Read more.Quote:
Apple has been judged to have infringed on its patented 'predictor circuit' CPU technology.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Apple has been judged to have infringed on its patented 'predictor circuit' CPU technology.
Such broad-reaching and all encompassing patents should not be allowed. That being said I am no expert in such advanced technological speak. But it seems absurd.
?? so if you spend 2-5 yrs working on something and then someone else come along and borrows it without asking it's ok ?Quote:
Originally Posted by NorBdelta
Yep, if you cant be bothered to develop or use a patent after nearly 20 years then why hold back others. The research was probably funded with public money anyway so should be available to all US companies/individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by flearider?? so if you spend 2-5 yrs working on something and then someone else come along and borrows it without asking it's ok ?Quote:
Originally Posted by NorBdelta
Can't argue with that! But I also can't pretend it isn't nice to see apple feeling a little heat over their so called "inventions"Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostSquirrel
True, although the whole point of a patent IS to make it publicly available, but protects the IPR for a specific period of time for the patent holder to either exploit it themselves, or allow others to exploit under the terms of a licensing agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostSquirrel
So as the UoW had a patent, they are able to dictate the terms on which their IPR is used.
The fine was doubled after Apple continued to infringe the Patent after the first court case. While its not stated, I expect the UoW informed Apple before going to court in the first place, so they would have had ample opportunity to come to a licensing agreement.
So I'm afraid no sympathy from me for Apple over this.
Is this patent embodied in all ARM cpus, or just Apple's ones?
reading the Reuters article, it appears to be Apple's processors only.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoatwblr
I can't see why anyone feels sorry for Apple,after all they used marginal patents throughout their history to attack competing companies.
Patents should only be for very specific technologies, like rounded corners.
The grant (or otherwise) of a patent is at the discretion of the patent office in the appropriate country. The actual law is complex, but basically refers to a new 'invention' or the application of an existing idea in a new or novel way. Patents and design copyright and Trade Marks are closely aligned, and in the UK handled by the same organisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross1
(Disclaimer - I am not a patent lawyer! :) )
served them right. still sad how so many people hate being monitored and spied on, yet still own an apple iphone.
Just corrected that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by elites2012