in certain types of criminal cases... But yes, very rare.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

59 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

that's really shady also vary unethical.

Basically it's something Apple would do.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I mean "in fairness" stays are not unheard of in certain types of criminal cases... But yes, very rare.

Well since I realize damages can come up to so much money it would bankrupt a smaller company before their ability to appeal, the percentage of the verdict to be paid while the appeal process could be established but I do feel like there should be a way to avoid the stifle of companies like Apple that can afford to survive years and years during the appeal process while the affected, smaller company would be simply unable to move forward.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

Yay for being able to patent something and never actually make a product out of it. Totally is a good thing and helps the advancement of technology.

 

If an entity spends time and money developing something then they should be allowed to patent it.  It still advances technology, it's just that one company buys a licences rather than spending the money on R+D. 

 

What shouldn't be allowed to happen is letting companies buy patents with no intention to manufacture, then run around suing or preventing others from using that technology, that stops the advancement of technology.

 

 

[Derangel]

2 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

My point is that it is generic as are most scientific patents. Very easy to infringe upon. P6 and Core 2 used very similar pipelines with netburst being the most different. 

 

Are you surprised? They realized what they could do and patented it. They do it constantly.

If it was generic upon initial filing it likely would not have been filed or they would have had companies taking them to court to make the patent invalid. "Well it's generic now" is not a valid argument. Being able to patent and license stuff like this is one of the things that keeps these programs going and allows so many new discoveries and technology. Your idea of patents would completely kill several research colleges and projects as licensing is a big source of income.

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

That kinda goes against innocent until proven guilty don't you think?

How so? They went to court and lost. That means they were essentially proven guilty and the appeals process is basically a way to try and prove their innocence after being proven guilty.