Apple Ordered to Pay $21.7 Million in Patent Suit
Apple has been ordered to pay Opti Inc. a total of $21.7 million in damages following a patent infringement suit.
If this rings any bells it's because Opti actually sued Apple successfully earlier this year. Ars Technica reports that, in a lawsuit filed in 2007, OPTi alleged Apple had infringed upon its patent covering "predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses."
The technology, in general, uses predictive snooping of cache memory to speed up PCI bus data transfers, with the intent of maintaining a constant transfer rate. This year, a jury determined willful infringement and Apple was ordered to pay $19 million in "reasonable royalties."
Apple opposed the verdict, stating that it had not willfully infringed upon the patent and claiming the use of the technology is "obvious" and covered by prior art. This week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham granted Apple's motion for judgment as a matter of law that it did not willfully infringe Opti's patent for predictive cache snooping. However, according to Ars, Everingham issued a guilty verdict anyway, ordering the Cupertino-based Mac maker to pay a total of $21.7 million in damages.
Read the full story here.
Follow us on Twitter for more tech news and exclusive updates here.
- Intel to Introduce GPGPU Functions Into Westmere
- Microsoft Changes Browser Ballot to Appease EU
- Tuesday Deals: Lost Blu-ray Seasons 1-5 SALE!
- What Nvidia Had to Say About Larrabee's Delay
- Physicists Build World's Smallest Snowman
- Archos 5 Tablet at Radio Shack for $250
- Dell Launches Super Slim $450 Vostro V13
- IBM Working on 10 Petaflop Supercomputer
- CrunchPad 'joojoo' is $499, For Sale on Friday
- These Could Be the Boxes for Office 2010
- Microsoft Starting to Plan for Office 15
- Time Traveling Sam & Max to Return in 2010
- World of Warcraft 3.3 Patch Gets Launch Trailer
- Wednesday Deals: Humpday Seinfeld Special
- Diskeeper Can Help Prevent HDD Fragmentation
- Microsoft Releases Win 7 USB/DVD Download Tool
- Study Shows We Consume 34GB of Data Daily
- Analyst: Apple Tablet in February, 10.1'' Display
19Million??
Overpriced @ $2500.00 Apple just needs to sell 7600 Mac Pro Workstations.
21.7 millions of dollars mean nothing to Apple consider they made billions of dollars in profit each quarter.
this whole idea of patenting ideas that may show up in the future without a working model is total BS. The patent office needs to insist that if these companies are going to file for a patent that the company is obligated to first show a working model.
Lol, yeap.
"$21mil? ah dang, well it'll return in 2 days selling 7600 mac pro. No worries guys."
Nelson from the Simpsons comes to mind....
*points finger at apple and says Ha Ha*
I'm sure Apple will think of something to sue them back...
I think Apple is going bankrupt now...21Mil?
'Pocket Change'
GOOOOOD Screw that Steve Job's billionare exec's outa their "hard earned" money! ROFLMA I luv it!!!
I don't understand why there are so many Apple haters here. I don't own and Apple computer or an iphone, but Apple innovates and everyone else then jumps on board to try and catch up. Where were all the cool phones from Motorola, Samsung, LG, and HTC before the iphone showed up? Where were all the thin laptops before the Mac Air? Anyway reguardless, they need to get a handle on the patent trolls before all the companies who do create, build, and innovate decide they can't produce anything new without getting sued.
Where were all the cool phones from Motorola, Samsung, LG, and HTC before the iphone showed up?
Blackberry
Where were all the thin laptops before the Mac Air?
Mitsubishi Pedion in 1998
Besides, the macbook air has had major overheating problems.
Anyway reguardless, they need to get a handle on the patent trolls before all the companies who do create, build, and innovate decide they can't produce anything new without getting sued.
I agree with you on that one.
this whole idea of patenting ideas that may show up in the future without a working model is total BS. The patent office needs to insist that if these companies are going to file for a patent that the company is obligated to first show a working model.
Right! This is getting out of hand. Apple and every other tech company must have whole law firms working full itme on law suits against each other.
Tomorrow's news... Apple is awarded 21.7 million dollar in patent law suit.
I agree with your general idea, but providing a working model isn't practical.Imagine a company has spent millions investing into how to make a truly unique product which was completely their idea, but they haven't managed to produce it yet, then another company looks at their plans, works it out, and steals their idea providing a working model and gets their patent.It would be better if they were obligated to produce a certain percentage of their companies value in stock which then gets sold, once it is possible to make their device.Honestly I think it would be better if patents had a new system which involves a jury making common sense decisions rather than the nonsense system everyone has now.
By definition, if their device does not work, then they are patenting the idea of what it would do.
I would like to the patten the idea of manned space flight to Mars. I don't know all the details, or even have a working model, but why should that matter?
I like the ipod touch...that said I am still a PC, the poor people winning this lawsuit won't see any funds for approx 5-7 years, then they will only see partial payments of $300,000-$400,000 over the next 8-10 years because they will file the proper paperwork to make it seem that if they paid the entire settlement it would hurt the company and then they can just file chapter 11 and dump the whole deal. I have always said that there are too many loopholes that allow companies to manipulate the system. Accountability is lost.
