Apple, Broadcom Ordered To Pay $1.1 Billion To CalTech In Patent Case (reuters.com) 64
UPDATE (10/15/20230: The court's order did not stand, and by 2023 Caltech had agreed to drop their lawsuit.
Below is Slashdot's original report from 2020:
The California Institute of Technology (CalTech) said it won a $1.1 billion jury verdict in a patent case against Apple and Broadcom. Reuters reports: In a case filed in federal court in Los Angeles in 2016, the Pasadena, California-based research university alleged that Broadcom wi-fi chips used in hundreds of millions of Apple iPhones infringed patents relating to data transmission technology. "While we thank the members of the jury for their service, we disagree with the factual and legal bases for the verdict and intend to appeal," Broadcom said in a statement. Apple said it plans to appeal the verdict, but declined further comment. The company had said in court filings that it believed all of the university's claims against it resulted from it using Broadcom's chips in its devices, calling itself "merely an indirect downstream party." The verdict awarded CalTech $837.8 million from Apple and $270.2 million from Broadcom. "We are pleased the jury found that Apple and Broadcom infringed Caltech patents," CalTech said in a statement. "As a non-profit institution of higher education, Caltech is committed to protecting its intellectual property in furtherance of its mission to expand human knowledge and benefit society through research integrated with education."
Below is Slashdot's original report from 2020:
The California Institute of Technology (CalTech) said it won a $1.1 billion jury verdict in a patent case against Apple and Broadcom. Reuters reports: In a case filed in federal court in Los Angeles in 2016, the Pasadena, California-based research university alleged that Broadcom wi-fi chips used in hundreds of millions of Apple iPhones infringed patents relating to data transmission technology. "While we thank the members of the jury for their service, we disagree with the factual and legal bases for the verdict and intend to appeal," Broadcom said in a statement. Apple said it plans to appeal the verdict, but declined further comment. The company had said in court filings that it believed all of the university's claims against it resulted from it using Broadcom's chips in its devices, calling itself "merely an indirect downstream party." The verdict awarded CalTech $837.8 million from Apple and $270.2 million from Broadcom. "We are pleased the jury found that Apple and Broadcom infringed Caltech patents," CalTech said in a statement. "As a non-profit institution of higher education, Caltech is committed to protecting its intellectual property in furtherance of its mission to expand human knowledge and benefit society through research integrated with education."
That's written "Caltech" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
not Cal Tech, CalTech, or any of the other ways...
Wrong, an official preference does not restrict the number of abbreviation forms that remain correct.
That you're aware of the other forms proves that they're frequently published, and that you knew such was the case. That proves their correctness.
What a grammaticaster. Maybe you should switch to French, where they have a language authoritay?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That you're aware of the other forms proves that they're frequently published, and that you knew such was the case. That proves their correctness.
Learn yous sum Anglish
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: That's written "Caltech" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: That's written "Caltech" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The word ain't was always a correct word. Your mommy wasn't actually the English Language Authoritay.
My advice, learn how to use this thing called a "dictionary," and quit being such a grammaticaster.
And yes, I'm aware that if you don't know how to use a dictionary you also don't know what a phrontistery is and will have no chance of understanding that grammaticaster is a real word. That's the joke.
This will be appealed into oblivion. (Score:1)
I'll just get the tldr in 15 years when it's settled for a few tens of millions.
Re: (Score:2)
This will certainly be appealed, and the amount may be greatly reduced by the appeal, but it's very unlikely that Caltech will settle for a lot less money. They have enough money to afford a serious legal team to take this through appeals and a solid case that has a reasonable chance of surviving those appeals. More importantly, they are not so hard up for cash that they'll be tempted to settle for a lot less just to get the money earlier.
Full disclosure: I'm a Caltech alumnus.
They're not patent trolls, are they? (Score:5, Informative)
Reading some of the comments in other news sites, some are calling Caltech "patent trolls", which I don't feel fits here.
The typical "patent troll" will be an entity that doesn't produce any product or research, and only has a war chest of patents they've bought for the sole purpose of shaking down anybody they can aim at - they have no other 'business' purposes, limited staff, and usually no real physical presence (other than a P.O. box). Basically, they're just greedy bastards.
Caltech, on the other hand, actively does research, and I assume the licensing of any of their patents helps fund further/future research, so it's not so much about greed as it's about getting compensated for their work by others that use it.
Re: They're not patent trolls, are they? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not indien givers, are they? (Score:2)
It was selected by wifi allowance for inclusion, everyone said ok sure, including caltech.
Which is why there are lawyers in the entire system so that if Caltech did indeed SAY THAT, everyone's ass would be covered. Sounds like a breakdown somewhere.
Re: They're not indien givers, are they? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to have to pay patent royalties on standards, you have to include that restriction in the standard-making process.
Typically, the standards bodies consider the issue, and reject that requirement. That's the part you'd need to change.
