Didn’t Intel settle with WARF over this many years ago? Perhaps [USER=118078]@cmaier[/USER] could chime in on this?
Did they settle because it was easier/cheaper or did they settle because they felt they infringed and would likely lose in court?
Has WARF ever gone after ARM, Samsung or Qualcomm over these patents? If not, why go after Apples ARM compatible processors and not others? I have an idea...
WARF sued Intel and they settled.
Looking at the claims ,which are directed at load/store scheduling, seems to me possible that some ARM chips could infringe and others not. Seems like the scheduling microarchitecture isn't automatically determined by the instruction set architecture - you can do it lots of ways, or none at all. I have no idea what's in ARM's own reference designs though.
The issue is that Apple uses a hashing algorithm for memory load prediction where each entry is a load tag and a prediction. Each tag is a hash of the instruction address. Since it's a hash, the same tag can apply to many different instructions.
There is some claim language in the patent that the courts say require the tag to correspond to a "particular instruction." The courts say that since the tag could correspond to multiple instructions, it doesn't correspond to the "particular" instruction, and hence no infringement. Or something like that - I read the patent very quickly, so I could be missing something.
Setting the facts of the present case aside, the CAFC does this way too often, and it really bothers me. Whether or not there is infringement and how much is owed are facts, not legal questions, and in jury trials decisions of fact should be left to the jury unless there is some clearly inexplicable injustice occurring. But the CAFC has a pattern of overruling the jury at a much higher rate than is reasonable. It indicates they are perhaps making outcome-driven decisions, rather than fair rulings. There are countless legal articles using pretty inflammatory language about the CAFC, such as accusing the CAFC of being anti-jury or verdict killers.
Um, no.
Just repeating from the previous round: Apple did something that is reasonably _similar_ to what the university had patented, but _not the same_. Definitely not the same. Not even sometimes the same. And since it's not the same, Apple never infringed on the university's patent, and therefore doesn't have to pay damages. Doing something that is similar to a patented invention is absolutely fine.
But yes.
[automerge]1570460710[/automerge]
Just goes to show that court judges are just people who can have different opinions
Did they settle because it was easier/cheaper or did they settle because they felt they infringed and would likely lose in court?
Has WARF ever gone after ARM, Samsung or Qualcomm over these patents? If not, why go after Apples ARM compatible processors and not others? I have an idea...
Business - Latest - Google News
October 07, 2019 at 09:31PM
https://ift.tt/2IwgM6V
U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear University of Wisconsin's Appeal in Patent Lawsuit Against Apple - MacRumors
Business - Latest - Google News
https://ift.tt/2Rx7A4Y
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear University of Wisconsin's Appeal in Patent Lawsuit Against Apple - MacRumors"
Post a Comment