The claims of the patent in question do not specify the use of a lookup table.
Also - this was a high stakes patent litigation where the defendant (Apple) has literally unlimited funds available to try an invalidate the asserted patent. They have some of the best patent lawyers around and access to the best patent litigators in the world. And they still lost. Given that context, your assertion that no previous art exists is questionable at best.
The patent is also from 1998. Given many years of hindsight and compounding knowledge, old patents can seem obvious now when they weren't at the time. If both Intel and Apple couldn't invalidate the patent then I think I will be OK without the armchair-CPU-architects giving their armchair-patent-lawyer-analyses of the situation.
The patent is also from 1998. Given many years of hindsight and compounding knowledge, old patents can seem obvious now when they weren't at the time. If both Intel and Apple couldn't invalidate the patent then I think I will be OK without the armchair-CPU-architects giving their armchair-patent-lawyer-analyses of the situation.
....
Also - this was a high stakes patent litigation where the defendant (Apple) has literally unlimited funds available to try an invalidate the asserted patent. They have some of the best patent lawyers around and access to the best patent litigators in the world. And they still lost.
...
The whole justification for patents is to encourage R&D spending by granting a state backed monopoly for a period of time long enough for them to productionalize the R&D and recoup cost + profit.
Almost all technology advancement and innovations are iterative, meaning based on other ideas. How long do you think a non practicing entity should be entitled to this exclusive monopoly?
Put another way... in the fast moving field of computer technology, why should anyone still be entitled to collect rent on ideas from 17 years ago?
great another excuse for apple to hike up the price of the iphone.
And the tech industry has benefited undeservedly long for laws enacted at different time in history, IMO. (20 years, for real?)Because, the patent owner put them information out there 17 years ago and other entities used the idea without getting license from the patent owner.
All good points. But to be honest I would save your breath. Most of the folks on the AT boards are patent hating "everything should be free" communists. At least when it comes to the tech world.
And the tech industry has benefited undeservedly long for laws enacted at different time in history, IMO. (20 years, for real?)
You cannot be serious. Patents are government-sanctioned (i.e. backed by physical force) monopoly which is quite similar to how communism operates. Since you are a lawyer, you probably know that the founders thought patents were a means for public welfare, not the other way around (i.e. perpetual source of income for the inventor and the inventor's offsprings).
All good points. But to be honest I would save your breath. Most of the folks on the AT boards are patent hating "everything should be free" communists. At least when it comes to the tech world.
It will take a decade to go through all the appeals.
Huh?
Communism a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
Patents have nothing to do with communism. Inventors obtain patents as part of a bargained for exchange, which is predicated on the fact that the inventor owns the technology and may keep it out of the public domain if he or she wishes to do so. The government offers patents (i.e., a temporally limited right to exclude others from making and using a claimed invention) to inventors in exchange for a) disclosure of the technology; and b) an agreement with the inventor that the technology claimed by the patent will become part of the public domain after the patent expires. This is fundamentally different than communism, which as noted above is predicated on the idea that society itself is the owner of property (from the outset), and is the sole owner of those property rights. In fact it is nearly the antithesis of communism as in a communist state, the government doesn't ask you to disclose "your" technology, because there is no "your" technology. Its the governments technology at the outset and the government can do whatever the heck it wants with it regardless of what you may or may not want.
Moreover, no one HAS to obtain a patent. Indeed, one can keep one's technology a trade secret for as long as one wants in this country. And provided the technology is not easy to reverse engineer, it can be protected in that manner for a very long time indeed. E.g., the Coca Cola formula was protected as a trade secret for far longer than the term of a U.S. patent.
With this jury seated in Madison,WI there seems like a potential conflict of interest here with people inclined to decide in favor of a school system that is a pillar of the community. Notably the UW system just had a 300 million hole punched out of their budget by the legislature this year.
Shouldn't the value of a patent be relative to the revenue/profit generated by it's use? If Apple made tons with this, then its worth it.
More accurately many of them simply realize that patents are, at best, out dated relics of the early industrial age. Very few people disagree with patents due to deep rooted political-economic ideals.
In reality, patents are a form of government intervention designed to artificially strengthen invention beyond what would be achieved in a "free market". And like all forms of intervention the results are often not in line with the goals.
(Yes, that assessment is influenced by my views on political-economy, which are definitely not communist)
If you're not a communist you ought to support private property. The patent is a way of making something that would otherwise be public instead private for a limited period of time.
Having rules (laws) backed up by principles is not communism. Patents, through the state, defend the patent holder from competition for an arbitrary amount of time. No principles, just politics.
Having rules (laws) backed up by principles is not communism. Patents, through the state, defend the patent holder from competition for an arbitrary amount of time. No principles, just politics.
Lol really?
You heard of Section 1, Article 8, Clause 8?
"The Congress shall have Power To...
There are other ways of protecting yourself from competition as well, such as not disclosing the invention. Intel could create an incredible new memory technology without filing any patents on it or publishing any research papers, and just incorporate it in their processors as a black box to the outside world. That's not necessarily the best way of advancing the state of the art though. Patents protect the rights of patent owners to monetize and control their IP, but they also serve to incentivize the publishing of new inventions.
Having rules (laws) backed up by principles is not communism. Patents, through the state, defend the patent holder from competition for an arbitrary amount of time. No principles, just politics.