That's also why some cheap products use crappy nonstandard wireless communication in the same frequency band, instead of real wifi.
There is no "turn around and say." This was the intended process.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing is "bait-n-switch", and unless both Caltech was disingenuous, and the standards body people didn't to their due diligence, this is not what's happened here.
Re: (Score:1)
How did the CSIRO patent troll wifi?
You know when you license a patent you have to pay the license fees...
Re: (Score:2)
This is a stunt you can pull only once. And then you'd be stuck outside the loop, forever.
Apple is already funding university research: https://www.apple.com/newsroom... [apple.com]
And Broadcom has a STEM research foundation: http://broadcomfoundation.org/... [broadcomfoundation.org]
And many other members of the WiFi alliance would have similar funds.
Guess which university is now unlikely to receive these grants anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you claiming that Caltech did not disclose their patent interest during standards development, or that their patent interest occurred after the fact?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disputing that either would be bad. I'm trying to figure out which happened or even whether either happened.
Apple Lawyers Derps on Shirt (Score:3)
Apple's position is absurd, they could have stayed home and not wasted their money making such an silly argument.
Under US law, the company that imports the device is liable, as is the manufacturer. Blaming Broadcom only works if Broadcom imported the chips to the US, and sold them to Apple here. But everybody knows Apple makes their devices overseas, and is in control of the manufacturing and shipment process.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the law matter to a jury?
Apple's brand is incredibly strong, it does have the potential to sway a jury to accept bullshit. They should obviously try if the judge lets them get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't, but in this type of case the Jury doesn't set an actual amount, the Court will actually set the amount by adjusting the Jury award. Precisely because the Jury won't have done the math well.
And they have to fill out a worksheet that leads to their conclusions, if they do that part wrong, they get a do-over with a new jury. Juries that are full of shit generally are full of shit for 12 different reasons, and they're not admitting to each other that they're full of shit. They don't have an easy tim
Re: (Score:3)
So why doesn't Caltech go after everyone who buys a WiFi router? Perhaps they can stand outside Bes
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how patent law works.
The company the builds or imports a device that violates the patent is liable, but their customers are not. Patent violations stick to the first company to do those things. In this case, Broadcom has a US presence so is liable for building it, but they didn't build and sell it in the US, they delivered it to Apple overseas. So Apple then imported it, making them responsible.
Licensing doesn't change any of that, there is no out for if you thought you had all the licenses you n
Re: (Score:3)
Under US law, the company that imports the device is liable, as is the manufacturer. Blaming Broadcom only works if Broadcom imported the chips to the US, and sold them to Apple here.
By your logic, a chip company could sue Lenovo for patent claims against Intel because Lenovo uses Intel chips in their laptops. Does that not sound a little absurd to you?
But everybody knows Apple makes their devices overseas, and is in control of the manufacturing and shipment process.
In what world is that true? Everyone knows that Apple uses the same contract manufacturer that others use. Ever heard of Foxconn?
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't my logic.
I'm just the messenger.
Yes, if I buy my thinkpad directly from Lenovo (I did) and they ship it to me from outside the country (they did) and it has an Intel processor (it does) then if Intel didn't license all the patents they need, the patent holder would sue both Intel and Lenovo. There is most likely an indemnity agreement with that sort of thing though, so while the news headlines would say "Lenovo" it would actually only be Intel on the hook.
And even without an indemnity agreement, Le
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't read. You're illiterate. I'm not "making an argument."
Patent exhaustion cannot be achieved by waving your hands while importing devices. Patent exhaustion is not achieved by licensing a different patent from a different patent holder than the one who is suing you.
The obvious implication isn't that I didn't think about something; it is that you have an incorrect mental construct for how patent exhaustion works. No, the Court is not going to consult you for your insights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Lenovo having paid Broadcom and Intel respectively for their chips exhausts all patents on those chips.
No. Completely wrong. It only exhausts claims on patents that Broadcom licensed. If they forgot to license one, then anybody importing that chip into the US is liable.
Just fucking look it up instead of spewing what you think you remembered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they import their products into the US and that is one of the costs of doing business that way; always was, always will be.
The alternative is to buy the chips in the US and manufacture it here. Or convince Walmart to import the product and sell it here, then they're the importer, and it is on them to check.
Borders are a thing, easy shipping doesn't change that it matters who imports the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and they're each responsible for what they import.
I understand you're aliterate and can't look up the legal questions, but where did I say I don't know about supply chains? It must have been one of the voices who said that, because it sure as fuck wasn't in anything I said.
It is truly sad that you're unable to look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I used the word "aliterate," I meant "aliterate," not illiterate. Only a complete idiot would spell aliterate by starting with the letter "i." Do you even prefix, Bro?
You proved it true by attempting to correct me without even looking up the word.
You're not a super-genius, you don't know everything, if you didn't look it up it means you're RONG.
