Comments on: Apple Dealt $21.7 Million Judgement for Violating Chip Patent

By: Disinform

Disinform — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:40:13 +0000

According to Wikipedia the patent terms are 20 years.

It also seems that ignorance, although not an excuse, is relevant – at least according to the judge:

‘the judge found no evidence of “willful infringement,”’

As I say, companies should have some way to protect their patents but this particular case does not seem in the spirit of patent law. It’s certainly not unique but companies who only make money from their patents by suing infringers don’t sit right with me.

I may be alone in my opinions (well, apart from Darrell) – it certainly looks like that way.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:38:38 +0000

Ignorance (in this case not knowing something was patented) is not an excuse for breaking the law. If you invest time and money in to developing something it’s only fair that you pay to file, translate and protect for a time that you see fit, and that’s not a cheap process (I think patent terms are 5 – 10 years or something?)

By: Disinform

Disinform — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:01:07 +0000

“I understand the need for a system in which smaller companies can protect their intellectual property against much larger ones”

I think it’s pretty clear that it’s not ok for Apple to rip off smaller companies, but when you’re *un-knowingly* ripping off a company who patents technology just so it can sue if anyone ever makes it? I think that’s fair enough.

It’s a bit of a travesty that such a company can even exist, imho.

By: Bill Delamin

Bill Delamin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:51:11 +0000

So you’re saying it’s OK for Apple to rip-off smaller companies because it benefits purchasers of Apple products? How is this fair?

By: Jay Hughes

Jay Hughes — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000

Both Apple and more particularly Microsoft have both exhibited cavalier attitudes towards others I.P. It is high time that both these companies learned that paying after being caught is not the remedy rather than honest dealing, up front, getting licences for appropriate amounts, is the proper way.

Of course this theft of I.P. affects the bottom line for it is the motivation for the acts. Money.

Apple should be grateful to Xeroz that the Mac GUI was never fought out in court for their licencing fees would be substantial by this time.

Quote: “…but which involve a company whose sole purpose has become the licensing of ideas, really get my goat. ” Have you read some of the patent applications files by Apple or MS recently of note are those of the former with respect to screen gestures.

By: Concurring Poster

Concurring Poster — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:38:08 +0000

I concur!

By: Joe Anonymous

Joe Anonymous — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:21:13 +0000

The decision in this court is pretty meaningless. They are a known patent troll mecca. The appeal will be more important.

As I understand the patent, even if it is found to be valid, Apple is not the infringer – the chip manufacturers (perhaps the northbridge/southbridge manufacturers, as well) would be the infringers. Even if Apple is found to be infringing and has to pay a fine, they almost certainly have an indemnification clause in their contract with the chip manufacturers which would reimburse them.