By definition, if their device does not work, then they are patenting the idea of what it would do.I would like to the patten the idea of manned space flight to Mars. I don't know all the details, or even have a working model, but why should that matter?
Uh, yeah... I think it's a little more involved than that. In order to file for a patent, you have to provide blueprints, or code or a plan of some sort; this is in addition to a DETAILED narrative of what it is that the device or code is supposed to do and how it is supposed to work. The device or algorithm doesn't have to be functional.
If another company comes along and builds a functional device or algorithm that is substantially based upon the schematics or code you submitted for patent, then there is a high degree of probability that you will receive a judgement in your favor. You can not simply patent an idea. So your notion about patenting the idea of a manned space flight to Mars won't work. However, if you came up with a space-craft design, even if it is not functional, THEN you could patent it and sit back waiting (hoping) that someone steals your design.
Ironically, if they did, you would be smiling all the way to the bank and some other idiot on a forum or blog would be whining about how people shouldn't be able to patent idea.
I agree with those who say a company must show a working model to gain a patent, or at least have a concept that they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt belongs to them and is something that they developed and made possible before anyone else can.
To just patent ideas... that is where things get tricky.
Milk'em milk'em good.
Poetic justice.
"predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses."
Really? Wow, this sounds similar to BRANCH PREDICTION! You are just doing it at a different level. Apple needs to ditch lawyers (yes, I hate them) and get a good engineer who can present tech data to "simple" people, and this should be dismissed.
Predictive snooping...wow. I am going to file a patent on "Command Arragement, using any number of data bits from 1 to 1TB..."
Now I just sit back and sue any chip maker that goes and makes CPUs using instruction sets. GOLD!
/sarcasm
None of you have anything remotely close to working knowledge of patent law. Why don't you just leave it to the professionals.
As a side note, did you know that someone patented peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Smuckers bought and still holds the patent.
Finally, Apple is the one getting sued.
I'm sure Apple will think of something to sue them back...
The use of "Apple" in the plaintiff's court documents is a willful use of our trademarked name, and was not done so with the express permission of Apple. Therefore, we request that judgment be made against Opti for violation of Trademark Violation.
I'm glad Apple got stung though. Big companies like this do need to play nice.
this is pocket change to apple.
Bout time Apple got slammed with something. But yeah, it's chump change to them.
None of you have anything remotely close to working knowledge of patent law. Why don't you just leave it to the professionals. As a side note, did you know that someone patented peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Smuckers bought and still holds the patent.
How to exercise your cat with a laser pointer. It's not just youtube, it's a real patent.
Apple tries its best to exploit small companies and small companies tries to sue them back. The problem really is that we're all trying too hard to scam each other for profit. Laws are just black and white words, ethics are completely left out.
Apple... Just sush please, no lube no nothing. Take it like a "man" ( dont wanna say bitch you are ) since you go after rich and poor when it comes to lawsuits without giving a crap yet again you are capable to be ignoring your consumers for faulty iPhones and walking all cocky for a rerelease of your accient, anymore, Os. Too bad the damage is small and indeed, you will be making back that money within a couple of days with all the overpriced bunch of crapaware you sell all over the world.
By definition, if their device does not work, then they are patenting the idea of what it would do.I would like to the patten the idea of manned space flight to Mars. I don't know all the details, or even have a working model, but why should that matter?
Hmm yeah, sorry but I already patented that. I'm going to have to sue you now, be prepared for my greedy wrath!
what can i say........ $uck $hit!!!
this whole idea of patenting ideas that may show up in the future without a working model is total BS. The patent office needs to insist that if these companies are going to file for a patent that the company is obligated to first show a working model.
This is logical imagine an idea of firing lasers at the satellite, if you have a working concept you can get a patent, simple apple STOP stealing shit and pay out of court
7600 Macs... that`s a year supply! PC rules!
21.7 millions of dollars mean nothing to Apple consider they made billions of dollars in profit each quarter.
Where the fuck do you pull these made up numbers from, your ass?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_inc
Net income, (that's after tax) $4.83 billion with 14.88% profit margin
That's a shade under $719 million for the year, with $21 million being nearly 3% of the annual profits.
Not a drop in the ocean.
I don't understand why there are so many Apple haters here. I don't own and Apple computer or an iphone, but Apple innovates and everyone else then jumps on board to try and catch up. Where were all the cool phones from Motorola, Samsung, LG, and HTC before the iphone showed up? Where were all the thin laptops before the Mac Air? Anyway reguardless, they need to get a handle on the patent trolls before all the companies who do create, build, and innovate decide they can't produce anything new without getting sued.
Apple has a history of stealing ideas then suing others over them. Take the GUI and Mouse for example. Both were created by Xerox....both were subsequently stolen by Apple. Apple then turned around and filed suit against MS for use of the same "technologies", which Apple had no legal rights to. It's time for the industry as a hole to remind ALL companies that they're expected to actually innovate, not just steal and claim it's their own. Seems of late, that Intel has been the most innovative though unsuccessful. Larrabee's architecture is a true innovation. nVidia brought us SLI (developed by 3DFx), CUDA (developed by Stanford) and a CUDA compatible PhysX (developed by Ageia who got the idea from Havok). Can we get some companies that actually create something on their own?