Re: (Score:2)
So I've taken by your admission that you haven't reviewed patent law yet. Please do so. I'd start with case law about imports and patent liability. Then work your way to patent exhaustion.
You're not a super-genius, you don't know everything, if you didn't look it up it means you're RONG.
Again, please use a dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
So I've taken by your admission...
Again, please use a dictionary.
Well, now you really are slipping all the way towards questions of illiteracy.
You did look up aliterate... right?
If you were capable of words, I might even (not in this thread, in the future) be willing to consider providing a link to information about patent exhaustion. But you not literate, you're aliterate. So you don't manage to achieve a discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
if you didn't look it up it means you're RONG.
I can find no meaning of the word "RONG" in the dictionary. Please use a dictionary.
If you were capable of words, I might even (not in this thread, in the future) be willing to consider providing a link to information about patent exhaustion.
So you're admitting you have yet to provide any evidence of your stance. Perhaps now would be a good time to review patent law.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, but was that the word you needed to look up, because you didn't comprehend it? No. That was ALITERATE.
But you can't! Because you aliterate! Instead, you chose another word that was intentionally mispelled that you could pretend you looked up, to try to make it appear that you are capable of using a dictionary. But you're actually not capable. And you're not smart enough to lie in a way that maintains the appearance of literacy. But you don't know that part.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait wait wait... (Score:2)
It warms my heart to see Caltech bend Broadcom and Apple over, but one part has me curious.
"As a non-profit institution"
So, as a non-profit institution, Caltech has just gotten $1.1B richer. How does that work?
Re: (Score:2)
So, as a non-profit institution, Caltech has just gotten $1.1B richer. How does that work?
How it works is that it goes into their bank account, and they have to spend it doing the stuff they normally do.
Their controlling board can't vote to take them money home themselves, the way a for-profit board can.
Non-profit doesn't mean non-revenue, it means nobody gets to take it home. It stays in the institution.
And for example, if they decided to dissolve the organization, they can only legally transfer their assets to another non-profit, or to the State government. There is no mechanism available for
Re: (Score:2)
Their controlling board can't vote to take them money home themselves
Actually, they can. There are few restrictions on non-profits paying generous salaries and bonuses.
What they can't do is distribute profit to investors.
Re: (Score:1)
Please check IRS regulations for educational and scientific research non-profits (assuming Caltech registered under one of those two provisions), but as I recall the board members of either type of non-profit corporation can only be legally compensated in line with their expenses for such activity. Officers of the corporation have no such restriction. Hence, the CEO of the Red Cross being the highest paid CEO in the U.S.A. when I looked several years ago. (Note: pay != total compensation package)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the CEO of a large successful nonprofit can get unlimited pay because in the private sector there is no upper bound for CEO pay.
That's the full and complete and only reason.
If you're just the President of a small nonprofit, you might be able to get low six figures, but adding bonuses is very dangerous at that level, because small companies do have normal ranges for compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what is called "making it up and blowing it our your ass." You don't even live in the US. Of course you would have to look it up to know the details. Whatever you just pop off is going to be invective suitable for your local tavern, not something informative or insightful.
They have a legal financial duty to the non-profit and people go to jail every day for giving themselves bonuses that are not consistent with the pay they would receive for the position in the private sector.
Re: (Score:2)
It's handled the same way it would be if a major donor gave them an unrestricted donation*. Major research universities get big donations all the time, and it doesn't affect their nonprofit status. As long as they spend the money on the stated mission of the institution, everything is legal and above board.
*Less any money they owe to the lawyers or the professor who got the patent.
Not enough ... (Score:4, Interesting)
They need to bleed more, they all do. Until they agree patents are irredeemable and their ability to throw up barriers of entry to competition is just not worth the pain.
Patent trolls are a symptom, patents are the problem. The only thing you get from punishing patent trolls is give the incumbents even more competitive advantage from the artificial monopolies.
Great things are waiting for you in the front (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Until they agree patents are irredeemable and their ability to throw up barriers of entry to competition is just not worth the pain.
I don't like patents (or more accurately the way they're handled currently), but I worry that without the barrier to entry would be far worse. Imagine a small player manages to develop something truly novel that offers a substantial improvement over existing products. That person doesn't own any great factories and can't produce at scale. But as soon as their product hits the market, the established players can reverse engineer it and use their existing position to flood the market with cheaper implementati
Re: (Score:2)
You are kidding yourself thinking that the "small player" with one patent stands any chance in a patent litigation. Assuming they actually get the 10's of millions required to spend on the lawyers to win, the big player in the same industry will counter-sue using a huge patent portfolio in the same area - "your corners are rounded like our product", "the number of buttons on your device is like ours", "we patented the color your product is using", etc, etc. Big guys rarely sue each other because they would
Ah well (Score:2)
Looks like my company's Apple and Broadcom software license fees just went up in the next renewel!
Broadcom Drivers (Score:1)
That's like half a million per enrolled student! (Score:2)
best is night (Score:1)