Katie MarsalOn Dec. 4, Apple filed its formal appeal in the case. OPTi Inc was awarded the money when a Texas court determined that Apple violated three claims in the patent, which describes a system for predictive snooping of cache memory that helps shuttle information between a processor, its memory, and other elements of a computer.
Patent suits are often filed in the Eastern District of Texas for favorable rulings.
OPTIi has a similar, ongoing lawsuit against chip maker AMD, filed in July of 2007. OPTi's suits relate to the ownership of patent No. 6,405,291. The suit against Apple was first filed in January of 2007.
OPTi reportedly dropped all of its original manufacturing and sales businesses in 2003 to concentrate on lawsuits.
Last week, OPTi announced that the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas added $2.7 million to its damages in pre-judgment interest costs. That was tacked on to the $19 million Apple was ordered to pay in April.
As a major corporation, Apple is usually bombarded with lawsuits. In October, the company noted that it was then defending itself from more than 47 patent infringement cases, 27 of which were filed during the fiscal year. The company said that responding to claims, regardless of merit, consumes "significant time and expense."
AppleInsider Staff
Chip Loder
Christine McKee
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Andrew Orr
40 Comments
What?s with $2.7M being a popular fee for lawyers?
The company said that responding to claims, regardless of merit, consumes "significant time and expense.
Hell yeah it does. This such a waste. We really need a reform, or at least for Texas to actually secede from the US making cases in Marshall impossible.
What?s with $2.7M being a popular fee for lawyers?
It means you still owe Larry H. Parker 600 grand once you get your settlement.
I do not understand how Apple is responsible for violating a patent on technology built into the CPU - or did I miss something and it is something in the OS?
It reminds me of a local case where a woman slipped and fell on a sidewalk in front of a house and sued the city, the homeowner, AND the real estate agent who had the house listed for sale AND the real estate agent's broker.
Now - IF maintaing the sidewalk is the responsibility of the city AND the sidewalk was in such poor condition that it could not be safely navigated then maybe there is some merit to suing the city. Or if the homeowner is responsible for fixing damaged sidewalks then maybe some merit in suing the home owner. But why the real estate agent and broker? I suppose because presumably they have a lot of money and regardless of guilt and fault and blame etc - you have to go after SOMEONE who has money if your ultimate goal is not justice or to correct the problem but to get a fat check at the end of the case.
I do not understand how Apple is responsible for violating a patent on technology built into the CPU - or did I miss something and it is something in the OS?
------- you have to go after SOMEONE who has money if your ultimate goal is not justice or to correct the problem but to get a fat check at the end of the case.
BINGO. If you sue in Eastern Texas and do not live there, you are patent trolling. PERIOD
Just a thought,
en
I suppose the part I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around is simply this -- Apple assembles the computer, but does not actually manufacture the components in question with this litigation. It seems to me that if you have a beef with a patent on these chips, go after the chip makers.
These patent trolls are worthless leaches on our tech industry. Frankly I like the idea of patents being similar to trademarks -- use them or lose them. You should not be able to just file a patent, sit on it, wait for someone else to come up with the same obvious idea and do all your legwork to create a successful product, then cash in afterwards, having not actually contributed any equity to the product's success. And software patents just need to go, period. Want a copyright on that code? Sure. Patent on it? Go away.
Unless the ridiculous ideas of "intellectual property" as they currently exist are fixed, we are in danger of losing our last competitive advantages in the technology field to countries with saner patent systems.